I'm having a dispute with another player at the moment.
My stance is that you roll a bluff check whenever you lie, and the opposed check becomes easier or more difficult to overcome based upon how believable the lie is.
Since you can't critical succeed or fail skill checks, a sufficiently-believable lie from a liar wouldn't require a roll most of the time.
I have shown him this chart and the Core Rulebook, but he's adamant that it's irrelevant:
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
His stance is as follows: "It's not like [people are] robots scanning everything intently", "A person only gets to roll if he suspects a lie" and "If the character doesn't suspect lying then they don't roll".
I'm trying to keep as true to his position as possible, so sorry that it's summarized using quotes.With the exception of Rule 0, is there anything to his statements at all? I have tried to research it from his perspective but it seems to be entirely hinged on DM hand-waving.
Can somebody weigh in, please?
I've tried to compare this to perception checks to see hidden foes to explain it to him, but it only escalated to him saying "Well, if you don't expect a disguise, why would you even notice one?".
For reference, he was using it as an excuse to avoid needing to roll bluffs when talking to friendly (and in the case when it came up, neutral) guards, and to try to convince us that a perception check against his disguise wouldn't even be needed.
|
You use Sense Motive to detect when someone is Bluffing.
Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when "something is up" (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.
If you, the player, suspect that an NPC is Bluffing, you have your character make a Sense Motive check.
Alternatively, sometimes a GM may call for you to make the check.
Just like Perception.
If you, the player, suspect something/someone is hidden, you have your character make a Perception check.
Alternatively, sometimes a GM may call for you to make the check.
I'd say that anyone who has the perception/sense motive skill to see through a lie or a disguise should get a chance. Even in real life, you don't need to be actively searching for deception to notice it from time to time.
It's a neat idea. Sadly, I doubt it can actually be applied to any given pathfinder game, and it must be said that it is indeed a houserule; You're throwing in 'real' math where pathfinder rules already clearly exist. It's also inapplicable to any other scenario requiring perception; You naturally can't use the same formula to notice finer details of, listen to, or smell a creature a listed distance away.
I'm curious as to what would happen if you plugged in numbers for a celestial body like the moon, or a cruising altitude passenger plane, though. According to Pathfinder rules, the moon is impossible to see. (Something like -8 million to the DC due to size, but over +130 million for distance)...
As an alternative system that's somewhat more closely aligned to the rules, One thing you could propose is that the distance modifier is simply not applicable for noticing a perfectly visible creature; It will always be DC 0. Instead, save that modifier for noticing particular features or visible details of that creature or using other senses, like sound or scent.
The other alternative is to just outright fudge the numbers as a GM by adding your own ludicrously large modifiers, Or in other words, just go by feel.
Sorry if last post goes through... Either I or the website has some sort of error. Please delete my posts on this thread if you see them
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
If you don't make a check at all, how can you successfully convince someone that what you are saying is true.
You make a bluff check whenever you want to convince someone you are telling the truth when you aren't.
Certain types of skills are primarily reaction skills.
Sense motive and perception checks "just happen" in response to stimuli.
A guy walks by in disguise, you're not looking for someone in disguise and you're distracted doing other things. You get a check to notice he's in disguise, but you might not make it since you're distracted but you automatically get the check.
If you succeed, it's because you're so good that even when not focusing on them or generally looking for someone in disguise you still were able to spot things that were off about them.
Bluff is the same way. And this one is even easier to illustrate with real life. Ever had someone try to bullsh*t you? Did you have to sit and really think about "Should I ask if this person is bullsh*ting me?" No. You just knew. And if you didn't know, it's because the person lying to you was better at lying than you're bullsh*t radar was capable of detecting. Sense Motive is your bullsh*t radar. You don't ask to turn it on, it's automatically running all the time.
Thank you all for your responses. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and wanted to be sure.
Edit: Also, my apologies for this late response. The reply I made over two weeks ago didn't go through, it seems.