Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5604847" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I actually think the point about tactics in combat was a good one.I mean, yeah, the guy with Cleave will still cleave every time it comes up. However, it doesn't mean his player positions the character next to two enemies. He may never cleave, simply because the player is bad at tactics. Nor does it stop the blaster wizard from preparing all fire spells before making a trip into the Abyss.The guy with +10 on Bluff may never pick a good lie, but it sure helps offset that bonus to Sense Motive that the guard gets for listening to a bad lie. The character is still definitely better at lying than someone without the +10.I do, however, think both sides in this thread are polarizing. Or, I think one side is playing with house rules without mentioning it. For example, I played with the house rule "if there is no way that they'll believe the lie, period, under any circumstances, than you can't Bluff them" for years. You're not going to convince most people that they can't think. It will simply fail, regardless of roll, for nearly everyone in my game (although, since I wrote the book for my game in a very literal sense, it's actually in the rules).So I think there are people who play by those rules, which while they aren't RAW, seems like a common enough practice (as evidenced by the thread, in my opinion). Then there are others who go the route of "you can lie, yeah, but it doesn't give the character control over anyone. You might have convinced the guard that you should be let in, but it doesn't mean he'll do it." I think that's where Risk vs. Reward comes into play (and one of the reasons I liked the Diplomacy skill from GitP when I saw it... in fact, I made one use of Bluff help your Diplomacy skill mechanically).At any rate, I'm not sure why Hussar reverted back to the "GM vs. the group" argument after it's an admitted play style thing (and a mischaracterizing argument, in my mind). Arguing over it isn't going to get it resolved, and this whole conversation seems much too defensive to think that one side is trying to actually learn another point of view.Anyways, just my views. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification