Bluff as a free action.

[Zhure]

Don't look at me for "realism" arguments, I was just posting the reason why the analogy was flawed.

 

[LokiDR]

Don't look at me for "realism" arguments, I was just posting the reason why the analogy was flawed.

Isn't that a realism arguement? A isn't enough like B in real life to use the same rules in the game?

 

[Zhure]

Everyone has a different take on what level of realism affects a game. I fall solidly onto the mechanistic side, where if it seems plausible in a world where dragons exist and fly, and where mages can call lightning and throw magic bolts, I'm all for it.

In specific, I allow multiple free actions until it offends my sense of plausibility. Thus, a free-action bluff I'd allow, but I also increase the DC (or assign a penalty to the bluffer or a bonus to the bluffee) because it offends my sense of plausibility. Unless it's a 'toon game, then Bugs can keep handing lit cigars with fuses to Yosemite Sam all day long.

Cinematic (and I use this term loosely to represent a certain style of play involving a lot of chandelier swinging and buckles being swashed) is the style I prefer. Depending on the grim vs gritty vs swash axes your game runs on, you might want to restrict the number of bluffs and free actions. Thus, in my games, bluffing for Gladiators as an MEA is fine; and I'd have no trouble with the free-action-bluff-for-ranged-attack being discussed here because I use a multiple-bluff-works-less-and-less operator.

Back to the boxing vs dodgeball metaphor. It's just that; an analagous situation. You can bluff in both, and both require a high level of skill to do quickly. I can see certain DMs seeing a difference between ranged and melee because the two can be inherently different as described in the real world.

 

[LokiDR]

Everyone has a different take on what level of realism affects a game. I fall solidly onto the mechanistic side, where if it seems plausible in a world where dragons exist and fly, and where mages can call lightning and throw magic bolts, I'm all for it.

I'll agree with that. But then shouldn't those limits apply across all elements of the game? If you limit free action bluffs, I would think you should limit the speak a word free action.

In specific, I allow multiple free actions until it offends my sense of plausibility. Thus, a free-action bluff I'd allow, but I also increase the DC (or assign a penalty to the bluffer or a bonus to the bluffee) because it offends my sense of plausibility. Unless it's a 'toon game, then Bugs can keep handing lit cigars with fuses to Yosemite Sam all day long.

I had a similar theory on raising difficulty, but it doesn't pan out on consideration. Do you increase the diffculty if a person saw another person fall victim to this attack? If they heard that this PC uses this tatic? If they are too dumb to realize what is happening? If they had fallen victim to this attack in a previous combat? Eventually, no one should fall for the rogues tricks, as he is famous for them. Things happen too fast in combat to really analyize tatics to come up with counter tatics. Also, there is no provision in the rules (beside circumstance bonuses) to apply the concept.

This doesn't mean that I dislike the idea. I just see it as having implementation problems. And being one more house rule to keep track of.

Back to the boxing vs dodgeball metaphor. It's just that; an analagous situation. You can bluff in both, and both require a high level of skill to do quickly. I can see certain DMs seeing a difference between ranged and melee because the two can be inherently different as described in the real world.

A realism arguement. The fact that it is a valid arguement doesn't change the fact that it base on realism, something that D&D has a problem with some times. I don't think that D&D expects much realism, so realism arguements don't hold much weight with me. It would hold more weight for grim and gritty campaigns/settings.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There's a great fight in Kiss of the Dragon between Jet Li and the Blond Boyz. In one particular segment of the fight, he throws the same feint four times in a row - fake with the left hand to distract, smack him with the right.

But the guy gets hit every time, because he can't afford to ignore that left, in case it's the real attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Elvinis75]

It is arbitrary, because you just said "it doesn't make sense". You have no rule based reason to place the limit after 1 bluff or weapon draw.

Take the example of speaking a word. Free action. DMs should limit this so people are not having conversations in combat. Is there any reason not to allow speaking 3 words? Not really.

You placed an arbitrary limit on the free action. This isn't outside of what you are allowed to do as the DM, but neither is declaring that a PC has just been hit by a bovine from low orbit.

A free action is a free action. If you limit the number of weapons drawn by use of quickdraw, you should also limit the number of words a person can speak in a round to same number. They take the same effore the character with the quickdraw feat. Likewise the character with bluff as a free action. Is this a supernatural ability? If it is, just blame magic.

How about the rule that the DM decides what is reasonable. And for the last time it isn't arbitrary. It is based off the example they give in the book under when a free action stops being a free action. e.g. when yelling for help it is when telling a story it isn't. Time is not ignored. If the limit that I put on it based off a suggestion on how to rule free actions therefor it cannot be called arbitrary. In a system that is based off the real world then things like gravity are not arbitrary. If you can't say it in six seconds then it isn't free or even if it is free it certainly doesn't happen in that round. I'm not sure what type of ability that it is but it doesn't sound supernatural in nature. If it turns out to be supernatural then I recant for the following reason. Supernatural feats break laws rather than following them.

 

[LokiDR]

How about the rule that the DM decides what is reasonable. And for the last time it isn't arbitrary. It is based off the example they give in the book under when a free action stops being a free action. e.g. when yelling for help it is when telling a story it isn't. Time is not ignored. If the limit that I put on it based off a suggestion on how to rule free actions therefor it cannot be called arbitrary. In a system that is based off the real world then things like gravity are not arbitrary. If you can't say it in six seconds then it isn't free or even if it is free it certainly doesn't happen in that round. I'm not sure what type of ability that it is but it doesn't sound supernatural in nature. If it turns out to be supernatural then I recant for the following reason. Supernatural feats break laws rather than following them.

It is by definition arbitrary: Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. You state that more than one bluff is not possible in a round, and that is arbitrary. We aren't talking about delivering the Gettisburg Address in sign language. We are talking about 3 bluffs vs 1.

Gravity isn't arbitrary. Saying you can't lift that because gravity is increased is (assuming no rules exsisted).

Supernatural abilities not withstanding, I would allow the multiple bluffs, assuming he didn't have 9 attacks in a round.

 

[Elvinis75]

It is by definition arbitrary: Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. You state that more than one bluff is not possible in a round, and that is arbitrary. We aren't talking about delivering the Gettisburg Address in sign language. We are talking about 3 bluffs vs 1.

Gravity isn't arbitrary. Saying you can't lift that because gravity is increased is (assuming no rules exsisted).

Supernatural abilities not withstanding, I would allow the multiple bluffs, assuming he didn't have 9 attacks in a round.

Except for the rule calls for personal judgement so it is a paradox. You convienently forgot that part of the definition. Websters says:
depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

In this case we are talking about rules instead of laws but the idea still holds. I am following a fixed rule or law and thus am not making an arbitrary decision. You might say that I'm following an arbitrary rule and try to make me believe that I'm thus making arbitrary call. However I'm pointing to a ruling in the book that states clearly that a person cannot take all the free actions that they would like. It is a ruling and it is in the book. I'm going to follow that rule/law and thus I might let the person take two bluffs, three dagger draws from the same location or yell to short things to a couple of people. Until told otherwise I'll follow the rule that says reasonability is to be taken into account.
I've said my peace. Have fun!

 

[LokiDR]

Except for the rule calls for personal judgement so it is a paradox. You convienently forgot that part of the definition. Websters says:
depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

The rule does not specify "no more than 1 free action of any type"
thus your limit of 1 is "depending on individual discretion and not fixed by law". It is not a paradox, the rules call for an arbitrary call. Did you think I was insulting you in some way?

In this case we are talking about rules instead of laws but the idea still holds. I am following a fixed rule or law and thus am not making an arbitrary decision. You might say that I'm following an arbitrary rule and try to make me believe that I'm thus making arbitrary call. However I'm pointing to a ruling in the book that states clearly that a person cannot take all the free actions that they would like. It is a ruling and it is in the book. I'm going to follow that rule/law and thus I might let the person take two bluffs, three dagger draws from the same location or yell to short things to a couple of people. Until told otherwise I'll follow the rule that says reasonability is to be taken into account.
I've said my peace. Have fun!

Who said you shouldn't place reasonable limits on free actions? Your limit of 1 location to draw daggers from or 1 free action bluff in a round isn't reasonable. If these things take about the same time and concentration as speaking a word, a limit of 1 isn't reasonable.

By your logic, if I had 3 daggers on my right hip, 3 daggers on my left hip, and 2 up my slieves, the most I could ever throw in a round is 3, even with quickdaw. That is within DM purview, but outside of reasonable for me.

 

[LostSoul]

Why not give out a bonus to Sense Motive for consecutive Feints in the same round?

If Danny the Rogue tries to Feint Bob the Fighter in the same round over and over again, you could give Bob a cumulative +5 bonus to Sense Motive for every Feint attempt after the first.

It would look like: 1st check - +0; 2nd - +5; 3rd - +10; etc.