Rolled a -1 on a bluff check.

[MrSin]

How would you handle it as a GM and how would you roleplay it?

[Rynjin]

Well as a GM it's pretty obvious how to run it...unless the person they're opposing is capable of rolling a -2 Sense Motive, they just auto-failed a Bluff check.

As a player, I could have fun with this. Depends on the circumstance whether it would be the most outlandish, obviously untrue, stuttering pile of BS ever told, or just a really bad lie.

"Yes, I am, uh, definitely one of your soldiers Mr. King. I, um, I am not in my armor because I'm trying to be inconspicuous. Yeah. That's it. Totally. So, can I go into your room alone to, uh, check it for threats and stuff?"

[Journ-O-LST-3]

Yup, I roll before I say how I'm bluffing, so on a -1 I'd say something unconvincing.

[Zhayne]

You failed. That's it. Failing with a -1 is no different from failing with a 20.

[broxolm]

I have a half orc barbarian with 20+ Str, 7 CHR 7 INT, Spiked Full Plate Armor, and a adamantine magic greatsword. Yet he he has no ranks in intimidate so I regularly get -1 or worse on a bad roll. First time it happened my GM asked how a menacing raging barbarian like that could be so bad at intimidating. I figured since an Orc is only as strong as his smell, he never bathes. Thus when he fails an intimidate check his threats are lost in translation with something he is afraid of but it otherwise harmless.

"GIVE ME THE KEYS TO THE TREASURE ROOM OR I WILL BATHE YOU.....WITH SOAP!"

[broxolm]

In an old epic 3.5 campaign, we were infiltrating the dread castle of despair on the summit of torment in the eternal lake of fire and doom that belonged to a warlord epic Mage lich. We had disguised ourselves as undead henchmen but decided to walk through the place like we own it because no one would expect "non-sneaky" assassins.

We walk around the first corner on the first level and encounter the epic lich and 5 of his high level thrall Lt's he is giving orders to. One of the thrills in a epic level black dragon whose family we had killed in an earlier adventure. The lich stops us and eyes us suspiciously. Thankfully the party bard had just drank a potion of Glibness (most broken spell ever). The bard attempts a bluff (rolls a 1).

"We are new. Just got lost on the way to the um.....bathroom.....yeah."

Lich didn't buy it and we were forced to flee through a prismatic wall. By the end, only the party Wizard survived.

The DM wanted to end the game there but the party Wizard, now flying away from the castle came up with an idea. He casted a series of Force Walls around the floating castle. Then opened a Gate to the elemental plane of Fire below a Gate to the elemental plane of Water. The infinite water supply fell into the infinite water supply creating infinite steam. Since the walls of force couldn't be destroyed by the steam it built infinite pressure until the castle and everything in it was crushed and then exploded in a nuclear level fire wave.

The lich survived through his phalactory but it was impressive never the less mad the moral of the story was bad bluff checks always fun.

[Lo&beholder]

Since RAW says you cant autofail on a skill roll it would have to be in orders of magnitude compared to the opposing roll...so....since the general rule is fail/success in increments of 5 from the opposed roll once you hit negative numbers you could house rule for increments of 3 from the opposed roll and make it be that horrible. You lied so bad your eyeball fell out of your face or the ghost of Lincoln appears and slaps you then fades away with a stern look.

[lemeres]

Unless the opposing sense motive check was similarly terrible, I half think that you should not only accidentally reveal the better half of what you were trying to do with that lie (i.e. an assassin that says "What, no, I am not an assassin. *Evil country X?*, no, never heard of the place, I was certainly not paid by its dictator to kill your king."), but the other party should get a bonus on their own bluff checks to manipulate you. (i.e.- "Oh, you are looking for the king, mr. not-an-assassin? Well, I think he was going alone into the guard barracks. Yeah, they are definitely all at lunch. Let me show you the way")

[Cap. Darling]

Han Solo when they save Leia on the Death Star.

[BigDTBone]

Nuclear Weasels, where are your nuclear weasels?

[Blackstorm]

Lo&beholder wrote:

Since RAW says you cant autofail on a skill roll it would have to be in orders of magnitude compared to the opposing roll...so....since the general rule is fail/success in increments of 5 from the opposed roll once you hit negative numbers you could house rule for increments of 3 from the opposed roll and make it be that horrible.

Hmmm. Can you point me to the rules you quoted? I'm curious.

[Sissyl]

A really atrocious failed roll means you probably give some information about the truth.

"Uh, no, I wasn't hired by your estranged sister to kill you. She hired me to fetch... ummm..."

[Lo&beholder]

Blackstorm wrote:

Lo&beholder wrote:

Since RAW says you cant autofail on a skill roll it would have to be in orders of magnitude compared to the opposing roll...so....since the general rule is fail/success in increments of 5 from the opposed roll once you hit negative numbers you could house rule for increments of 3 from the opposed roll and make it be that horrible.

Hmmm. Can you point me to the rules you quoted? I'm curious.

On page 180 saving throws it states specifically it states for the auto one way or the other. If you read the skills section, it never states that there is an auto success or failure anything which means you could roll a one and if your bonus still exceeds the DC you still make it. You technically can auto fail or success "using skill" but not "rolling a skill", explaination being you choose to use stealth by walking over a sleeping dragons face, but the gm could choose to say at that point no need to roll the dragon wakes up, oh smaug the stupendous. cheers blackstorm

*edit* also on pg. 178 it states specifically the auto is for attacks which just reinforces that the rules will state it for purpose of "yep, that's a thing".

[HangarFlying]

Historical Aside That Really Isn't Relevant, But Interesting Nonetheless:

3.5 Skill Checks didn't have auto-success or auto-failure, either.

[Soluzar]

This happened to me a couple of days ago. I was playing a 1 Barbarian/7 Cleric of Gorum. As a proper cleric of the Lord in Iron, I have no ranks in Diplomacy (I don't talk my way out of fights), Bluff (I will not lie my way out of a fight) and Stealth (I will not sneak away from a fight). My charisma is an 8 giving a -1 bonus. I rolled a 1 on the check giving me a zero. I told the enemy exactly what I was doing there. Then again, I was at full HP with Bull Strength, Enlarge, Haste, and Death Ward.

Yeah, he didn't live long.

[Blackstorm]

Lo&beholder wrote:

Blackstorm wrote:

Lo&beholder wrote:

..since the general rule is fail/success in increments of 5 from the opposed roll

Hmmm. Can you point me to the rules you quoted? I'm curious.

On page 180 saving throws it states...

Sorry, I must have misquoted that. I know about auto fail/success. I was just curious about the rule above, which I now stripped. Sorry for the misunderstand :)

[blahpers]

Mr. Anderson: Hey, you look kinda familiar. You ain't them kids that spray painted my dog last week, are you?
Butt-head: (rolls -1 on Bluff check) Uh huh huh, that was uh... other kids.
Mr. Anderson: (rolls -4 on Sense Motive check). Well, anyway, large fries, pie, large coffee, NOW. You got me, bubba?
Butt-Head: (rolls -3 on Diplomacy check) Uh...
Mr. Anderson: I didn't order "uh". I ordered a large fries, pie, large coffee.