| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Circumstances Bluff Modifier
The target wants to believe you: +5
The lie is believable: +0
The lie is unlikely –5
The lie is far-fetched –10
The lie is impossible –20
The target is drunk or impaired +5
You possess convincing proof up to +10
Yes bluff is really Really REALLY poorly written.
"Impossible is minus 20, but if it's particularly improbable to the point of being impossible, it's a minus infinity. Paizo OUT *drops mic*"
...No. Bad Paizo. Bad.
Just announce a house rule that sounds better to you (i.e. almost anything else) and carry on.
Yes, Bluff is poorly written. All lies are impossible, because falsehoods are events that didn't happen. The table's -20 modifier should have said "unbelievable." And it should have had a -30 example of "unbelievable and outrageous" and a -50 example of "unbelievable and unimaginable." Minus 20 should be the minimum penalty for unbelievable, not the penalty for all unbelievable tales. And the player should roll five over the target number for the listener to not want to try to verify.
Let's go back to the core of the rules: what does a skill check roll mean? It does not mean that if you roll well, you suddenly become temporarily more skilled. Instead, it means that unanticipated circumstances help you or hinder you. (If the circumstances are anticipated, they become a circumstance bonus instead.) You roll well on an Acrobatics check to avoid slipping and it means your foot found a less slippery spot. You roll well on a Craft(Weapons) check and it means that your materials had no defects and the forge burned evenly. You roll well on a Heal check and it means the wound was a clean cut. You roll well on a Knowledge(planes) to identify a demon and it means that your Defense Against the Dark Arts class covered that kind of demon. You roll well on a Ride check and it means that your horse was well behaved that day.
If you roll well on a Bluff to a guard that you are allowed through the castle gate, then it means that you look a lot like the new guy hired by the stables and the guard mistook you for him.
The guard gets an opposed Sense Motive check and your penalty is -5 for unlikely. You don't act like a stable hand, so the guard thinks twice, "Oh yeah, the new stable hand. Wait, that fancy cloak?" But your own skill ranks are added in, so you follow up, "Yeah, the stable hand. I was out at a party in town, so I dressed up."
For a character with a +15 to bluff, he sizes up the guard before the fellow says a word. The guard's expression says that he recognizes a face. The guard does not snap to attention. so he does not recognize someone important. Therefore, he has mistaken the character for a servant. Time to act like a servant. Perhaps the character did a little research, asking around town and listening to the guard from out of sight. "G' morning, Corporal Frank, sir." On a poor roll, the character does not look like anyone in the castle, but he is certainly acting like someone in the castle and that might be enough to fool Corporal Frank when he is inattentive.
It's a GM's call thing. I'm running a campaign right now with a player who specializes in bluff, and my ruling is that he can't just roll a bluff check. He has to actually role-play out telling a convincing story. If he can do that, I let him make the check. If not, I don't even let him try. So far it's worked out well, it rewards role play and prevents ridiculous situations.One of the main points of role playing games is to play a character that has skills and abilities you lack. What happens when someone without good social skills wants to play a charismatic social manipulator? Do you make someone who wants to climb a wall or use acrobatics perform similarly?
Requiring them to role play the situation is fine, but only allowing them to roll if they succeed in a skill they may not have is in my opinion poor role playing. What I do is to have them state what they are saying and then let them roll. If they succeed at the role that alone determines if they succeed. I adjust what they actually say depending on how well they succeed. A character should not get the benefits of a player’s skill. People complain when a player uses out of character knowledge so why is this any different.
A successful bluff without a convincing story looks like mind control. But it does not have to be the player who invents the convincing story. The GM can do it instead, with a simple line like, "Oh yeah, the new stable hand."
"Your highness, we're on a mission from the gods. We urgently need two hundred thousand gold pieces to buy some items that are needed to save the world. Please hand over the contents of your treasury. We'll pay you back."
(Note that in an RPG universe this is not an 'impossible' story.)
Another reason the table should have said, "Unbelievable" rather than "Impossible." I would give it a -30 for unbelievable and outrageous. And the king would have +10 to Sense Motive, because that fits his kingly duties. But the party spokesman had a +25. If the king rolled a 2 and the spokesman rolled a 20, then the spokesman's 15 beats the king's 12. The king's 12 means that his grandfather had once given aid to an adventuring party that saved the kingdom, and the king had loved that story. The spokesman's 15 means that the spokesman instructed the party to act like people driven by mission rather than people out to steal, and had the perfect tone of urgency in his voice, and bribed the king's personal cleric to warn the king that the gods had a message for him.
@Mathmuse
If there is one thing this thread proves is that everyone rules a different way , still i would never rule the that the modifiers are cumulative , since either a lie is one or the other , not both , which to me atleast makes no sense at all.
Still , first time i saw someone that adds them together , interesting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Mathmuse
If there is one thing this thread proves is that everyone rules a different way , still i would never rule the that the modifiers are cumulative , since either a lie is one or the other , not both , which to me atleast makes no sense at all.
Still , first time i saw someone that adds them together , interesting.
I had not meant to argue that they are cumulative, but the +5 for being drunk and the +X for possessing convincing proof appear to be cumulative with the others.
Instead, I wished to argue that -20 is not the maximum penalty. Why should all "impossible" bluffs have the same DC? That would be like giving the same DC for the Acrobatics check to leap a chasm, without asking how wide the chasm is. Bluffing to the king that you are sent by the gods could have a –20 penalty, but adding that the gods say that he must give the party two hundred thousand gold pieces would surely increase the penalty.
Cumulative modifiers could be a way to do that. If you tell an unlikely story (–10 penalty) that the listener wants to believe (+5 bonus), then adding them together to give a –5 penalty seems reasonable. I could make a more detailed list as a house rule.
Consequences
The target wants to believe the lie: "She loves you." +5
The target is indifferent to the lie: "We are merchants." +0
The target wants to disbelieve the lie: "Your brother is a criminal." –5
Believing the lie could cost the target greatly: "We are permitted through the door you guard." –10
Plausibility
The lie is usually true: "No-one broke into the vault." +5
The lie is believable: "This bottle is fine Andoran wine." +0
The lie is unlikely: "I am selling the wine for half price." –5
The lie is far-fetched: "We are the new guards and sent to relieve you." –10
The lie is unbelievable: "I am the king's brother, Prince John." –20
The lie is fantastical: "You are the true prince, kidnapped at birth." –30
Verification
You offer no evidence: "The thief got away, but I recognized him as George." +0
You offer weak fake evidence: "This ring slipped off his hand. It looks like the one George wears." +5
You offer convincing fake evidence: "See, the ring is inscribed, 'To George from Elspeth'." +10
You ask the target to not verify your statements: "No, don't ask your commanding officer." –5
Evidence that the lie is false is in plain sight: "I am not wearing armor." –20
Chance for Thought
The target is alert: +0
The target is inattentive: +2
The target is drunk or impaired: +5
The target has a day to think about the lie: –5
Pick one modifier from each category and add the four modifiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me in a world where magic works and then throw some magic spell in there with the talking, and I'll peck the ground for seed like anyone else.But just talking?
Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
And no amount of Bluff skill can achieve something like that.
If you don't start out with something believable, you auto-fail. Period. Because you just can't talk anyone into believing something that is obviously not true unless for some reason they WANT to believe the untruth (in which case, you're really just permitting them to believe what they want to believe). All other cases of OBVIOUS untruth are auto-fail.
Fair enough, but don't get upset if you're sleeping and you make a 36 perception check to hear the ninja about to kill you and your GM says "Nope, hearing a Ninja while you're sleeping in impossible, so you're dead"
Heck while we're add it, don't get mad when the GM tells you can't shoot 4 arrows a round because that's impossible. You can't use your Manyshot feat because any kind of accuracy with two arrows on a string is impossible. Two-Weapon fighting is pretty much impossible too. Gee what a boring game.
don't get upset if you're sleeping and you make a 36 perception check to hear the ninja about to kill you and your GM says "Nope, hearing a Ninja while you're sleeping in impossible, so you're dead"
I wouldn't be upset at all if the GM rolls the ninja's Stealth check and beats my 36.
I would be upset if the GM just makes up rules that hearing ninjas is impossible.
Heck while we're add it, don't get mad when the GM tells you can't shoot 4 arrows a round because that's impossible. You can't use your Manyshot feat because any kind of accuracy with two arrows on a string is impossible. Two-Weapon fighting is pretty much impossible too. Gee what a boring game.
I would be totally justified in being upset if the GM just makes up rules like that for no reason. Besides, two-weapon fighting is possible, I've got trophies and medals to prove it.
I like the game's rules and try to play by them. I even accept houserules, when they're practical. Heck, I even accept impractical houserules as long as they're fun and justifiable.
But your straw-man was pretty thin. There's a difference between my posts about a simple, everyman skill that every commoner in the game can do, and magic. I tried to show the difference with examples. There's a difference between my examples and you're straw-men: in my examples, I FOLLOW the rules. In your straw-men, your straw-GM BREAKS the rules.
That's quite a difference indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make sense to think Bluff lets you to create basically an unlimited level of effect, if your bonus is high enough.
A 20th level fighter cannot punch the moon out of the sky. That is beyond what can be done, with any BAB, with any combination of normal feats.
There are, likewise, things Bluff cannot do. But rather than being rated in hit points, the things are rated in the GM's estimation of how difficult something is, anywhere from -1 to -20 to "not going to happen." And even successful results only convince the target of one thing. A high enough Bluff doesn't automatically cause someone to rethink their whole life to believe a lie, although they might if that's the easiest way to deal with conflicting and difficult beliefs.
Let's say you wan to jump 20 feet in the air and balance on a pillar ice. First, you have to make the jump check, and then the balance check. And if it's in the middle of a hurricane, you can't do it with normal abilities, there is no check result high enough. Bluff is no different. It's like that first check to jump up on that pillar of ice; Intimidate or Diplomacy is like the balance check. And trying to convince someone of something that does not fit the context even in the most outrageous interpretation is like a hurricane.
If you want skill beyond skill - not just improbable or real world impossible results, but things qualitatively beyond what a normal skill result can do - that's what skill unlocks, feats, and other options are for. Breaking an Olympic high jump record by half again is "impossible" but it's quantified by the rules.
Convincing someone of something fairly ridiculous is quantified by the rules. Convincing them of something that contradicts their entire sensory and mental experience, is easily negated, and requires not just believing one lie but a whole series of supporting beliefs, is not going to work. You might be able to convince someone they are a polymorphed chicken whose memories have been modified. Maybe. You will not be able to convince them that they were better off as a chicken, or that they currently have the mind of a chicken, or that they have feathers.
@Mathmure
Hum i guess it is because the chasm probably dont get an opposed check against your jump.
Bluff isnt really so much about DC as much as it is about your opponents sense motive , which enters the equation about the difficulty of the check from the other side.
Telling an impossible lie to a king is much harder than to a peasent because , even if both would only give you a -20 , the king has a much better sense motive roll than the peasent or atleast he should.
So really , they dont have the same DC.
|
Yes, Bluff is poorly written. All lies are impossible, because falsehoods are events that didn't happen. The table's -20 modifier should have said "unbelievable."
I agree it's poorly written, but the -20 for impossible lies (i.e., lies that have no chance of being possible; the difference between "you are currently dancing" and "I saw you dancing"). The problem with the ruling is that it goes from -20 to -∞, like you say right after this.
And the player should roll five over the target number for the listener to not want to try to verify.
Should be higher than that. A lie, unless woven to a degree that's hard to comprehend, doesn't subvert the target's basic cognitive abilities.
Let's say you want to jump 20 feet in the air and balance on a pillar ice. First, you have to make the jump check, and then the balance check. And if it's in the middle of a hurricane, you can't do it with normal abilities, there is no check result high enough.
Disagree. A bluff check that causes an army to surrender, or the king to give you his entire treasury, or the evil wizard to abandon his world-threatening plot, on the strength of a single dice roll? That's potentially game-breaking and a good GM should be very cautious about allowing it.
A Monk rolling 45 on an Acrobatics check and doing something awesome? I'm OK with that.
Let's say you want to jump 20 feet in the air and balance on a pillar ice. First, you have to make the jump check, and then the balance check. And if it's in the middle of a hurricane, you can't do it with normal abilities, there is no check result high enough.Disagree. A bluff check that causes an army to surrender, or the king to give you his entire treasury, or the evil wizard to abandon his world-threatening plot, on the strength of a single dice roll? That's potentially game-breaking and a good GM should be very cautious about allowing it.
A Monk rolling 45 on an Acrobatics check and doing something awesome? I'm OK with that.
Bluff does say the GM is the judge if something is impossible to be done and even then , diplomacy/intimidation is what convinces people to do something that the PCs want , not bluff , while maybe a very specific lie might not require it.
In the acrobatics case i think it is easier , because there are numbers that directly tell you what can be done.
For example a Monk that rolls a 45 , still isnt going to reach a guy 15/20 fts from the ground and the book provides the numbers for it.
I would be upset if the GM just makes up rules that hearing ninjas is impossible.
You mean like saying Bluff doesn't say the target believes what you say is true?
But your straw-man was pretty thin. There's a difference between my posts about a simple, everyman skill that every commoner in the game can do, and magic. I tried to show the difference with examples. There's a difference between my examples and you're straw-men: in my examples, I FOLLOW the rules. In your straw-men, your straw-GM BREAKS the rules.
That's quite a difference indeed.
Please, I am so sick of people on these forums not knowing what a logical fallacy is. In order for my statements to be a Straw-man, I would have had to say that your argument is X, and then attack X. Since I did not say your argument is X, and I did not attack your position as if it were X, it is not a straw man.
Here's something you refuse to wrap your mind around: Skills in Pathfinder can do unbelievable things. Last weekend I saw a monk roll a 100 on his acrobatics check to jump (with Haste and a Ki point). If this happened in your game, would you allow the monk to leap 100'? This is absolutely impossible to do in real life. Do you allow someone with a 35 perception to hear a bow being drawn through a 1 foot thick wall? I assume the answer is yes since it's in the rules. If you allow those skills to do unbelievable things, why do you limit Bluff to only what you believe is possible? Did you see the movie Dogma? Matt Daimon convinces a Catholic Nun that there is no God using just words in a short conversation in an airport. If you allow all these other action movie actions, like using two weapons offensively at the same time, or shooting 5 arrows a turn, or doing a standing jump of 100', why can't Bluff be used the same way?
EDIT: Oh and if your commoners can beat a 30 DC Bluff check, I'm pretty sure Bluff isn't the problem.
A bluff check that causes an army to surrender, or the king to give you his entire treasury, or the evil wizard to abandon his world-threatening plot, on the strength of a single dice roll? That's potentially game-breaking and a good GM should be very cautious about allowing it.
If you have similar reservations about the entire school of Enchantment, then your stance is logical and internally-consistent, and I'm totally with you. But if not, then your stance is that we should be playing Ars Magica, rather than some derivative of D&D, which is something I can't agree with.
A bluff check that causes an army to surrender, or the king to give you his entire treasury, or the evil wizard to abandon his world-threatening plot, on the strength of a single dice roll? That's potentially game-breaking and a good GM should be very cautious about allowing it.If you have similar reservations about the entire school of Enchantment, then your stance is logical and internally-consistent, and I'm totally with you. But if not, then your stance is that we should be playing Ars Magica, rather than some derivative of D&D, which is something I can't agree with.
I do have those reservations. Generally speaking, though, you can't cast Charm Person on an army, and the boss enemy is more likely to have Spell Resistance, Mind Blank, Protection From Good, or a huge Will Save than Sense Motive +40. And enchantment spells create magical swirly bits that makes it clear you're up to something.
I've seen around three enchantment spells cast by players on living sentient NPCs during my last five campaigns. It's not a big thing in my games.
Please, I am so sick of people on these forums not knowing what a logical fallacy is.
I agree.
In order for my statements to be a Straw-man, I would have had to say that your argument is X, and then attack X. Since I did not say your argument is X, and I did not attack your position as if it were X, it is not a straw man.
Oh dear. The irony is palpable.
Strawman: a sham argument set up to be defeated.
You attempted a reductio ad absurdum, but instead your misrepresented the opposition, skewing their argument and in doing so turning your argument into a strawman.
Edit: I also like how your argument about skills being able to do impossible things is supplemented by haste and a ki point, a magical and a supernatural ability.
~~~
In either case, I agree with the side that says bluff cannot replicate magic.
I've seen around three enchantment spells cast by players on living sentient NPCs during my last five campaigns. It's not a big thing in my games.
The things a properly sinister DM can do with a BBEG enchanter range from obscene to horrifying to apocalyptic.
My reply to that, for a successful bluff to enter a Military Base, watch Real Genius.The problem is that people react very differently to being bluff depending on the situation and what they are being bluffed about.
Military base?
Bluffer - "Sir I forget my ID, the general knows me though and I'm here to bring him his lunch."
MP - "Stand right there and I'll call the general and sort this out. Try to cross into the base and I will shoot you."No amount of bluff should overcome certain scenarios, IMO.
"Look, you make that call and we both lose our jobs. You may be in the private sector someday too..."
I would be upset if the GM just makes up rules that hearing ninjas is impossible.You mean like saying Bluff doesn't say the target believes what you say is true?
I'm pretty sure the underlying assumption is that the person making the Bluff check said something that is believable to begin with.
Why?
Because walking up to a guy and saying "You're a chicken" is not a bluff. At best it's a joke. At worst it's a symptom of insanity (on the part of the speaker). Or just a plain stupidity. But it's definitely not bluff.
You tell a guard "Hey, I'm a friend of the king" and make a Bluff check, he believes what you say is true - because that IS a bluff and subject to a Bluff check and if successful, it does what the Bluff skill says. But if you tell a guard "Hey, you're a chicken", he doesn't believe you. Ever. Because your "bluff" was completely impossible in the first place because that was not even a bluff in the first place.
In short, being insane and rambling about impossibilities like a madman is not a Bluff check at all. No roll required, no chance of success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You may be a friend of the king, but there are processes to follow to gain an audience, and me letting you in is not one of them."
"You may be a friend of the king, but there are processes to follow to gain an audience, and me letting you in is not one of them."
Of course. I did not mean to imply that being a friend to the king is a free pass into his private chambers. I was just saying it's believable so you would get to roll a Bluff check. What happens when the guard believes you is up to the GM.
walking up to a guy and saying "You're a chicken" is not a bluff. At best it's a joke. At worst it's a symptom of insanity (on the part of the speaker). Or just a plain stupidity. But it's definitely not bluff.
This is all true IRL. But in a world rife with polymorph spells? Not so much.
You could fairly easily bluff a guy IRL that the NSA is eavesdropping on his conversations. 200 years ago, that would have been considered as outlandish as telling him he's a chicken.
So, if your attitude is "magic can do anything in Pathfinder, and I'm OK with that!", OK. But if that's the case, keep that consistent. It strains credibility when magic can do everything unless you mention it or try to make use of that fact, at which point it suddenly ceases to exist.
walking up to a guy and saying "You're a chicken" is not a bluff. At best it's a joke. At worst it's a symptom of insanity (on the part of the speaker). Or just a plain stupidity. But it's definitely not bluff.This is all true IRL. But in a world rife with polymorph spells? Not so much.
You could fairly easily bluff a guy IRL that the NSA is eavesdropping on his conversations. 200 years ago, that would have been considered as outlandish as telling him he's a chicken.
So, if your attitude is "magic can do anything in Pathfinder, and I'm OK with that!", OK. But if that's the case, keep that consistent. It strains credibility when magic can do everything unless you mention it or try to make use of that fact, at which point it suddenly ceases to exist.
Except Bluff is not a Polymorph spell. It's not any spell at all. It's an Everyman skill. Some are better than others, but it's still just a skill that anyone, everyone, can do.
Magical spells are a little more special than that.
I've never envisioned a fantasy world where ordinary, even extraordinary, people can use basic skills to accomplish what can be done with magic. Aragorn cannot Bluff Saruman into releasing his domination over King Theodin, but Gandalf can do it magically. Harry Potter's muggle uncle cannot Bluff the Demontors into leaving him alone, but Harry Potter can do it magically. Young Luke Skywalker could not Bluff the storm troopers that these are not the droids they're looking for, but Obi Wan could do it with magic (the Force) - and once Luke started learning how to use the Force, he learned how to do that too.
Etc.
I know you have your Kirthfinder house rules where martial characters do stuff that looks and behaves a lot like magic. Those are house rules, and that's a fun way to play. But that's not how stuff works in Pathfinder (which I"m sure is why you made all your rules in the first place).
Skills are not magic. Far from it. Saying that an Everyman skill should be as awesome as Polymorph (or at least implying it) is irrelevant to what Pathfinder's design actually is.
Edit: I also like how your argument about skills being able to do impossible things is supplemented by haste and a ki point, a magical and a supernatural ability.
I also like how you ignored every other post I made and only concentrated on the one time I used Haste and a Ki point. Nothing to say about perception then hmm?
Okay, my monk alone has a 30 Acrobatics. He's level 11 so has a 60 move speed. that gives him a 42 jump without a single bit of magic or Ki at all. that means he can, without any type of running start, just straight up 10', and that's assuming he rolls a 1 on the d20. It also means that he can, again with no running start just stand in one spot swing his arms and leap 43 feet, or 40 feet in game terms, on a roll of 1 on the d20. So without magic or supernatural ability, or even a running start, I can destroy the world's record for long jump by 10' on a 1. Make it an average roll, and I beat it by 20'. Take out his extra movement and he still beats the world record by 1 foot, again without a running start, and just for the record, the longest standing long jump is 11'. But okay that's a monk, he's mystical. So let's take a Rogue with a 30 Acrobatics. Roll a 1 and he beats the world's record by 4 feet. Average roll (10)he beats it by 9 (for a standing long jump).
Or we can go back to perception if you wish.
I'll spoiler the Logical Fallacy argument, and your incorrect use of irony (which actually is ironic) so as not to further derail.
I suppose an argument could be made that my statements were argumentum ad absurdum, but it would be a stretch. His argument is that Bluff should be limited to what is plausible. My counter is that there is a lot in this game that is not plausible, which he accepts, so why should Bluff be judged by separate standards, and I gave examples of the implausible things that people accept. You would have to make a case as to why judging Bluff on the same scale as those other abilities is absurd, and that doesn't seem likely.
I'm pretty sure the underlying assumption is that the person making the Bluff check said something that is believable to begin with.
Why?
Because walking up to a guy and saying "You're a chicken" is not a bluff. At best it's a joke. At worst it's a symptom of insanity (on the part of the speaker). Or just a plain stupidity. But it's definitely not bluff.
You tell a guard "Hey, I'm a friend of the king" and make a Bluff check, he believes what you say is true - because that IS a bluff and subject to a Bluff check and if successful, it does what the Bluff skill says. But if you tell a guard "Hey, you're a chicken", he doesn't believe you. Ever. Because your "bluff" was completely impossible in the first place because that was not even a bluff in the first place.
In short, being insane and rambling about impossibilities like a madman is not a Bluff check at all. No roll required, no chance of success.
No argument from me here at all. The skill even says if the lie is intricate it takes longer. I use Diplomacy as an example. When you use Diplomacy to change an attitude it takes at least a minute. Using that scale, to take a lie and make it a fact in that person's mind you have to go though several steps depending on how far from fact it would be to that person. "The sky is purple" is pretty far from fact, so I wouldn't be opposed if a GM said it took 10 minutes or longer.
I am not required to respond to every single post you have made for any reason. Irrelevant.
Your assumption is wrong. You made a strawman argument by misrepresenting the opposition. You clearly don't understand what the definition is despite having the quote here. Either that or you fail to realize why your post was, in fact, a strawman, which is a failure of language comprehension either way. Apparently you don't even understand the definition of ironic. I'm amazed that you argue about complicated language issues when you fail to comprehend the meaning of words.
But this entire argument is pointless and adds nothing to the thread topic, just like the majority of the rest of your posts, and I will not respond to meaningless and incindiery comments. Good day.
I've never envisioned a fantasy world where ordinary, even extraordinary, people can use basic skills to accomplish what can be done with magic. Aragorn cannot Bluff Saruman into releasing his domination over King Theodin, but Gandalf can do it magically. Harry Potter's muggle uncle cannot Bluff the Demontors into leaving him alone, but Harry Potter can do it magically. Young Luke Skywalker could not Bluff the storm troopers that these are not the droids they're looking for, but Obi Wan could do it with magic (the Force) - and once Luke started learning how to use the Force, he learned how to do that too.
On the other hand, in The Hobbit, Gandalf defeats the trolls that captured the dwarves by magical ventriloquism to distract them till sunrise, and in Pathfinder that would involve a Bluff roll. In The Last Unicorn by Peter Beagle the protagonists are captured by a bandit leader who styles himself a modern Robin Hood. His band is disrupted when the wizard Schmendrick conjures an image of Robin Hood himself, but before that glamor the bandit leader's bluff was good enough to keep the band together. In Nine Princes in Amber by Roger Zelazny, amnesiac prince Corwin spends the beginning of the novel bluffing that he has recovered his memory, well enough to elicit useful information out of his siblings. In The Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold, the advisor Cazaril bluffs that he did not summon the Bastard's demon to kill a most evil rival, which is easy for everyone to believe since successfully summoning that demon is well known to be suicide for the caster. In the sequel, Paladin of Souls, when Lady Cattilara uses a minor demon to channel the life from her husband's brother to reanimate her dead husband, she bluffs her husband, his brother, and the result of the castle that the brother was injured rather than her husband.
Extraordinary bluffs have a place in fantasy. Folklore often has the silver-tongued scoundrel who can persuade people into all sorts of foolish actions. Pathfinder could represent that as a bard with a Glibness spell (+20 to Bluff checks to persuade).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except Bluff is not a Polymorph spell. It's not any spell at all. It's an Everyman skill. Some are better than others, but it's still just a skill that anyone, everyone, can do.
...Skills are not magic. Far from it. Saying that an Everyman skill should be as awesome as Polymorph (or at least implying it) is irrelevant to what Pathfinder's design actually is.
Not to speak for anyone too much, but I think you're misunderstanding Kirth's point. He's not saying that Bluff should accomplish what Polymorph would otherwise. He's saying that what's impossible depends on the context of the world.
Imagine you caught me in a compromising situation and threatened to tell my wife. I say I'll just deny it and she'll believe me. You tell me that you have photographic/video evidence. Now, supposing that's not actually true, it's a Bluff.
100 years ago when cameras were bulky and slow, that would have been outlandish since I would have seen you take it. Today with small cameras, etc. it's certainly plausible that you have a hidden camera in your hat/button/whatever.
With the example above, Kirth's not saying Bluff could convince you that you have the physical form of a chicken. He's saying that it could convince you that your true form was being a chicken. As long as the peasant believes magic has the power to shift forms and modify memory, that story is possible, if implausible. If he doesn't believe in magic (recent transplant from Earth, for example), it would have a different modifier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except Bluff is not a Polymorph spell.
Please read my post again, and Berinor's, and then get back to me on that.
It's an Everyman skill. Some are better than others, but it's still just a skill that anyone, everyone, can do.
Once you're past 5th level or so (5 ranks), we're way past things that "everyman" people can do, ever. I understand that your falling damage might be a million d6 per inch instead of 1d6 per 10 feet, but that would be a houserule, not Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, a high-level guy can fall a thousand feet onto jagged rocks and get up and keep fighting -- and with enough rest, he can do that on a consistent basis. That's not something "everyman" can just do.
I've never envisioned a fantasy world where ordinary, even extraordinary, people can use basic skills to accomplish what can be done with magic.
I've never envisioned a fantasy world where furries are real, but some people are into that stuff.
Aragorn cannot Bluff Saruman into releasing his domination over King Theodin, but Gandalf can do it magically.
Aragorn is 5th level.
Harry Potter's muggle uncle cannot Bluff the Demontors into leaving him alone, but Harry Potter can do it magically.
Harry Potter's muggle uncle can't use the toilet unaided. And how many fighters does Harry Potter adventure with in his party? Yeah, Ars Magica, not Pathfinder.
I know you have your Kirthfinder house rules where martial characters do stuff that looks and behaves a lot like magic.
In your opinion. To me, having a high-level fighter deduce your location from the way your projected image is positioned, faces, and how it acts, and factoring in lines of sight, is an entirely non-magical consequence of living in a world where other people can project images.
--The substance of your stance is "magic rulez, normal people droolz!" Maybe in your home game, mundane people also roll a % chance to avoid cardiac arrest whenever they jog more than 50 feet, because that's something that might happen to a totally out-of-shape RL person (but not to Gandalf!). There are games for that. But as long as things like the fighter and the rogue and the slayer are still presented as PC classes, Pathfinder isn't one of them. Killing a dragon with a sword is totally unrealistic. Does that mean it can only be done with spells? To you, apparently it does.
You know, you guys have convinced me.
I'll immediately have my wizard replace all his Charm, Dominate, etc. spells with other choices and retrain for a high Bluff skill since it's identical.
I'm also going to add some new skills. A Fireball skill where you can put ranks into causing stuff to explode, a Resurrections skill where you can put ranks into bringing people back from the dead, and a Wish skill where you can put ranks into altering reality. In fact, my new house rules, all spells are just going to be skills - enough skill ranks and even common farmers can be dropping prismatic walls around their fields.
Don't worry, it will still be Pathfinder...
You know, you guys have convinced me.
I'll immediately have my wizard replace all his Charm, Dominate, etc. spells with other choices and retrain for a high Bluff skill since it's identical.
I'm also going to add some new skills. A Fireball skill where you can put ranks into causing stuff to explode, a Resurrections skill where you can put ranks into bringing people back from the dead, and a Wish skill where you can put ranks into altering reality. In fact, my new house rules, all spells are just going to be skills - enough skill ranks and even common farmers can be dropping prismatic walls around their fields.
Don't worry, it will still be Pathfinder...
Can't be worse than 3x. Post results
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also going to add some new skills. A Fireball skill where you can put ranks into causing stuff to explode
In a world with black powder firearms, it's totally unrealistic that someone else could learn to use dynamite? Remind me again how we made all those tunnels for the railroads to go through. Because certainly no one in real life could have any skill at blowing stuff up, except with magic.
a Resurrections skill where you can put ranks into bringing people back from the dead
I'll be sure to let my EMT friends know that their skill doesn't actually exist.
even common farmers can be dropping prismatic walls around their fields
And again, you seem to have no idea what "character level" means.
I'm willing to wager that magic is not a daily occurrence/spectacle for the vast majority of Inner Sea residents. The common citizen knows it exists, but they rarely ever see it in practice, and know little and less about how it all actually works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but I'd give more credence to somebody talking about a flying man if I lived in Smallville, even if I had never seen Superman.
I am not required to respond to every single post you have made for any reason. Irrelevant.
Sure ignore every post that proves you wrong then you'll always be right great plan. o
Your assumption is wrong. You made a strawman argument by misrepresenting the opposition. You clearly don't understand what the definition is despite having the quote here. Either that or you fail to realize why your post was, in fact, a strawman, which is a failure of language comprehension either way. Apparently you don't even understand the definition of ironic. I'm amazed that you argue about complicated language issues when you fail to comprehend the meaning of words.
If you think that was a straw man, I'm not the one who doesn't understand words. If it please explain how what I did is a staw man. I realize you can't, so feel free to ignore this post that proves you wrong too. I made a comparsion. I did not misrrepresent his argument at all. Which brings us back to irony, you attacking my while obviously have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, is very ironic.
But this entire argument is pointless and adds nothing to the thread topic, just like the majority of the rest of your posts, and I will not respond to meaningless and incindiery comments. Good day.
I agree, but I didn't insert myself into your conversation while ignoring the majority of what you said so I could only attack the easy arguments taken out of context of the larger whole. You did that so feel free to climb off your high horse. You came in here just to attack me. You went after the only comment I made that you could attack and went for it. Don't sit there and try to pretend I'm the one being the ass.
I'm willing to wager that magic is not a daily occurrence/spectacle for the vast majority of Inner Sea residents. The common citizen knows it exists, but they rarely ever see it in practice, and know little and less about how it all actually works.
Dunno , personally i dont think it would be that hard to find an adept using magic on the village square/temple from time to time to heal those hurt during work or stuff like that.
And lets be fair , in our world , where there is no magic we have tons of different medias where we talk about it , now imagine in a world where there is actually magic.
Even if people dont know exactly what magic can do (maybe even more because they dont know) , just imagine the stories they share about it and what it can do.
You went after the only comment I made that you could attack and went for it. Don't sit there and try to pretend I'm the one being the ass.
Unfortunately, that's what these forums have become. Or at least, that's often what the "debate" threads devolve into.
Too many posters seem to feel that the best way to "win" their position is to target the "opposition" posters in an attempt to discredit the person, or at least to discredit a large well-stated post by targeting the weakest sentence.
I miss the old days when people posted rules quotes (I always try to do that, at least when answering a rules question) and then simply discussed how they interpreted the rule. There were few lame attempts to destroy a post by undermining one sentence and even fewer personal attacks.
I miss those days...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, you guys have convinced me.
I'll immediately have my wizard replace all his Charm, Dominate, etc. spells with other choices and retrain for a high Bluff skill since it's identical.
I'm also going to add some new skills. A Fireball skill where you can put ranks into causing stuff to explode, a Resurrections skill where you can put ranks into bringing people back from the dead, and a Wish skill where you can put ranks into altering reality. In fact, my new house rules, all spells are just going to be skills - enough skill ranks and even common farmers can be dropping prismatic walls around their fields.
Don't worry, it will still be Pathfinder...
Without social cues, I can't tell whether this is friendly snark or passive-aggressive sarcasm. I'm going to run with the former because it makes me happier to think that. :-)
They're not the same as spells, but extraordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things without magic. Han Solo might not have been able to exert his will about the droids in the same way as Obi Wan, but I have no doubt that Indiana Jones could sometimes convince some Nazis that it's not worth their time to inspect his cargo. Heck, I bet Han could do that, too. It might take a bribe. It might take Diplomacy instead of Bluff. But it could happen.
There's also a lot of space between Dominate and what could be convincing in the real world where exceptional Bluff skills can live. They both have their place. Heck, even charm spells can make someone do something against their nature, which is beyond what Bluff can do in most considerations here.
But the recent conversation between you and Kirth has really just been about where the line of impossible lies and to keep in mind that real-world assumptions aren't all valid on Golarion.
And since I saw that last post a moment ago, the reason why I'm focusing on that part of your post isn't because I'm trying to exploit a weakness and hence show your entire line of reasoning to be false. It's because I agree with 80-90% of what you're saying and think if you examine the points of disagreement we'll either see a fundamental difference (interesting) or reach a consensus (constructive).
Edit: Also, I'm aware that as the first person to bring up Nazis, I lose the thread on account of Godwin's Law. :-(
You know, you guys have convinced me.
I'll immediately have my wizard replace all his Charm, Dominate, etc. spells with other choices and retrain for a high Bluff skill since it's identical.
If Bluff were a mind-controlling effect, then that course of action would make perfect sense. Charm Person could be replaced by a good bluff that "I am your best friend." Suggestion would be, "You really want to do this!" Dominate Person would be, "You are my slave and utterly fear the consquences if you ever disobey me."
Thus, we need to establish why Bluff is not mind control. It should not have the power of a magical spell, not even at high skill ranks. On the other hand, we don't want to nerf Bluff to the point where the bluffs from fantasy stories cannot be replicated. "I am your best friend," should be ridiculous as a bluff; on the other hand, "Your friend Ezekiel could not make it here. He hired me to help you," should be entirely possible as a way of gaining the trust of a stranger.
You know, you guys have convinced me.
I'll immediately have my wizard replace all his Charm, Dominate, etc. spells with other choices and retrain for a high Bluff skill since it's identical.
If Bluff were a mind-controlling effect, then that course of action would make perfect sense. Charm Person could be replaced by a good bluff that "I am your best friend." Suggestion would be, "You really want to do this!" Dominate Person would be, "You are my slave and utterly fear the consquences if you ever disobey me."
Thus, we need to establish why Bluff is not mind control. It should not have the power of a magical spell, not even at high skill ranks. On the other hand, we don't want to nerf Bluff to the point where the bluffs from fantasy stories cannot be replicated. "I am your best friend," should be ridiculous as a bluff; on the other hand, "Your friend Ezekiel could not make it here. He hired me to help you," should be entirely possible as a way of gaining the trust of a stranger.
But there are people who think you should be able to say "I am your best friend" then roll a successful Bluff check, and Presto!, you are the guy's best friend. Period.
They talk about it requiring Bluff skills in the "30 to 40 range" but all the Bluff rule says is you need to beat his opposed Sense Motive check. So a farmer with ZERO bluff ranks can convince his neighbor farmer with ZERO Sense Motive ranks that they're best friends about 50% of the time. And apparently he can convince the neighboring farmer that he's a chicken, about 50% of the time.
Harder to do that on a king (as somebody said kings should have higher skill ranks). Maybe. So that zero-rank farmer has a hard time, but a level 3 rogue with a decent CHA and 3 skill ranks might pull it off. Presto! The king is a chicken. Or at least, he believes he is. Thank you, skill ranks!
"You should and totally can kill that dragon over there!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy charges into battle with that dragon and dies because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
"You should and totally can let me into the king's private chambers!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy lets you in because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
"You should and totally can safely walk off this Grand Canyon cliff!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy walks off the cliff and falls to his death because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
"You should and totally can stop fighting me and give me all your stuff!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy stops fighting and gives you all his stuff because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
"You are a chicken!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy starts clucking and pecking the ground for seeds and gurbs because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
"You don't exist!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy disintegrates right before your eyes because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
Etc.
Nonsense.
Which means that I agree with you, Mathmuse, there must be limits. Fortunately, there is a GM who can evaluate this on a case-by-case basis and tell players "No, that kind of nonsense bluff will never work.". Unfortunately, it appears some GMs don't do that (but maybe that's not unfortunate at their gaming table if their players like to play it that way).
I'm willing to wager that magic is not a daily occurrence/spectacle for the vast majority of Inner Sea residents. The common citizen knows it exists, but they rarely ever see it in practice, and know little and less about how it all actually works.Dunno, personally I dont think it would be that hard to find an adept using magic on the village square/temple from time to time to heal those hurt during work or stuff like that.
And lets be fair, in our world, where there is no magic we have tons of different medias where we talk about it, now imagine in a world where there is actually magic.
Now, imagine a world without phones, or internet, television, or any real form of efficient, long range communication. Cities and towns and villages are largely going to be isolated from one another. News and stories travel painfully slowly, often taking several generations to spawn a half-true legend.
Sure, a farmer might know about the adept at his local temple, and the minor wonders that the acolyte can perform. That's not a real understanding of magic though. It's like knowing your mechanic can fix your car, but you don't know how he does it; you can't even name the tools he uses.
In the end, it's just something the farmer knows the temple acolyte can do. His understanding of magic, if any, will still be woefully limited (if not non-existent) due to his lack of real exposure to magic.
As always, the situation can vary (people from Cheliax, Geb, or similar high-magic nations are likely painfully aware)--I'm merely speaking in general. Nations like those tend to be the exception, not the norm.
"You should and totally can kill that dragon over there!" Bluff check. Presto! The guy charges into battle with that dragon and dies because the Bluff rule says "On a successful check the target believes what you say".
Gee -- it almost sounds as if you'd prefer to have Bluff act like a charm person spell instead, which has all kinds of rules about not being able to make the target do anything self-destructive, and penalties if there's combat, and so on... but then Bluff would be like a spell, and we can't have that now, can we?
Or, if you want to back away from the spell/skill false dichotomy, and replace that with the stance that skills should have more robust rules for their effects and limitations, I'm all ears.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are people who think you should be able to say "I am your best friend" then roll a successful Bluff check, and Presto!, you are the guy's best friend. Period.
They talk about it requiring Bluff skills in the "30 to 40 range" but all the Bluff rule says is you need to beat his opposed Sense Motive check. So a farmer with ZERO bluff ranks can convince his neighbor farmer with ZERO Sense Motive ranks that they're best friends about 50% of the time. And apparently he can convince the neighboring farmer that he's a chicken, about 50% of the time.
Those aren't the same people now disagreeing with you. First, those bluff skills should be presumably interpreted as what they'd need opposed by someone without exceptional Sense Motive. So those should be taken as the penalties to the Bluff roll. So your statements of 50% aren't really fair.
As for the other things, if there's incontrovertible evidence to the contrary (from the target's perspective), the lie becomes either much harder or impossible depending on the GM's perspective. I would include in that story if it's impossible in the real world and they don't know how to fill in the gaps. That's why the chicken example changed from "you are a chicken" to "you are a chicken who was polymorphed and mind wiped". If the target doesn't believe magic can do those things, he won't believe you. If you add to the lie convincing them, that becomes more fantastic and therefore harder.
|
PRD has these words right in the description of the skill
"Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
So making stuff up that is totally crazy will not work. Also remember bluff only allows you to convince the NPC that something is true...it does not allow you to control what the NPC does with the information.
Example, the PC may bluff the guards into believing that he had nothing to do with the murder. So the guard can not detain him, that does not mean that he would not report him being at scene. If his name is in the report I am sure some one else might look into it.
|
Those aren't the same people now disagreeing with you. First, those bluff skills should be presumably interpreted as what they'd need opposed by someone without exceptional Sense Motive. So those should be taken as the penalties to the Bluff roll. So your statements of 50% aren't really fair.
But there are people who think you should be able to say "I am your best friend" then roll a successful Bluff check, and Presto!, you are the guy's best friend. Period.
They talk about it requiring Bluff skills in the "30 to 40 range" but all the Bluff rule says is you need to beat his opposed Sense Motive check. So a farmer with ZERO bluff ranks can convince his neighbor farmer with ZERO Sense Motive ranks that they're best friends about 50% of the time. And apparently he can convince the neighboring farmer that he's a chicken, about 50% of the time.
Indeed - even with the example in the skill's description of -20 for such a crazy Bluff, it becomes impossible to convince someone of it when their Sense Motive is equal to your Bluff. (if you roll 20 and they roll 1, it would still fail with a -20 penalty)
And the lie would have to be a bit better - something along the lines of "I'm really your best friend, but an enchanter messed with your memories so that you don't remember anything about me." I might even give that more than a -20; but definitely possible.
That's why the chicken example changed from "you are a chicken" to "you are a chicken who was polymorphed and mind wiped". If the target doesn't believe magic can do those things, he won't believe you. If you add to the lie convincing them, that becomes more fantastic and therefore harder.
Ha! Reminds me of this - Glibness bluff example
"You're actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby."
"Screw this guard stuff, then. I'm gonna go find a wizard to polymorph me back."
But there are people who think you should be able to say "I am your best friend" then roll a successful Bluff check, and Presto!, you are the guy's best friend. Period.
They talk about it requiring Bluff skills in the "30 to 40 range" but all the Bluff rule says is you need to beat his opposed Sense Motive check. So a farmer with ZERO bluff ranks can convince his neighbor farmer with ZERO Sense Motive ranks that they're best friends about 50% of the time. And apparently he can convince the neighboring farmer that he's a chicken, about 50% of the time.
Those aren't the same people now disagreeing with you. First, those bluff skills should be presumably interpreted as what they'd need opposed by someone without exceptional Sense Motive. So those should be taken as the penalties to the Bluff roll. So your statements of 50% aren't really fair.
As for the other things, if there's incontrovertible evidence to the contrary (from the target's perspective), the lie becomes either much harder or impossible depending on the GM's perspective. I would include in that story if it's impossible in the real world and they don't know how to fill in the gaps. That's why the chicken example changed from "you are a chicken" to "you are a chicken who was polymorphed and mind wiped". If the target doesn't believe magic can do those things, he won't believe you. If you add to the lie convincing them, that becomes more fantastic and therefore harder.
Also, even if you're fully convinced something is impossible, a successful Bluff check should at least convince the listener that the Bluffer honestly believes in what he said.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, even if you're fully convinced something is impossible, a successful Bluff check should at least convince the listener that the Bluffer honestly believes in what he said.But there are people who think you should be able to say "I am your best friend" then roll a successful Bluff check, and Presto!, you are the guy's best friend. Period.
They talk about it requiring Bluff skills in the "30 to 40 range" but all the Bluff rule says is you need to beat his opposed Sense Motive check. So a farmer with ZERO bluff ranks can convince his neighbor farmer with ZERO Sense Motive ranks that they're best friends about 50% of the time. And apparently he can convince the neighboring farmer that he's a chicken, about 50% of the time.
Those aren't the same people now disagreeing with you. First, those bluff skills should be presumably interpreted as what they'd need opposed by someone without exceptional Sense Motive. So those should be taken as the penalties to the Bluff roll. So your statements of 50% aren't really fair.
As for the other things, if there's incontrovertible evidence to the contrary (from the target's perspective), the lie becomes either much harder or impossible depending on the GM's perspective. I would include in that story if it's impossible in the real world and they don't know how to fill in the gaps. That's why the chicken example changed from "you are a chicken" to "you are a chicken who was polymorphed and mind wiped". If the target doesn't believe magic can do those things, he won't believe you. If you add to the lie convincing them, that becomes more fantastic and therefore harder.
Yup, I agree with Lemmy. This came up at the office with respect to intrigue games that have lots of Bluff, and the consensus was that the successful Bluff check at least means the NPC thinks you genuinely believe what you're saying, even if they might have other reasons to think that you are mistaken (like maybe someone else just Bluffed them with something contradictory to your Bluff and rolled even higher!)
|
|
Yup, I agree with Lemmy. This came up at the office with respect to intrigue games that have lots of Bluff, and the consensus was that the successful Bluff check at least means the NPC thinks you genuinely believe what you're saying, even if they might have other reasons to think that you are mistaken (like maybe someone else just Bluffed them with something contradictory to your Bluff and rolled even higher!)
I am curious now - how does that mesh with the "Convincing Lie" rogue talent?
After all - the person that you successfully bluff DO believe it - and they don't even have to make a bluff check to make others believe such.
I thought that the entire point of the talent is that it more ably lets them ACTUALLY CONVINCE people of the lie. They don't have to convince people that they believe the lie - because they do.
I am curious now - how does that mesh with the "Convincing Lie" rogue talent?
After all - the person that you successfully bluff DO believe it - and they don't even have to make a bluff check to make others believe such.
I thought that the entire point of the talent is that it more ably lets them ACTUALLY CONVINCE people of the lie. They don't have to convince people that they believe the lie - because they do.
Shhhh...
Much like Rumormonger, that Rogue Talent is best left forgotten.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, I agree with Lemmy. This came up at the office with respect to intrigue games that have lots of Bluff, and the consensus was that the successful Bluff check at least means the NPC thinks you genuinely believe what you're saying, even if they might have other reasons to think that you are mistaken (like maybe someone else just Bluffed them with something contradictory to your Bluff and rolled even higher!)I am curious now - how does that mesh with the "Convincing Lie" rogue talent?
After all - the person that you successfully bluff DO believe it - and they don't even have to make a bluff check to make others believe such.
I thought that the entire point of the talent is that it more ably lets them ACTUALLY CONVINCE people of the lie. They don't have to convince people that they believe the lie - because they do.
This also came up. I'll try to describe it as something roughly like this (with adjudication to make it less mechanistic, of course):
Original Liar/High Bluff/No Contradiction: Target believes.
Original Liar/Low Bluff/No Contradiction: Target realizes it's a lie.
Original Liar/High Bluff/Contradiction: Target thinks you are mistaken (though may now just become unsure between two alternatives, etc).
Original Liar/Low Bluff/Contradiction: Target realizes it's a lie.
First target who is spreading the lie and has low bluff/No Rogue Talent/No Contradiction: New target thinks first target is mistaken.
First target who is spreading the lie and has low bluff/Yes Rogue Talent/No Contradiction: New target believes.
First target who is spreading the lie and has low bluff/No Rogue Talent/Contradiction: New target thinks first target is mistaken.
First target who is spreading the lie and has low bluff/Yes Rogue Talent/Contradiction: New target thinks first target is mistaken (though may now just become unsure between two alternatives, etc).