Bluffing other party members?
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Since bluff is a cross-class skill for the sorcerer, and he only gets a measly 2 skill points per level, what does he do for concentration checks? Spellcraft checks?
Others in the party could purchase just as much Sense Motive cross class by investing their skill points in that.
I would have thought that the problem will be self-correcting after a while.
Cheers
Others in the party could purchase just as much Sense Motive cross class by investing their skill points in that.
I would have thought that the problem will be self-correcting after a while.
Cheers
Artoomis
First Post
Elder, you are still missing the boat a bit here. Let me quote a bit from the skill:
also
A successful Bluff means the character believes the bluff. That includes PCs.
Now, if there is independent evidence that the bluffer is lying, then a heavy circumstance penalty should be imposed.
In the present case of a PC lying about magic items, eventually the evidence will pile up to the point that the circumstance penalty become something like -100 the the bluff check (simply impossible for normal mortals).
In the case of a group chasing down a suspected murderer, if the DM sets the cicrumstance penalties appropriately and he still succeeds, then the PCs believe him (at least until new evidence comes forth).
That's the way the skill works. It's up to the DM to decide on extenuating circumstances and set circumstance penalties (or bonuses) appropriately.
Remember:
" Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. "
But the outcome is not "he seems to be telling the truth." It's "your PC believes him." Of course, that just means your PC believes him now.
If the players then remember some other fact that makes his story fall apart, fine. That could be considered new evidence, and changes the circumstance under which the lie was believed.
If you water down the skill to the point that a successful bluff doesn't really mean anything, then why take the skill? No, that's the wrong way to go.
This skill can be troublesome - it's heavily reliant upon the DM setting appropriate modifiers.
If you are trying to influence behavior, then:
So, in the case of the murderer trying to redirect the group's investigation, it's entirely possible to get the group to believe him and yet fail to influence the group to investigate elsewhere - which leaves the group in the immediate area to either stumble upon new evidence or simply mull over what he said and realize they've been duped.
All within the skill as written.
Of course, successfully bluffing an entire group is hard in the extreme - only one person has to be unconvinced to start the whole thing unraveling. This can be represented by making new Sense motive checks with a new circumstance bonus.
Again, all this can be done without watering down the skill one bit - but it requires pretty active DM involvement.
Finally, it is well within the DM's discretion to simply state that the attempted bluff is impossible. Though I tend towards allowing it if the player can come up with a story that is at least plausible. Such a circumstance may require 10 ranks (as a nearly impossible skill) with a circumstance penalty of 20 on the bluff - nearly impossible, but still could succeed against a select few.
Those that max out bluff along with the charisma to support should have a chance of pulling off the Big Lie - even if its a samll one.
Even at that, a 10th level characer coudl normally have, say 13 ranks plus 4 for charisma for a total bonus of +17. At -20, they would roll with a -3 modifier against porbably a o or +1 modifier.
They will succeed a good portion of the time. Of course that's for something that started with an at least barely plausible story. For the totally implausible I'd simply declare it impossible to succeed.
The current problem in this party will indeed self-correct, but it might be good to have a talk with the players before that - the players may start to get upset with each other over this kind of behavior.
also
A successful Bluff means the character believes the bluff. That includes PCs.
Now, if there is independent evidence that the bluffer is lying, then a heavy circumstance penalty should be imposed.
In the present case of a PC lying about magic items, eventually the evidence will pile up to the point that the circumstance penalty become something like -100 the the bluff check (simply impossible for normal mortals).
In the case of a group chasing down a suspected murderer, if the DM sets the cicrumstance penalties appropriately and he still succeeds, then the PCs believe him (at least until new evidence comes forth).
That's the way the skill works. It's up to the DM to decide on extenuating circumstances and set circumstance penalties (or bonuses) appropriately.
Remember:
" Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. "
But the outcome is not "he seems to be telling the truth." It's "your PC believes him." Of course, that just means your PC believes him now.
If the players then remember some other fact that makes his story fall apart, fine. That could be considered new evidence, and changes the circumstance under which the lie was believed.
If you water down the skill to the point that a successful bluff doesn't really mean anything, then why take the skill? No, that's the wrong way to go.
This skill can be troublesome - it's heavily reliant upon the DM setting appropriate modifiers.
If you are trying to influence behavior, then:
So, in the case of the murderer trying to redirect the group's investigation, it's entirely possible to get the group to believe him and yet fail to influence the group to investigate elsewhere - which leaves the group in the immediate area to either stumble upon new evidence or simply mull over what he said and realize they've been duped.
All within the skill as written.
Of course, successfully bluffing an entire group is hard in the extreme - only one person has to be unconvinced to start the whole thing unraveling. This can be represented by making new Sense motive checks with a new circumstance bonus.
Again, all this can be done without watering down the skill one bit - but it requires pretty active DM involvement.
Finally, it is well within the DM's discretion to simply state that the attempted bluff is impossible. Though I tend towards allowing it if the player can come up with a story that is at least plausible. Such a circumstance may require 10 ranks (as a nearly impossible skill) with a circumstance penalty of 20 on the bluff - nearly impossible, but still could succeed against a select few.
Those that max out bluff along with the charisma to support should have a chance of pulling off the Big Lie - even if its a samll one.
Even at that, a 10th level characer coudl normally have, say 13 ranks plus 4 for charisma for a total bonus of +17. At -20, they would roll with a -3 modifier against porbably a o or +1 modifier.
They will succeed a good portion of the time. Of course that's for something that started with an at least barely plausible story. For the totally implausible I'd simply declare it impossible to succeed.
The current problem in this party will indeed self-correct, but it might be good to have a talk with the players before that - the players may start to get upset with each other over this kind of behavior.
noretoc
First Post
I believe the bluff check is more suited to DM controlled NPC. The skill dosen't say that, but neither does intimidate. If we went with your ruling on Bluff, than we would have to do the same for intimidate which states You can change other's behavior with a succsesful check
For a first level fighter, the DC would be 11. Not to hard for a evil bard to manage. Picture this.
Fighter "I attack the bard"
DM "You go to swing your sword, but the bard looks at you and says 'don't try it bub' and you change your mind. You don't want to attack"
Fighter "did he cast a spell?"
DM "No, your just scared of him"
I don't think that is the way it is supposed to work. The players are supposed to decide thier characters actions and thoughts and opinion. It shouldn't be up to a die roll.
For a first level fighter, the DC would be 11. Not to hard for a evil bard to manage. Picture this.
Fighter "I attack the bard"
DM "You go to swing your sword, but the bard looks at you and says 'don't try it bub' and you change your mind. You don't want to attack"
Fighter "did he cast a spell?"
DM "No, your just scared of him"
I don't think that is the way it is supposed to work. The players are supposed to decide thier characters actions and thoughts and opinion. It shouldn't be up to a die roll.
Similar Threads
