"Take 1" on skills, checks, etc.

[ChucklesMcTruck]

This is probably a very bizarre question, but I could not find anything in the rules, so here we are.

Suppose you genuinely wanted to fail a check -- that is to say a lower roll would be a more beneficial option to you, even though practically speaking it would still be considered a failure by all other means.

Is there any way you can choose to "take 1" for an automatic failure, in the same vein as take 10 or take 20? Or are you forced to actually roll the dice?

[RainyDayNinja]

Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that.

[David knott 242]

Since you are not attempting to succeed at the skill, there is no reason to make the skill check at all. Maybe you should be making a Bluff check to convincingly pretend that you actually tried to make the check?

[Buri Reborn]

I don't see why you can't simply declare that you're going to flub on the attempt. Is this a charm or compulsion scenario?

[ChucklesMcTruck]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that.

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

Or, say you're using the Awaken Construct spell on an animated object, but you don't want it to become too smart so it's easier to control. You "take 1" on all the ability rolls and end up with an INT 3 and a CHA 3, which is better for your particular plans.

And so forth. I could probably think of half a dozen other examples but you get the idea.

[Thanis Kartaleon]

Also, a 1 is not an automatic failure with skills - only attack rolls and saving throws. Add your modifier and total the result.

If this is for an Acrobatics roll to jump, you don't shoot past your target if you get a great success. Just say how far you are trying to jump before you roll. Meet or exceed the DC and you jump just as far as you wanted, no farther.

[RainyDayNinja]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that.

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

Or, say you're using the Awaken Contruct spell on an animated object, but you don't want it to become too smart so it's easier to control. You "take 1" on all the ability rolls and end up with an INT 3 and a CHA 3, which is better for your particular plans.

And so forth. I could probably think of half a dozen other examples but you get the idea.

Your first example would be a bluff check, to pretend you don't know what you're doing.

The second example isn't a skill; it's a random quantity, similar to rolling damage on a fireball. You can't choose the value.

[ChucklesMcTruck]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Your first example would be a bluff check, to pretend you don't know what you're doing.

That seems... weirdly broken. Technically that means at any point you could roll a Bluff check to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you are, fail that, and end up proving you're a genius. Mind you, since the skill itself isn't involved you don't necessarily need to be good at it in the first place. With a low enough Bluff score you could easily convince everyone you're a polymath.

RainyDayNinja wrote:

The second example isn't a skill; it's a random quantity, similar to rolling damage on a fireball. You can't choose the value.

That one I totally understand, thanks.

[BigNorseWolf]

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp. It would probably be a bluff check to not get yourself caught though if you were asked about it.

[Claxon]

Natural 1s don't automatically fail skill rolls.

If you want to misled someone into thinking you don't know what you're doing it's a bluff check.

[ChucklesMcTruck]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

[RainyDayNinja]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

You're skilled enough to create terrible food. But you may not convince people that you weren't trying to make terrible food.

[ChucklesMcTruck]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

You're skilled enough to create terrible food. But you may not convince people that you weren't trying to make terrible food.

I get what you're saying, but that kind of seems like splitting hairs.

[N N 959]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Your first example would be a bluff check, to pretend you don't know what you're doing.

That seems... weirdly broken. Technically that means at any point you could roll a Bluff check to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you are, fail that, and end up proving you're a genius. Mind you, since the skill itself isn't involved you don't necessarily need to be good at it in the first place. With a low enough Bluff score you could easily convince everyone you're a polymath.

Not quite. The Bluff skill is used to fool someone that what you're presenting is sincere. Technically, you only need to use Bluff if your deception can be detected by Sense Motive. If it is not possible to use Sense Motive to detect the deception, then Bluff is technically not required. However, many scenarios will allow several skills to accomplish the same task.

If you fail your Bluff, the opposing person gets whatever they would get from the Sense Motive skill. A Sense Motive check in this situation might reveal that the lockpicker was pretending to pick the lock. That doesn't convey any proof that the lockpicker could pick the lock, only that they are intentionally trying not to.

Personally, I'd let an observer roll a Disable Device check vs your Bluff to also detect someone faking. The lockpicker could also roll to sabotage a device. In such a situation, the player would probably have to roll a Bluff check when the character was asked what happened to the lock that was secretly sabotaged.

[Squiggit]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

You're skilled enough to create terrible food. But you may not convince people that you weren't trying to make terrible food.

I get what you're saying, but that kind of seems like splitting hairs.

Not really, that's just what the bluff skill is for. You make terrible food, but someone who was paying attention (i.e. succeeds on the sense motive check) might be able to discern that you were actively trying to do a bad job.

[ryric]

Failing the Bluff check wouldn't convince people you were secretly great, it would simply convince people that you were deliberately trying to do badly, as opposed to genuinely bad.

Which in the Wormwood Mutiny,

Spoiler:

would likely absolutely guarantee you get assigned to that thing you didn't want to do every day.

[Brf]

If you fail your bluff roll, your targets can see through your ruse. They can see you are trying to be substandard.

[Snowlilly]

Brf wrote:

If you fail your bluff roll, your targets can see through your ruse. They can see you are trying to be substandard.

In this case, I would rule the skill being used opposes the observers Sense Motive.

Yes, you can deliberately produce an adverse result, but you still have a great deal of skill to produce that adverse result.

As stated above, there are many circumstances where multiple skills can be used to produce the desired result. In a case of demonstrating a lack of skill at cooking, for example, I would allow bluff, craft(food), or profession(chef).

[Saldiven]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that.

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

Think of it this way.

Getting a high roll on a skill check is not necessarily an indicator of doing "well" or "poorly" at that skill. Think of it as how well you achieved your intended purpose. A high roll indicates you achieved your goal, while a low roll indicates you achieved it...less well.

As a GM, if my player had a good cooking skill but wanted to deliberately create crap, I would have the check relate to that. A good cook knows what tastes good and what doesn't, and what techniques produce good food and what don't. So, in this case, a high check would mean he intentionally created a disgusting mess, while a low check means he accidentally came up with something yummy.

As for Bluff vs Sense Motive, I don't know if that's always going to be appropriate.

To further the cooking example above, a person who has zero understanding of cooking doesn't have any idea if you're good or not based on observation. That person has no frame of context with which to compare the character's performance other than the quality of the final product. I would think that it should be opposed by the opponent's skill check at that same skill.

[Blymurkla]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

You may accidentally end up as the ship's cook?

Does the interviews consists of meticulous designed tests to weed out the applicants true skills?

Surely, you are asked »So, what can you do? Repair sails, navigate? Anything?« and you just go »No, mr.« which is an obvious use of the bluff skill. And you'll end up a swab, if you succeed. You'll get that swab position if you failed too, probably. The interviewer (first mate, quartermaster, captain?) just know you've lied about your skills, but not why or what skill you possess. If there isn't an immediate lack of professionals, why is your lie even an issue?

After that, maybe you risk letting your mastery of cooking slip. I don't know, maybe you complain about the food served in a way indicating knowledge, are spotted writing a recipe or use your chef's hat for sleeping. But you'd have to have a brutally evil GM to require any sort of skill or ability check not to make such a mistake.

But, in the unlikely event that there's actually a situation where you want to fail yet are required to make a roll, as a GM, I'd probably allow it.

[ChucklesMcTruck]

These are all great points, and I've been given a lot to think about. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

However, I don't think anyone has really addressed my original query, which is basically: why isn't there a "take 1"? It would make a lot of these situations a heck of a lot less convoluted from a mechanics standpoint.

[RainyDayNinja]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

These are all great points, and I've been given a lot to think about. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

However, I don't think anyone has really addressed my original query, which is basically: why isn't there a "take 1"? It would make a lot of these situations a heck of a lot less convoluted from a mechanics standpoint.

I don't see what's convoluted about using a Bluff check to lie about how good of a cook you are.

[Tyinyk]

I imagine there's not a "Take 1" so that players being compelled don't deliberately do badly.

[MordredofFairy]

As far as I understood it, the problem is not "Take 1". You can deliberately FAIL a skill check if you so choose.

The problem is in performing sub-optimal without people catching on.
With the kitchen example: Sure, that great cook could use his expertise to make an awful meal. But the way he will handle the knife, deal with the ingredients, everything that is "automatic" for him, natural by experience, he has to surpress or someone watching him will catch on to the ruse.
He also knows that, and may be nervous about doing things, because if he's TOO clumsy, that may be suspicious as well. Thats why you need a bluff check to cover things up, here.

But as for the "take 1" itself, there's not even a reason to "take" a check. In most situation, you can simply decide to fail it, no check involved(e.g. let go when climbing, let the horse take control riding, fail when crafting something or doing a deliberate bad job healing someone...)
The GM is the final decision-maker, of course, because you MAY be in situation where that's not really an option.(e.g. if NOT knowing something would be beneficial, you could still not willingly "fail" the knowledge-check, or if it is a reactive use(e.g. perception to pick something up) then you also have no real option. You could certainly IGNORE the sounds you hear, but the use would be automatic.

[Anguish]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that.

Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up.

Or, say you're using the Awaken Construct spell on an animated object, but you don't want it to become too smart so it's easier to control. You "take 1" on all the ability rolls and end up with an INT 3 and a CHA 3, which is better for your particular plans.

And so forth. I could probably think of half a dozen other examples but you get the idea.

I have a suggestion for you.

I'd run "appear worse than I am" as opposed rolls. If you're worried someone's going to figure out you know how to cook, you make a Profession(cook) check versus your observers' Profession(cook) checks. If you beat them, you can appear inept. Example: I know how to climb. I do (indoor) rock climbing. I know what newbies look like. I can probably imitate them, but doing so relies on my observations as a climber. So I try to use my climbing skills to look inept. But another experienced climber may notice subtle things I do right that I haven't properly culled from my climbing. If they're better than I am, they detect my ruse.

Using Bluff is... not right, IMHO.

As for the awaken construct situation, I'm a bit befuddled. The spell says you don't control the construct. Your Spellcraft check lets you actually succeed at the spell. The rolls for Intelligence only govern how smart the construct is. You explicitly don't gain control.

Anyway, to answer the question you're trying to ask, I'm pretty sure there is no "take 1" rule because there's no grounds to want or need one.

[ryric]

Blymurkla wrote:

Does the interviews consists of meticulous designed tests to weed out the applicants true skills?

Surely, you are asked »So, what can you do? Repair sails, navigate? Anything?« and you just go »No, mr.« which is an obvious use of the bluff skill. And you'll end up a swab, if you succeed. You'll get that swab position if you failed too, probably. The interviewer (first mate, quartermaster, captain?) just know you've lied about your skills, but not why or what skill you possess. If there isn't an immediate lack of professionals, why is your lie even an issue?

In this adventure,

Spoiler:

yes, you are deliberately assigned to things you are terrible at. That way you can be punished when you fail. The ship is terribly run. There's a reason the title of the adventure includes the word "mutiny."

On a vaguely related note, I allow "taking 1" when a PC's skill modifier is so high that failure is impossible. When a PC has a +30 against a DC 20 check there's no need to roll. Our group refers to this as "taking 1." Autosuccess and move on with the game.

[CBDunkerson]

ryric wrote:

On a vaguely related note, I allow "taking 1" when a PC's skill modifier is so high that failure is impossible. When a PC has a +30 against a DC 20 check there's no need to roll. Our group refers to this as "taking 1." Autosuccess and move on with the game.

I use a similar mechanic called 'taking DC'. The only difference is that 'taking DC' always gives a minimal success (i.e. as if exactly the DC was rolled), while 'taking 1' could potentially yield extra benefits (for checks which allow such).

[MeanMutton]

Squiggit wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

You're skilled enough to create terrible food. But you may not convince people that you weren't trying to make terrible food.

I get what you're saying, but that kind of seems like splitting hairs.

Not really, that's just what the bluff skill is for. You make terrible food, but someone who was paying attention (i.e. succeeds on the sense motive check) might be able to discern that you were actively trying to do a bad job.

I don't know if you really need to fool someone into thinking you're doing a bad job. Just cook the chicken super rare, toss in flavors you know don't go well together, make the food way too spicy, use gross ingredients, that sort of thing. It's not really faking - it's just making something you know is going to be bad.

[MordredofFairy]

Anguish wrote:

I have a suggestion for you.

I'd run "appear worse than I am" as opposed rolls. If you're worried someone's going to figure out you know how to cook, you make a Profession(cook) check versus your observers' Profession(cook) checks. If you beat them, you can appear inept. Example: I know how to climb. I do (indoor) rock climbing. I know what newbies look like. I can probably imitate them, but doing so relies on my observations as a climber. So I try to use my climbing skills to look inept. But another experienced climber may notice subtle things I do right that I haven't properly culled from my climbing. If they're better than I am, they detect my ruse.

Using Bluff is... not right, IMHO.

Technically I like the suggestion, but it does not cover the social aspect.

2 equally skilled (indoor) rock climbers could still be very differently skilled bluffers.
Some people are used to telling white lies. They lie to friends, their significant other, their boss or anybody really, because doing so is convenient.
Other people struggle with doing so, especially if it's not empty social interaction.
This ability to pretend, to remember not to rely on muscle memory, to fake, but not over-fake...it can't quite be covered with skill at what one is doing alone.
Much like a profession(gambler) opting to cheat may need a sleight-of-hand check, I feel that actually convincing people that you are not simply putting on a show does require the use of a social skill.

Because if people are observing you and judging how good you do something, with a threat of punishment if you try to fool them, not everybody will calmly stand up to that pressure.
And basically, you would need to use your "expertise" in a way to make sure you use NONE of your expertise. If anything, the more skilled you are, the harder it would become not to give away details that are automatic for you, things you don't even actively think about any more.
(specifically thinking about the cooking or climbing examples, here)...

as said, I like your suggestion but if feels incomplete, much like using bluff feels off to you-

[Claxon]

MeanMutton wrote:

I don't know if you really need to fool someone into thinking you're doing a bad job. Just cook the chicken super rare, toss in flavors you know don't go well together, make the food way too spicy, use gross ingredients, that sort of thing. It's not really faking - it's just making something you know is going to be bad.

Sure, followed by a bluff check to convince people you didn't know you were making it bad.

There shouldn't be a check to fail at a skill, but you do need to bluff to convince people that you didn't know what you were doing. I would allow the standard Sense Motive or same skill as the purposefully failed skill to oppose the bluff check.

[Chemlak]

See also, British comedian Les Dawson playing the piano. He was an incredibly skilled pianist, who managed to (for comedy) skilfully (without sound it looks proper) play the piano badly (dissonant tune and wrong notes), whilst simultaneously behaving as if he didn't know he was playing badly.

[David knott 242]

In Les Dawson's case, I am pretty sure that we are seeing a highly successful Perform (Comedy) check and not a deliberately failed Perform (Keyboard) check. Maybe his ranks in Perform (Keyboard) provided some sort of circumstance bonus to that Perform (Comedy) check?

[Haladir]

Anyone can deliberately (and automatically) fail a skill check.

If you want to fool someone who's watching you into thinking you're really trying when you're not, that's a Bluff check.

If I were GMing, I'd probably give a circumstance bonus to the check based on how you're trying to fail and/or your normal skill check.

So, let's say that a PC rogue has been captured by the bad guys and they're making her try to break into a vault. She doesn't want the bad guys to get what's in there, so she's poking at the lock, making it look like she's trying to open it, but really isn't. If the bad guys aren't watching her, she can waste as much of their time as she wants and just not pick the lock. If they are watching her, she'll need to make a Bluff check (opposed by their Sense Motive) to convince them she's trying her best, but failing.

[Ckorik]

OK using the 'cook' example - lets say your profession (cook) skill is a 20 (for whatever reason) and the DC is only 10. So even if you roll a 1 - it's going to be the best thing the pirates have ever eaten. You are such a good chef your 'throw it on a plate' and what seems horrible to *you* is 5 star quality for everyone else. You have a problem now - all your training and practice has you at the point where your worst effort is cuisine - and I'd make you roll a profession check in this case to sabotage your efforts - and force yourself to oversalt/etc. with the idea that it's hard for you to do even this - as what you consider 'horrid' is *still* the best food a common person ever ate.

[Kazaan]

Skill checks are only when you are actually attempting success. If you aren't, there's no skill check involved. But there is certainly a bluff check. And there's even science behind it. For instance, for people with anterograde amnesia (you can't form new memories), if you show them a card, wait a certain amount of time, then show them a set of cards including the one you previously showed them and ask them which card you showed them previously, they should only get it right the statistically expected number of times (eg. if you show them a set of 3, they'd get it right 1/3 of the time). But people who fake anterograde amnesia will get it right far less than statistically expected because they do remember the correct answer, but are "trying too hard" to make it look like they don't. So, in the case of "faking" being bad at something you actually can do, if you're bad at bluffing, you'll probably over-sell it and end up looking like someone out of an infomercial (there's got to be a better way!).

[Anguish]

Ckorik wrote:

OK using the 'cook' example - lets say your profession (cook) skill is a 20 (for whatever reason) and the DC is only 10. So even if you roll a 1 - it's going to be the best thing the pirates have ever eaten. You are such a good chef your 'throw it on a plate' and what seems horrible to *you* is 5 star quality for everyone else. You have a problem now - all your training and practice has you at the point where your worst effort is cuisine - and I'd make you roll a profession check in this case to sabotage your efforts - and force yourself to oversalt/etc. with the idea that it's hard for you to do even this - as what you consider 'horrid' is *still* the best food a common person ever ate.

Disagree. The DC to produce a masterful meal might be 10. But what's the DC to produce something that causes food-poisoning if eaten? Maybe 5. When a player says "I try to make something inedible", and they beat the DC of 5, do you - as a DM - turn their specifically-stated result into some grand banquet?

No.

I don't care if the Climb DC for falling off a wall is 0 and you roll a 33. You're falling off the wall if you want to, not "you scale the wall one-handed while juggling baby elephants with your other, and both legs are tied behind your back."

[NobodysHome]

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

As a lifelong cook, I'll have to politely disagree, and go with the "Bluff" crowd.

Why?

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

I'd give the professional chef a significant bonus to his/her Bluff if none of the observers had "Profession: Cook". +4 maybe?

[Saldiven]

NobodysHome wrote:

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

How is a non-trained chef going to recognize any of that?

The average person has no idea whether or not you're handling the knife poorly if all you do is slow down. The average person has no idea what you mean by "music of the kitchen."

I stand by my earlier assertion that Bluff might work in some cases, but in a case where a person is trying to demonstrate lack of knowledge or ability at a profession, the more appropriate skill to tell is that very same skill.

A trained chef can tell when another trained chef is sandbagging, while the average person would have a significantly more difficult time.

[Dragonchess Player]

You can try to make something inedible, but might end up creating something good!

[NobodysHome]

Saldiven wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

How is a non-trained chef going to recognize any of that?

The average person has no idea whether or not you're handling the knife poorly if all you do is slow down. The average person has no idea what you mean by "music of the kitchen."

I stand by my earlier assertion that Bluff might work in some cases, but in a case where a person is trying to demonstrate lack of knowledge or ability at a profession, the more appropriate skill to tell is that very same skill.

A trained chef can tell when another trained chef is sandbagging, while the average person would have a significantly more difficult time.

I can absolutely roll with that. An opposed Profession roll would be an ideal solution.

[thejeff]

NobodysHome wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

As a lifelong cook, I'll have to politely disagree, and go with the "Bluff" crowd.

Why?

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

I'd give the professional chef a significant bonus to his/her Bluff if none of the observers had "Profession: Cook". +4 maybe?

It also depends even more on whether you're being judged by someone watching you cook or just by the finished product.

[MeanMutton]

NobodysHome wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

As a lifelong cook, I'll have to politely disagree, and go with the "Bluff" crowd.

Why?

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

I'd give the professional chef a significant bonus to his/her Bluff if none of the observers had "Profession: Cook". +4 maybe?

If no one is watching you, you're telling me that you can't make an over-spiced chicken breast that's burnt on the outside and raw on the inside with some over-boiled veggies and under-cooked potatoes?

[BigNorseWolf]

MeanMutton wrote:

If no one is watching you, you're telling me that you can't make an over-spiced chicken breast that's burnt on the outside and raw on the inside with some over-boiled veggies and under-cooked potatoes?

While no one is watching you're fine

If someone is watching, bluff.

If someone asks you "What the bloody hell was that..." then you're bluffing.

[Hitdice]

MeanMutton wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

As a lifelong cook, I'll have to politely disagree, and go with the "Bluff" crowd.

Why?

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

I'd give the professional chef a significant bonus to his/her Bluff if none of the observers had "Profession: Cook". +4 maybe?

If no one is watching you, you're telling me that you can't make an over-spiced chicken breast that's burnt on the outside and raw on the inside with some over-boiled veggies and under-cooked potatoes?

And then there was the time one of the waitresses at my restaurant (work at, not own) said to the cook, "Hey Charles? I just got another complaint about the tuna, but I think they just don't know what "seared" means; comp their drinks?"

[NobodysHome]

Hitdice wrote:

MeanMutton wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

ChucklesMcTruck wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.

As a lifelong cook, I'll have to politely disagree, and go with the "Bluff" crowd.

Why?

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

I'd give the professional chef a significant bonus to his/her Bluff if none of the observers had "Profession: Cook". +4 maybe?

If no one is watching you, you're telling me that you can't make an over-spiced chicken breast that's burnt on the outside and raw on the inside with some over-boiled veggies and under-cooked potatoes?

And then there was the time one of the waitresses at my restaurant (work at, not own) said to the cook, "Hey Charles? I just got another complaint about the tuna, but I think they just don't know what "seared" means; comp their drinks?"

Oh, PLEASE don't get me started on seared tuna.

I'll just say I lost two pounds of $56/pound glory to an idiot who thought he was doing me a 'favor' throwing out the 'so undercooked it's raw in the middle' fish...

[Diego Rossi]

Saldiven wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

How is a non-trained chef going to recognize any of that?

The average person has no idea whether or not you're handling the knife poorly if all you do is slow down. The average person has no idea what you mean by "music of the kitchen."

I stand by my earlier assertion that Bluff might work in some cases, but in a case where a person is trying to demonstrate lack of knowledge or ability at a profession, the more appropriate skill to tell is that very same skill.

A trained chef can tell when another trained chef is sandbagging, while the average person would have a significantly more difficult time.

When you are peeling the potatoes and you leave more potato on the peel than on the part you keep people see that you are misusing a knife.

Plenty of other similar examples.

[ChucklesMcTruck]

Wow, lots more suggestions and examples! I think I'm starting to get where you're all coming from now. Thanks for having patience with a n00b like me.

[Talonhawke]

I feel like it comes down to a few minor things
1. Are you being watched? If no one is watching the character then it doesn't how masterfully they mess up.

2. Does the person watching know enough to know your throwing the attempt? If so decide on a way to determine that the character was trying to fail.

3. Would you be expected to answer questions about why you failed? Not super likely but if so then some type of check most likely bluff will be needed.
4. What is the judging criteria? If the person deciding is only worried about the final project then it doesn't matter how you got there but if the whole performance is being judged then you need to make a decision about how to make that look bad as well.

Basically look at those things and decide the best way to go about it. If the only thing being used to determine if it was a pass or fail is the final result and there won't be a interview about it just let them fail. If they are being watched by someone who know what they should be doing or have to explain why they failed you might need checks.

[Saldiven]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

NobodysHome wrote:

Because it's not just about making something taste bad, or cooking it too long. It's about handling the knife poorly. About bumping into people, and pretending you don't hear the "music of the kitchen". It's about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretending that you don't know where to look to find an ingredient, or pretending you don't even know what the ingredients are.

In my mind, to my somewhat-trained eye, the difference between watching a professional chef pretending to be bad and a true novice would be palpable and obvious. But it's because I know my way around a kitchen.

How is a non-trained chef going to recognize any of that?

The average person has no idea whether or not you're handling the knife poorly if all you do is slow down. The average person has no idea what you mean by "music of the kitchen."

I stand by my earlier assertion that Bluff might work in some cases, but in a case where a person is trying to demonstrate lack of knowledge or ability at a profession, the more appropriate skill to tell is that very same skill.

A trained chef can tell when another trained chef is sandbagging, while the average person would have a significantly more difficult time.

When you are peeling the potatoes and you leave more potato on the peel than on the part you keep people see that you are misusing a knife.

Plenty of other similar examples.

And a someone trained in how to cook would know that and adjust.

Unless he/she was such a complete egoist that he/she couldn't help but be a perfectionist when attempting to be otherwise.

Talonhawke has the best take on this, IMHO.

Not super related, but tangentially related, her's a video of a trained women's muay thai fighter going into a gym and punking the trainers there by acting like she doesn't know how to fight. It's not hard to act like you don't know what you're doing, as long as you can keep the smug look off of your face:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3FZLTpJREY

[GothBard]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.

Saldiven wrote:

Not super related, but tangentially related, her's a video of a trained women's muay thai fighter going into a gym and punking the trainers there by acting like she doesn't know how to fight. It's not hard to act like you don't know what you're doing, as long as you can keep the smug look off of your face:

Here's how I see it: To deliberately fail if you have a skill, make a skill check. You're rolling to see whether you can get the results you want, whether what you want is a perfectly cooked Beef Wellington or a soggy, overdressed mass of wilted greens with delusions of saladhood.

If nobody's watching, you're golden.

If someone is watching, succeeding in an opposed skill check of the same skill could tell them if you know what you're doing, and Sense Motive could tell them if you're trying to hide your glee at your deception (or your fear of being consigned to the kitchen). That's where the Bluffing would come in.

If nobody's watching, but you're questioned about it later, then Bluff vs. Sense Motive.

If Nobodys Home is watching... well you're on your own there.