setzer9999 wrote: You are basically ruling that you can only tell the truth as a free action... You can tell a lie as free action. If however you want to back it up with presentation, you have to work your audience. That's what Bluff is all about. It's not just tumbling words out of your mouth, it's working the audience.
LazarX wrote: setzer9999 wrote: You are basically ruling that you can only tell the truth as a free action... You can tell a lie as free action. If however you want to back it up with presentation, you have to work your audience. That's what Bluff is all about. It's not just tumbling words out of your mouth, it's working the audience. And? So, you are saying what then? That if someone says a lie during combat, that no one ever has to give any thought to whether or not it is a lie? "Oh, we're in combat, so I can automatically see through that creature's lie." Ruling things this way doesn't limit the power of the liar, it elevates the creature being lied to into superpowers of discerning lies while engaged in combat.
Also, how does that address the point that the rules don't list any combat action type for a lie? They just say how long a lie takes, but they don't say anything about what kind of action you take during initiative. It does for Feint, but not for Bluff.
So, if someone does tell a lie during combat, and someone wants to make a Sense Motive check, what do you do then? You don't treat the lie as a Bluff check just because its not a good Bluff check?
However if it's done in less then a round (from your initiative to the start of your initiate next trun) then it isn't a Bluff. You say stuff all day long that isn't true, but not be Bluffing.
I can yell "look behind you" as a free action but that isn't the same as faint. Likewise just say "I'm not a human, I'm an elf" as free action isn't the same as actively trying to convince.
Ravingdork was asking what kind of action/length-of-time a normal bluff check takes (and as is his way likes to kick rules beehives, which is good). It takes 1 round or more (GM discression). 1 round is a both a combat and non-combat term with a specific unit of value, 6 seconds. I've already cited two rules based examples of things that take 1 round and need full round actions to do, plus the section in combat details what is generally meant by "full round."
I'm trying to find counter examples of things that take 1 round and don't use a full action. Any extra eyes there would be helpful.
Players can say whatever they like, it just doesn't have the force of a Bluff behind it. Just like yelling at enemies to surrender or die is not an Intimidate check. How the NPCs react is 100% determined by the GM at that point, the players don't get a say through the use of a skill check to influence that.
Now I will point out that full-round actions can be split into two Standard Actions across two turns. So if you really want to Bluff in combat a character does not need to stand still, it just takes a little longer to deliver.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
setzer9999 wrote: pH unbalanced wrote: setzer9999 wrote: 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. That is for combat actions. If you look under the list of action types that are defined as a list of "all" standard actions, they are only defined in the combat section. Use a Skill is not listed in the combat section. Each skill outlines its type of actions separately. The Bluff action doesn't use a combat terminology to define its use. So, it is not defined as any type of action.
...
Another way to put it is, if you rule that Bluff requires an action, then you are basically saying that the speaking you can do as a free action cannot be lies. You are basically ruling that you can only tell the truth as a free action... No, because all lies aren't Bluffs. Only convincing ones are. :)
But I actually think we're pretty close in our results, we just get there differently.
A Standard Action is the default amount of mental energy something takes to be performed normally -- ie at no penalty. The specific overrides the general, so if there is some indication in the rules that a skill takes a different amount of time, then you should use that, but if there isn't more specific language, a Standard Action is the default.
I think the combat vs non-combat distinction is a red herring, but even it if wasn't, it isn't helpful here, because we're talking about Bluffing in a combat situation.
Now I would agree that it is physically possible to attempt a Bluff as a Free Action, but now it is no longer a normal Bluff. So it will have penalties attached. (And for a Free Action Bluff I'd be attaching *major* penalties.)
Since you're arguing that a Free Action Bluff should be possible, but would probably have penalties since it isn't very convincing, I think we're both saying the same thing.
Dorje Sylas wrote: However if it's done in less then a round (from your initiative to the start of your initiate next trun) then it isn't a Bluff. You say stuff all day long that isn't true, but not be Bluffing.
I can yell "look behind you" as a free action but that isn't the same as faint. Likewise just say "I'm not a human, I'm an elf" as free action isn't the same as actively trying to convince.
Ravingdork was asking what kind of action/length-of-time a normal bluff check takes (and as is his way likes to kick rules beehives, which is good). It takes 1 round or more (GM discression). 1 round is a both a combat and non-combat term with a specific unit of value, 6 seconds. I've already cited two rules based examples of things that take 1 round and need full round actions to do, plus the section in combat details what is generally meant by "full round."
I'm trying to find counter examples of things that take 1 round and don't use a full action. Any extra eyes there would be helpful.
Players can say whatever they like, it just doesn't have the force of a Bluff behind it. Just like yelling at enemies to surrender or die is not an Intimidate check.
Ok then. What do you do when someone lies during combat and doesn't use a full-round action to say they are spending the whole round just talking/gesturing, and making a Bluff check? Do you have to wait until after combat initiative is over, and then resolve the lie vs the listener's Sense Motive check after the fact?
That's not defined in the rules either. To say that "you can lie but not be using Bluff" I think is completely false. Checks are how we determine the effect of decisions and actions in the game world. When you speak a lie, it constitutes a Sense Motive check. What if the lie IS believable even though it's only spoken quickly?
So, in combat, you couldn't lie while doing any other action if it has to be an action in-and-of itself? There are other actions that are taken as part of another action in the rules. You Stealth as part of a move, for example. So, you couldn't use the full-defense action and make a Bluff at the same time? I think that's preposterous.
Ravingdork wrote: 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.
.
Personally, I think those examples are more similar to diplomacy than bluff. You are trying to convince them of a course of action as much as you are deceiving them. As such, if were GMing I might allow you to use the bluff skill bonus if you are creative in how you frame it, but it would take the same time as diplomacy (multiple rounds up to 1 min).
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DeathSpot wrote: What else are you planning to do that round, RD? Run away? I'm not gonna believe your lie. Attack (weapon or spell, doesn't matter)? Definitely not gonna believe you. Try to gain an advantage? That's a Feint.
I'd do what any respectable conman or negotiator would do. Stop the violence and open up talks. After all, that's my character's forte. If someone's not trying to eat his heart, he could eventually convince them he's the king.
I refuse to believe that to tell a lie, even with body language, would require me to stop absolutely everything else I'm doing for 6 seconds or more. That doesn't make any sense at all, and breaks verisimilitude for me.
The_Hanged_Man wrote: Ravingdork wrote: 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.
.
Personally, I think those examples are more similar to diplomacy than bluff. You are trying to convince them of a course of action as much as you are deceiving them. As such, if were GMing I might allow you to use the bluff skill bonus if you are creative in how you frame it, but it would take the same time as diplomacy (multiple rounds up to 1 min). So the Bluff check is to get them to believe the lie. The Diplomacy check is to convince them to follow through with my suggestion (in this case, to stop attacking).
That makes a lot of sense in some situations, and not in others. For example, if I convince a bounty hunter that this is merely a case of mistaken identity, it doesn't make any sense to need a Diplomacy check to get him to stop attacking.
setzer9999 wrote: [
Also, how does that address the point that the rules don't list any combat action type for a lie? They just say how long a lie takes, but they don't say anything about what kind of action you take during initiative.
The rules don't list a combat action for donning armour. Donning a chain shirt hastily takes only 5 rounds. Can you take other actions while donning armour? Can you make a full-attack? Can you cast a spell?
Ravingdork wrote: What is the length of a lie? 4 spaces :)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
The rules don't list a combat action for donning armour. Donning a chain shirt hastily takes only 5 rounds. Can you take other actions while donning armour? Can you make a full-attack? Can you cast a spell? Finally. A halfway decent counter.
setzer9999 wrote: Ok then. What do you do when someone lies during combat and doesn't use a full-round action to say they are spending the whole round just talking/gesturing, and making a Bluff check? Do you have to wait until after combat initiative is over, and then resolve the lie vs the listener's Sense Motive check after the fact? . I'm going to utter the words that make RAW lawyers gnash their teeth.
"I wing it."
I decide how to handle corner questions like this on a case by case, sometimes even second by second basis depending on my overall feelership of the general situation. If Raving Dork was whaling on said guard 2 seconds before his clever lie attempt, I basically ignore his attempt to lie unless other mitigating factors are thrown in. The thing with almost all guard situations is... that once you've gotten to the point where blood is being spilled, it gets nearly impossible to persuade guards of the truth, let alone any clever lie, because at that point the only concerns to them are self protection and stopping you from doing whatever shenanigans you're up to. And if the option is available, raising the alarm.
Social skills are not mind control effects. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that the bridges are burned and your choices are narrowed down to fight or flight.
Quantum Steve wrote: setzer9999 wrote: [
Also, how does that address the point that the rules don't list any combat action type for a lie? They just say how long a lie takes, but they don't say anything about what kind of action you take during initiative.
The rules don't list a combat action for donning armour. Donning a chain shirt hastily takes only 5 rounds. Can you take other actions while donning armour? Can you make a full-attack? Can you cast a spell? Yet this rule is also problematic. What happens if you are interrupted? How can you determine if you had the bracers on, but not the chest piece, or vice versa? Did you have the helmet on? If you got attacked while half-dressed in armor, do you get half AC? There are no called shots in PF... can you cast a spell? If it's a swift action, I'd say yes. Any time you are doing another action, you can take a free action, and swifts take up a free action, plus a little extra concentration so you only get one.
So how does this relate to Bluff? Well, how do you determine what talking interrupts other things you are doing. So what if it takes a round's worth of time. That doesn't mean it is a full-round action. The rules aren't clear on many points. That's what the GM is for. Of course you can't take a full-attack action while getting into armor... actually, yes you can, but it interrupts you from finishing putting on the armor.
Of course you can talk, using a free action, while doing other combat actions. When you talk, you can also lie. When you lie, an opponent has the option to make a Sense Motive check. Read the Bluff rules. At its core, a Bluff check is an opposed check to a Sense Motive check. So, if an opponent needs to make a Sense Motive check, then guess what, you just made a Bluff check. You can't lie without a Bluff check. It just takes at least 6 seconds for your opponent to decide if they believe you or not.
LazarX wrote: setzer9999 wrote: Ok then. What do you do when someone lies during combat and doesn't use a full-round action to say they are spending the whole round just talking/gesturing, and making a Bluff check? Do you have to wait until after combat initiative is over, and then resolve the lie vs the listener's Sense Motive check after the fact? . I'm going to utter the words that make RAW lawyers gnash their teeth.
"I wing it."
I decide how to handle corner questions like this on a case by case, sometimes even second by second basis depending on my overall feelership of the general situation. If Raving Dork was whaling on said guard 2 seconds before his clever lie attempt, I basically ignore his attempt to lie unless other mitigating factors are thrown in. The thing with almost all guard situations is... that once you've gotten to the point where blood is being spilled, it gets nearly impossible to persuade guards of the truth, let alone any clever lie, because at that point the only concerns to them are self protection and stopping you from doing whatever shenanigans you're up to. And if the option is available, raising the alarm.
Social skills are not mind control effects. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that the bridges are burned and your choices are narrowed down to fight or flight. I actually agree completely with this. I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer. In fact, I'd say many people are much better with the actual rules than I am... but on this point, I am good enough at reading English and logic to conclude that there ISN'T any rules lawyering to be had. Bluff doesn't say how much of an action it costs you to use it, and when applied in practice, saying that it is a standard or full-round action creates a "bug" in the system because you can speak as a free action.
At that point, I drop RAW out the door myself, because it is completely and totally undefined and broken.
I like your example, because I too would not allow people to get away with anything just because of a good Bluff roll. There might be times where the modifier makes it impossible to do a good check when factoring in bonuses. Other times, even if the result is high enough that your opponent believes you, they might not care anymore. The situation demands that they continue what they are doing anyway.
You: "I'm not the guy you are looking for" *hits guard for 7 damage* *succeeds Bluff check*
Guard: *Reeling* *Fails Sense Motive check* "Ugh! Maybe so, but you'll come with me for assaulting a guard nonetheless you bastard!"
My understanding of the _strict_ RAW, which I'd never use in a game, is this:
1. If it takes an action or not is completely up the DM, just like it's up to the DM to decide if/what action type it is for me to piss. It's just not spelled out.
2. The time it takes is a "full round". In combat, that's from your initiative to your next initiative. So regardless of how short the lie is, it won't "come into effect" until your next turn.
So on your initiative you shout out "stop! we're the king's men! There's been a misunderstanding!. The bluffing takes a full round so after that, it's their initiative but the bluff doesn't work yet, so they'll continue doing what they're doing the rest of the round. Then it's your initiative again, and NOW you roll the bluff vs. sense motive.
Of course, that's very weird rules, why I think GM Fiat is key to all gaming.
setzer9999 wrote: It just takes at least 6 seconds for your opponent to decide if they believe you or not. Deciding wether they believe you or not is a Sense Motive check which doesn't take any time at all.
Speaking a word, even a lie, is a free action, yet bluff takes a minimum of one round. Clearly there is some disconnect here.
You can lie as a free action. If every lie were a bluff, then it would be possible to make a bluff as a free action. Bluffs take a minimum of 6 seconds, therefore not every lie is a bluff.
You can't equate making a Bluff check with speaking a word, they are not the same thing.
Quote: Of course you can't take a full-attack action while getting into armor... actually, yes you can, but it interrupts you from finishing putting on the armor. Why does making an attack interupt putting on armour but not making a Bluff check?
Minimum standard action, as intimidate.
Quantum Steve wrote: setzer9999 wrote: It just takes at least 6 seconds for your opponent to decide if they believe you or not. Deciding wether they believe you or not is a Sense Motive check which doesn't take any time at all.
Speaking a word, even a lie, is a free action, yet bluff takes a minimum of one round. Clearly there is some disconnect here.
You can lie as a free action. If every lie were a bluff, then it would be possible to make a bluff as a free action. Bluffs take a minimum of 6 seconds, therefore not every lie is a bluff.
You can't equate making a Bluff check with speaking a word, they are not the same thing.
Quote: Of course you can't take a full-attack action while getting into armor... actually, yes you can, but it interrupts you from finishing putting on the armor. Why does making an attack interupt putting on armour but not making a Bluff check? You don't "make bluff checks" as some kind of quantity of effort is why. I think you have a fundamental belief about the skill check being something the liar asks to do that is making you want to rule it as such. A creature doesn't say "I'm making a Bluff check". The creature does something that then warrants making a Bluff check vs Sense Motive check.
A "Bluff check" doesn't exist on it's own. A Bluff check is called for as an opposed check to your opponent's Sense Motive check. A Sense Motive check, for the purposes of opposing Bluff, doesn't call for any actions, explicitly. Your opponent then makes a Sense Motive check, AT NO ACTION, and this REQUIRES you to make a Bluff check. You don't say "I'm lying, so I want to make a Bluff check"... that's backwards roleplaying. You lie, your opponent tries to discern if you are lying, so the GM says "The liar makes a Bluff check and the one being lied to makes a Sense Motive check". So, if you lie as a free action, and someone wants to know if you were lying or not, you have to make a Bluff check to determine if they can tell you are lying or not, right then and there.
The liar has to say what their lie is, and how they are telling it, before rolling the check, of course... because how else is the GM supposed to adjudicate penalties and bonuses, and determine if it is impossible, otherwise? It is your lie that triggers the Bluff check, not your Bluff check that triggers you to then be allowed to lie.
I'd say that you get to "keep" all the time you spent putting on the armor, not have to start over from 0. so if you spent 3 rounds getting into armor, and then had to stop to be interrupted, if you were still able to finish after the battle and your armor still at hand, you would only have to spend 2 more rounds to finish putting it on. That is not necessarily realistic, and it's not necessarily in the rules, but that is what a GM is for.
Speaking, on the other hand, does not have to interrupt anything you are doing whatsoever, unless you are holding the weapon in your teeth. You can lie while you are doing anything else just as much as you can talk while doing anything else.
Intimidate requires more of an action because merely saying "I'm going to kill you" is a given in combat. It doesn't have anything to do with "instantaneous belief" from your opponent. A good lie requires more than just words, but a lie in and of itself doesn't require anything more than words. Any Intimidate check, even a bad one, once combat has begun is going to require more than simply telling your opponent what they already believe to be true: that you are a threat to them. Lying is a different animal altogether.
Another example of 1 round things without attached action:
Detecting a forgery using Linguistics takes 1 round of examination per page.
Free, Swift, Move, Standard, or Full? Can I do it as my immediate action?
=====
So far I haven't seen anything through keyword searching PDFs that would contradict 1 round = all you do that round (essentially a full round action). Every example that gives an action attached is a full round action. If anyone finds one that doesn't I'd be very happy to know.
Dorje Sylas wrote: Another example of 1 round things without attached action:
Detecting a forgery using Linguistics takes 1 round of examination per page.
Free, Swift, Move, Standard, or Full? Can I do it as my immediate action?
=====
So far I haven't seen anything through keyword searching PDFs that would contradict 1 round = all you do that round (essentially a full round action). Every example that gives an action attached is a full round action. If anyone finds one that doesn't I'd be very happy to know.
In the case of the Bluff issue, this is irrelevant. The problem is that not being able to do a Bluff vs Sense Motive check when someone lies is a bug in the rules. You can lie as a free action. Saying that no one has to do a Sense Motive check to determine if you are lying because you did it as a free action is a poorly written rule, or non-rule really.
Citing examples of other rules to support how you think yet another poorly executed rule should work is a good place to start, albeit... but if the rule in question makes for an impossible to resolve scenario, all bets are off.
Anyone is free to rule as GM that it takes a full-round action, but that completely makes no sense whatsoever. Other rules, which are actually written, say that when a Sense Motive check is made, Bluff is made as it's opposed check. When does someone use Sense Motive? When someone speaks or otherwise communicates. Can someone speak or otherwise communicate as a free action? Yes. Therefore, since a speaking can happen as a free action, and Sense Motive can be run against those words, Bluff can be a free action. Otherwise, you have a lie that is hanging out there "un Sense Motived"...
It would be reasonable to say that your lie doesn't happen "instantly", and that it happens in the same span as a full-round action, only resolving the Bluff vs Sense motive before the start of your next turn. But, this shouldn't preclude you from doing other actions, because talking is a free action. So, again, unless you talk with gestures, or are holding a weapon in your teeth, you should be able to do other things at the same time as you are lying, and in order to resolve if the other person knows if you are lying, you have to do a Bluff vs Sense Motive.
The GM can, of course, rule anything they want, but I find the GM that doesn't run an opposed skill check because of citing some poorly written combat action economy rules to be suspect, and not running the game in a fluid, believable manner, in my opinion. Roleplaying should involve saying what you do first, and then involving a check to see how well what you did worked... not the other way around.
Ravingdork wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: 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).
No, Diplomacy can be in same rd.
Giving Aid is DC +0.
Now most enemies are unfriendly not hostile since just paid to fight you. So DC is 20 + their Cha mod (so most warriors have - Cha so lower number)
New point. It's looking more like it was just missed, Paizo goofed a bit. In the 3.5 SRD Bluff has this line
Quote: A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. Compared to Pathfinders
Quote: 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). All signs are pointing to 1 round = needing full round action. Counter examples in the rules?
====
And yes IDing a forgery is relevant to this discussion because it's another example of something need 1+ rounds to do with no attached action. It's part of the body of existing rules 'evidence' on which to base a ruling. How much of an action do you think Linguist to ID a forgery should take?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Why are you asking and what do you plan on doing with it? When players ask me questions like RD often poses, this is my first follow-up question.
Dorje Sylas wrote: New point. It's looking more like it was just missed, Paizo goofed a bit. In the 3.5 SRD Bluff has this line
Quote: A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. Compared to Pathfinders
Quote: 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). All signs are pointing to 1 round = needing full round action. Counter examples in the rules?
====
And yes IDing a forgery is relevant to this discussion because it's another example of something need 1+ rounds to do with no attached action. It's part of the body of existing rules 'evidence' on which to base a ruling. How much of an action do you think Linguist to ID a forgery should take?
I would argue that what you are pointing out is evidence of the opposite of the point you are trying to make. That isn't a line of text that was "left out", it is a line of text that was altered. I'm not insinuating that this IS the case, but it's possible the developers of PF saw how making a Bluff check a full-round action when a lie can be told in a free action is a bug, and changed the wording.
Its a totally different wording, not the same wording with a portion missing.
Regardless, sometimes the RAW has bugs in it. This is one such bug. That is what the GM is for. If someone tells a lie, you have to be able to resolve it with Sense Motive. If you can tell a lie in a free action, but you then want to make a Bluff check a full-round action... this causes a bug in the system. The Pathfinder wording actually helps to alleviate this bug.
If you want to rule it that you must use a full-round action to Bluff, then you have to also rule that no one can lie when talking using free actions. Everyone must only tell the truth when talking using their free action. Otherwise, others who are hearing their lies don't have the ability to Sense Motive the lies, or anyone listening to lies spoken during combat becomes a superhero that can magically discern them automatically. Any of these ramifications are obviously bugs. Rule it that way if you want, but I'd leave the table.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
setzer9999 wrote: I would argue that what you are pointing out is evidence of the opposite of the point you are trying to make. That isn't a line of text that was "left out", it is a line of text that was altered. I'm not insinuating that this IS the case, but it's possible the developers of PF saw how making a Bluff check a full-round action when a lie can be told in a free action is a bug, and changed the wording. Pretty much what I was thinking as well.
setzer9999 wrote: I would argue that what you are pointing out is evidence of the opposite of the point you are trying to make. And yet you haven't present any rules based evidence for your contention. You haven't backed up you case for it being only a free action at all. I've cited several existing examples that use identical word choice, found at least one other ambiguous example of a similar nature, and gone back to prior source material.
setzer9999 wrote: Rule it that way if you want, but I'd leave the table. Good :P, Cause at this point you would not be welcome at my table.
setzer9999 wrote: then you have to also rule that no one can lie when talking using free actions No I don't. I can have eat my cake and have it too. That's the lovely part about actual games vs RAW discussions. At this point, give everything I've found (and see others present) to date, would rule that lying as with anything other then a Full-Round action is the same as not trying on a Bluff Check (Take 0) where only the characters base bluff modifier is the target value. That or apply a -10 penalty for a "fast lie."
Don't like how the RAW is running? Mash that FAQ button on the first post and bring this bug to the writers attention so they can stomp it on the next major run through of rule changes (whenever that happens).
Dorje Sylas wrote: setzer9999 wrote: I would argue that what you are pointing out is evidence of the opposite of the point you are trying to make. And yet you haven't present any rules based evidence for your contention. You haven't backed up you case for it being only a free action at all. I've cited several existing examples that use identical word choice, found at least one other ambiguous example of a similar nature, and gone back to prior source material.
setzer9999 wrote: Rule it that way if you want, but I'd leave the table. Good :P, Cause at this point you would not be welcome at my table.
setzer9999 wrote: then you have to also rule that no one can lie when talking using free actions No I don't. I can have eat my cake and have it too. That's the lovely part about actual games vs RAW discussions. At this point, give everything I've found (and see others present) to date, would rule that lying as with anything other then a Full-Round action is the same as not trying on a Bluff Check (Take 0) where only the characters base bluff modifier is the target value. That or apply a -10 penalty for a "fast lie."
Don't like how the RAW is running? Mash that FAQ button on the first post and bring this bug to the writers attention so they can stomp it on the next major run through of rule changes (whenever that happens). See... applying that -10 for a fast lie is the most reasonable thing you've said this entire time. Nothing else you have said is worth a damn for, as you put it "actual games vs RAW". The RAW is not well defined, no matter how much research you do in other parts of the rules to back up whatever it is you are trying to back up.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't run with your "fast lie" -10, you are allowing lies that have no Sense Motive at all. That's completely and totally ridiculous. If you want to go searching for how the game should be run elsewhere in what Paizo has printed for the answer to something unclear in the rules, try reading the Game Mastery Guide for a change, and see how much "RAW" is really worth in the face of good GMing...
I can think of a few ways to 'lie' in combat, and I don't think they qualify as an 'action'... certainly not to the exclusion of doing OTHER stuff that round.
If I'm grappling a Guard and Hiss "Get out of here idiot... I'm undercover, you'll ruin EVERYTHING..."
That should be a bluff check. And I did less than 6 seconds of talking... so that's a free action.
I'm not really in favor of 'some lies ARE an action and some aren't... things get pretty arbitrary there.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dorje Sylas wrote: ...Cause at this point you would not be welcome at my table. Was saying that really and truly necessary? It doesn't accomplish anything and can't possibly generate anything remotely resembling positive feelings.
Ravingdork wrote: Dorje Sylas wrote: ...Cause at this point you would not be welcome at my table. Was saying that really and truly necessary? It doesn't accomplish anything and can't possibly generate anything remotely resembling positive feelings. Let's not feed the fire... I may have been a little guilty of it above too in my response. I won't take it back though because my point still stands firm... there are not just some corner cases in the rules. There are THOUSANDS. A new one will come up every day at least, somewhere around the community. They don't all make it onto the boards.
There are entire threads on forums just about all the silly rules hiccups there are in PF and d20 in general. This is far from the worst bug. When I first started with this system, I thought it would be a good idea to write down my house rules. When I started examining the rules closely enough to do that, my house rules document quickly became 37 pages long, and there was no end in sight. I decided to abandon the idea, because it is pointless to try to point to or generate your own "perfect" RAW. It doesn't exist. That's what the GM is for, and why we aren't robots.
You have to be able to run the game with some sense of what is and isn't a bug. Not resolving a lie because it took place in less than 6 seconds is a bug. It's not even that hard of a bug to spot, or that hard to make a good ruling on. Why would I want to play at a table where even the slightest of rules problems can't be handled properly? Just wait until we get into situations with REAL rules problems. I just wouldn't stick around to find out how that goes.
@phantom1592 Yep. I agree. You can come up with endless use cases where not allowing a check for a lie done as a free action makes no sense at all.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
