Because I have a bunch of questions..
1. Do you have to roll a bluff check to convince somebody of something that is actually true, but difficult to believe? If not, is convincing them accomplished by some other means, e.g. diplomacy?
2. How long does a sucessful bluff check last? Essentially forever? They never "snap out of it"?
3. How do you go about dawning the truth on somebody who has been bluffed, particularly with a very high roll? If I provide direct evidence to the contrary, for example, does that break the bluff? If the bluffer is present he could probably try to create a larger web of lies to cover his tracks. What if he is not?
If the bard has -say- convinced Commoner Joe that his wife is an evil murderer, bent on killing him in his sleep, is it possible remind him that, no she is actually the girl that was his neighbor from the time he was 12, they grew up together, and she would not do that to him? Cross reference #1, this is actually true, but the sucessful bluff check has convinced him otherwise.
From the bluff skill:
"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."
Note that "fool" is undefined in Pathfinder, but we can assume it means something like "they think what you're saying is true."
1. No. You only roll a bluff when trying to fool someone. There's no skill check to convince someone of something true.
2. Forever.
3. By RAW, it's impossible to make someone disbelieve a successful bluff. RAI, probably by showing them conflicting evidence like you suggest.
4. See 3. I would say that's not convincing evidence if I were DMing, but might improve your chances with more direct evidence.
4. See 3. I would say that's not convincing evidence if I were DMing, but might improve your chances with more direct evidence.
What is your reasoning as to why that is not convincing?
Bluff is useless because its all subjective. You can just meet someone and they can just naturally distrust you and have huge bonuses on knowing that you are lying. @ lvl 4 I have + 24 bluff and it NEVER WORKS.ymmv
It all depends on dm
Okay, so is there a way to convince somebody of something that is true, which they are not inclined to believe?
Can't bluff be used to undo the effects of bluff?
"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."
(emphasis added). If so, do I have to beat the original bluffer's check or just their sense motive?
1. Bluff says "fool" but it also says "what you are saying is true". Note, it says "what you are saying is true." but it doesn't say "the lies you are tell are true." Of course, the word "lie" is referenced all throughout the skill so take that for what it's worth - not much.
Ultimately, I think the easiest solution is to assume the word "lie" does not require the "lie" to actually be a lie, but rather, the listener believes it is a lie. If you re-read the skill description and replace the word "lie" with the phrase "story that the listener believes to be a lie", then the skill still works exactly as intended AND it now allows for the OP's situation.
Yes, that's crossing from RAW to RAI, but it seems clear to me that there is absolutely no difference in the listener's mind between something that is actually a lie and the listener believes it to be a lie, and something that is actually true but the listener believes it to be a lie - in the listener's mind, they are the same thing, so the Bluff skill should work in both situations.
I would probably also give the PC a small circumstance bonus for this, since he really is telling the truth.
It's not perfect, but then neither is Diplomacy for this situation.
2. Essentially indefinitely. You convinced them of something that they now think is the truth. Of course, later they may find new evidence to make them change their mind, but without that, they will continue believing your "truth" indefinitely.
3. If someone has been successfully bluffed and now you want to change their mind:
3a) You are now lying to fool them into believing a new lie that contradicts their previous bluff: use the normal Bluff rules, but I suggest you must not only beat the victim's Sense Motive, but also the previous bluffer's Bluff check or else your new lie will be less convincing than his.
3b) You are now telling the truth to convince them to believe the truth that contradicts their previous bluff: see my answer #1 above, with the same suggestion as 3a.
3c) You are simply providing evidence to convince them of the truth that contradicts their previous bluff: This should be automatic. If I successfully bluff you to convince you that my name is Dave and you fall for it, then someone shows you my driver's license with my real name on it, you will pretty much automatically assume that I had lied to you.
3-Continued. If the previous bluffer is present, he certainly can make a further bluff check to discredit you, your lie/truth, or your evidence. There isn't specific RAW for this, so I would suggest everyone telling their version of the story gets a Bluff check, and the onlooker gets a Sense Motive check.
3d) You and the other bluffer both beat the the Sense Motive check: The victim is willing to believe both stories but knows one of them must be untrue since they are different stories, so he waits to see which one of you can provide better proof. I also suggest that if one Bluff check was noticeably higher than the other, say, by 5 or more, the victim will prefer that story, though he'll still wait for more proof.
3e) You and the other bluffer both fail to beat the the Sense Motive check: The victim doesn't believe either one of you (even if one of you is telling the truth), so he waits to see which one of you can provide better proof. with the same suggestion as 3d.
3f) One of you beats the Sense Motive check and one of you fails: The victim believes the winner and disbelieves the loser (even if the loser was telling the truth) and will act accordingly. Now, maybe later, the loser can find more proof and get to "Re-try" the bluff again, if the victim is willing to let him have that chance.
Regarding the bard, Joe, and his wife, that bard must be good to use nothing more than a skill check to turn a husband against a loving wife. Usually this would require magic, in which case all bets are off. But assuming no magic was used and the bard ONLY bluffed, then this would work just like I described. Either the bard is long gone so it's 3b (or the wife really is planning murder in which case it's 3a), or the bard is present in which case it's all of 3-Continued.
Blake, w/ regards to #1:
I think the easiest solution is to assume the word "lie" does not require the "lie" to actually be a lie, but rather, but rather, the listener believes it is a lie.
But the thing is that whether somebody believes it to be a lie or not is the very thing that is supposed to be being determined by the bluff check!
Blake, w/ regards to #1:
I think the easiest solution is to assume the word "lie" does not require the "lie" to actually be a lie, but rather, but rather, the listener believes it is a lie.But the thing is that whether somebody believes it to be a lie or not is the very thing that is supposed to be being determined by the bluff check!
Or is it?
Maybe the bluff check is to determine whether the individual continues believing what he currently believes or begins believing what you're telling him.
The GM knows the truth, maybe even the player, maybe even the PC. None of that is in question. The only thing in question is the victim's belief. If he believes the truth and you lie to him, use Bluff to change his mind. If he believes a lie and you tell him the truth, use Bluff to change his mind.
What "counts" as a lie is not what is actually a lie, but what the victim perceives to be a lie.
okay, but what I was getting at there is;
how would you determine if the target believes you are lying? Gosh that's confusing even to me as I write it. Try this; How would you determine when a check needed to be rolled?
Bard: "hey, my wife is a merfolk!"
Commoner: "That seems outlandish, but I believe you."
-no check.
Bard: "Hey, my wife is a merfolk!"
Commoner: "that seems outlandish, I don't believe you."
-bluff check
Commonder: "oh wait, I mean actually I do."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more like this:
Bard: "hey, my wife is a merfolk".
GM: Better roll your Bluff check.
Bard's Player: I roll a 23 on my Bluff check
GM: Secretly rolls Sense Motive, only gets a 12.
Commoner: "that seems outlandish, but I believe you."
Or
Bard: "Hey, my wife is a merfolk".
GM: Better roll your Bluff check.
Bard's Player: I roll a 13 on my Bluff check
GM: Secretly rolls Sense Motive, gets a 15.
Commoner: "That seems outlandish, I totally don't believe you."
Interestingly enough, this works regardless of whether the bard's wife is a merfolk or not, or even if he doesn't have a wife. Now, if she IS a merfolk, the bard is not actually lying, but the bluff skill is still the best choice for convincing the commoner that the bard is married to a merbabe.
Like this:
Bard: "Hey, my wife is a merfolk".
GM: Better roll your Bluff check.
Bard's Player: I roll a 13 on my Bluff check
GM: Secretly rolls Sense Motive, gets a 15.
Commoner: "That seems outlandish, I totally don't believe you."
Bard: "No, wait, I have pictures here on my smartphone, er, uh, smart-crystal ball." The bard proceeds to display totally believable non-photoshopped pictures of his wedding with his merhottie.
GM: OK, roll another bluff check, this time with a +5 circumstance bonus.
Bard's Player: Crud, I blew it, I only got a 14, worse than last time except the circumstance bonus helped.
GM: secretly rolls Sense Motive but only gets a 13.
Commoner: "Oh, nice pics. I see now that I was wrong to doubt you."
but then you are rolling bluff checks for literally every time anybody says anything ever....
|
This is a very difficult question to answer without knowing what you're trying to get at - do you have a specific scenario where something has happened using the bluff skill?
Bluff is usually deemed not very useful, but I think that's because a lot of GMs don't deal very well with having their NPC being lied to and taken in a strange direction, while having to adjudicate how the NPC can refute the bluff as best as possible at the same time.
My rule of thumb is that there should usually be only a single bluff check that persists while you're telling the same basic falsehood. You're talking about introducing a new element to that falsehood to try convince them that what you were saying was indeed a lie, or that you've accidentally provided bad evidence (I can't tell which - you weave in and out of this a bit). In that case, I would likely first put a new modifier on the original check and determine if they are still living in wonderland, or alternatively ask for a new diplomacy or bluff check if that's more appropriate.
|
In the end, it's best to not over analyze things. If, as a GM, you feel that the Bluff skill best represents what you need to accomplish (in this case, the truth that the recipient thinks is an un-truth), you're doing things just fine. On the other hand, if, as a GM, you feel that the Diplomacy skill would better represent that situation, you're doing things just fine with that, too.
Me know exact answer.
Visit my cave and I tell you. Free! First time ever shared this wisdom.
Bring barbecue sauce.
My specific scenario is the bluff rules are crap, that's my scenario.
Avatar-1... no, I don't really have a specific scenario. I'm not trying to break anything. I'm simply interested in running a fair game. Considering bluff to be useless is insane in my book. As I understand the RAW it's the most powerful skill in the game bar none. It's only "useless" if a GM doesn't follow the way it says it works. Thats like saying "Everybody agrees that the Wizard is a useless class because no GMs allow them to have spells above 1st level." If you rule it that way, sure, useless. If you play by the actual rules, very powerful.
I've had characters put a lot of ranks in bluff before. I don't want these ranks to be totally useless. But I don't want them to overwhelm the game either. If a rank in bluff is about as good as a rank in Knowledge: Religion, or Perception, or some other commonly used skill I am fine with that.
DMBlake: I've been thinking about what you said a lot. Sorry if I'm being stubborn. In a way your ideas make a lot of sense. But they don't correspond to how anybody I've ever talked to understands Bluff/Sense Motive.
With your rules, a character with high sense motive is simply very stubborn. He's not inclined to believe anything he is initially suspicious of, even if it is in fact, the truth. That does not sit well with me. It does not sit well with me at all. The whole PURPOSE of sense motive is to be able to discern truth from fiction.
sigh... I guess I'll never be satisfied.
Seebs, one problem with your "interpretation" is that it's nothing close to what the rules actually say. It does not say "a successful bluff check indicates the person believes you feel you are making a true statement." it says " with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."
um... no? Did you read sense-motive at all? You only roll a sense motive check against a bluff, or to get a hunch. There's no rolling sense motive against a true statement, just like there is no rolling a bluff check to tell someone a true statement.
And yes, if someone came up and told me I was Marilyn Monroe, I doubt even the most silver tongued could convince me of that.
I however, do not live in a High Fantasy Universe. If I did, maybe I am that legendary bard, Marilyn Monroe, who was reincarnated by a high level druid friend in a young adult male human body. For some reason though I have no memory of it. Unlikely, maybe. Beyond all possibility? No, it is not. So yes, a sufficiently high bluff check could convince somebody of that, which is exactly the problem.
Me know exact answer.
Visit my cave and I tell you. Free! First time ever shared this wisdom.
Bring barbecue sauce.
Oh your having a cookout? I thought trolls avoided those!
Anyways, Bluff is a bit of a DM's digression thing. Using it as mind control is probably a little much. No matter what someone can just decide not to believe you(a bit many people forget). You can tell someone a really convincing lie, but to be honest its up to them as to whether they believe you or not, as much as it is up to them to believe you if your telling the truth. That said, if someone can't tell your lying with a +30 sense motive rolled twice, there's no way your lying... right?
Keep in mind that if you force anyone to believe any lie if they can't make the sense motive that way lies madness. Especially when rolled against your PCs.
|
|
Okay, so is there a way to convince somebody of something that is true, which they are not inclined to believe?
Can't bluff be used to undo the effects of bluff?
"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."(emphasis added). If so, do I have to beat the original bluffer's check or just their sense motive?
Diplomacy vs the Bluff DC ?
sigh... I guess I'll never be satisfied.
What would satisfy you?
You know we're talking about a skill, right. A simple, ordinary skill. Real earthlings here in our world have skills like Bluff and Sense Motive. They can help us lie, or help us know when we're being lied to, but they are not magic, they are not supernatural, and they don't have mystical powers to autodetect "Truth".
Seebs, one problem with your "interpretation" is that it's nothing close to what the rules actually say. It does not say "a successful bluff check indicates the person believes you feel you are making a true statement." it says " with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."
OK, so take that with a grain of salt. The authors clearly worded that with the idea in mind that the guy doing the Bluff check is lying, and he wants to convince the guy doing the Sense Motive check that the lie is really true.
That's probably what the Bluff skill is used for, maybe about 99% of the time.
It in no way asserts that the opposite is true, that a successful Sense Motive check is capable of magically telling the difference between absolute truth and falsehood.
In fact, the clue is right there in the name of the skill: Sense Motive.
It's not called "Detect Truth" or "Detect Lie". We have magic spells for that kind of thing. It's called "Sense Motive" because the only thing it can do is let the guy making the check figure out if the other guy is motivated by deceit or motivated by honesty.
It lets you have insight into the motives of the other guy.
For example, imagine that I go into an Elementary school and pretend to be a substitute teacher. I teach kids that the seventh president of the United States was named Jason Bulmahn. they believe me, after all, what do they know? Then one of them goes home and tell his mom the name of the 7th president of the United States. She's doubtful - she doesn't remember and can't prove it one way or the other. So, essentially, she uses Sense Motive to see if her son is telling the truth. Of course, he THINKS he is, so there is no way she can "sense" that the 7th president was really Andrew Jackson, no matter how high she rolls.
But what if another kid goes home and tells his mom that the 7th president was Sean K. Reynolds. The kid is lying, he just thinks it's a cool name and he forgot the other one anyway. Mom is doubtful and rolls a Sense Motive check and succeeds. She can tell that her kid is lying, maybe even can tell that he forgot and just made up a name he heard somewhere. But her roll won't "sense" that it should be Jason Bulmahn (my lie) or that it should be Andrew Jackson. All she knows is that her son's motivations seem deceitful.
I hope that clears it up a little.
um... no? Did you read sense-motive at all? You only roll a sense motive check against a bluff, or to get a hunch. There's no rolling sense motive against a true statement, just like there is no rolling a bluff check to tell someone a true statement.
I sort of previously answered this. If it doesn't work for you, then you have no rules at all for this situation and it's entirely up to your GM. If the GM makes up a houserule for it, then you're stuck with that; I hope it works for you both.
Or you can use my suggestion from above.
And yes, if someone came up and told me I was Marilyn Monroe, I doubt even the most silver tongued could convince me of that.
I however, do not live in a High Fantasy Universe. If I did, maybe I am that legendary bard, Marilyn Monroe, who was reincarnated by a high level druid friend in a young adult male human body. For some reason though I have no memory of it. Unlikely, maybe. Beyond all possibility? No, it is not. So yes, a sufficiently high bluff check could convince somebody of that, which is exactly the problem.
How is that a problem?
So Golarion has epic bards who can lie their butts off and get people to believe it. So what? I'm not sure how that relates to the other questions you've raised. "The Bluff rules are crap." How so? That a bard with magically enhanced charisma and a lifetime of skill/training in deception can convince a commoner in a magical world that he is a reincarnated celebrity? I think that SHOULD be possible.
I've had characters put a lot of ranks in bluff before. I don't want these ranks to be totally useless. But I don't want them to overwhelm the game either. If a rank in bluff is about as good as a rank in Knowledge: Religion, or Perception, or some other commonly used skill I am fine with that.
Seems to me, that's exactly what Bluff and Sense Motive are, roughly equal in usefulneess to Knowledge and Perception skills. In fact, I think Perception is probably the most useful skill in the game, vastly more useful/required than any other.
DMBlake: I've been thinking about what you said a lot. Sorry if I'm being stubborn. In a way your ideas make a lot of sense. But they don't correspond to how anybody I've ever talked to understands Bluff/Sense Motive.
Other than my suggestions about how to use Bluff to tell the truth, what did I say that's different than anything other GMs do?
With your rules, a character with high sense motive is simply very stubborn.
He should be.
Understand that he has, as you said, a "high Sense Motive". That means he believes what he believes and when someone tries to convince him to give up one of his beliefs in favor of a different belief, he's going to be quite good at knowing if they are lying or manipulating him, and if he detects such things he will be very stubborn indeed. If he fails, he won't be stubborn at all because he'll believe their story (Bluff) - however, with a "high Sense Motive" he won't fail very often; he might even take pride in his ability to "read people" and to "sniff out liars and charlatans".
He's not inclined to believe anything he is initially suspicious of, even if it is in fact, the truth.
This is only true if he has his own truth to believe, even if his "truth" is actually incorrect. If he believes that dogs can fly, and you want to convince him that they cannot, you will find him to be stubborn about his belief. If he doesn't know whether dogs fly or not, and you want to convince him that they cannot, he won't be stubborn at all.
That does not sit well with me. It does not sit well with me at all. The whole PURPOSE of sense motive is to be able to discern truth from fiction.
No.
The whole purpose of Sense Motive is to sense the motives of the person telling you something, to figure out if they are honest or deceitful.
The veracity of what they are saying is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is whether the talker (Bluffer) is telling what he believes to be true (not deceiving you) or what he believes to be false (deceiving you) - are his motives honest or deceitful?
Somehow we don't seem to be connecting here. Let me try again...
Although it is true that a person with a high sense motive is less likely to be fooled by a lie, a person with a very high sense motive is also more likely -according to your system- to sense deceit where there is none.
|
I always understood Sense Motive to be the instinct which tells you that someone is trying to lie to you combined with a dose of common sense. Not at all a RAW thing, but...
When you suspect someone, you analyse the person first and then the statement, sometimes the other way around. If they won't meet your eyes or keep blinking or touching their face / hair, a wise person will suspect that they are lying. Similarly, if the thing they are saying makes no sense, you will question it.
Of course, most DMs I have ever met answer answer a Sense Motive check with one of the two following responses.
"He is being completely honest with you, as far as you can tell."
"You are convinced that he believes what he is saying."
In those cases, the Sense Motive covers the body language and it is up to player wisdom (never a good thing, in my experience) to work out if the statement is likely to be true.