Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Come to think of it, there are some rules for figuring out an enemy's challenge, etc in Complete Adventurer. It uses a sense motive vs. bluff mechanic. FWIW.
I don't want to use my feat!
- Thread starter Egres
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
No. Not if the only thing he's doing is lowering his spellpower.
As in:
In combat, Amalleht, Mighty Wizard-King, casts a Fireball at minimum power at an opposing party of PCs, who all save easily. He's trying to draw the party into his trap by feigning lower power than he actually has.
However...
They can see he's got fancy robes. They see his fancy staff, his rings on every finger. They notice he strongly resembles the the description of Amalleht, the powerful evil mage from the "Song of the Evil Dromedary." The coins they captured in earlier encounters bear his likeness. He's in the throne room.
Whether they BELEIVE he's a weak spellcaster or not is a question of Bluff vs Sense Motive.
Now if he ditched the robes, rings, staff and dyed his hair, that would be Disguise.
Not Profession (soldier). That skill would let a character perform drills, care for his weapons, stand watch, etc. Complex military maneuvers like a tactical retreat or disguising troop movements are beyond the "daily tasks" or "common problems" of being a soldier.
Compare to Profession (sailor) (PHBpg80)- ties knots, repairs sails stand watch.
Similarly, Knowledge (Military Tactics) would let a PC know military history, what tactics have been used in the past, and against what kinds of opponents, and might even let you design a military strategy for a battle.
Whether that PC would RECOGNIZE those tactics in use in realtime from the battlefield level or not...?
And I still think seeing through an opposing general's troop movements would be Bluff vs Sense Motive, probably with some kind of synergy.
Of course, you'll note that, like Bluff and Sense Motive, Profession & Knowledge are ALSO not Fighter skills.
Last edited:
Dannyalcatraz said:
You have this real issue with discussing the topic without assuming that the PCs and NPCs are real well known by everyone involved.
Try discussing the topic where nobody knows anything about anyone that they are not already associated with.
How is it that all of your PCs and NPCs in your examples are Sherlock Holmes and can read minds by doing Sense Motive?
I don't remember who said it first, but I just checked it out: According to Complete Adventurer, you CAN now used Sense Motive to determine the relative power of your opponents by using Sense Motive.
No, not at all.
Like I said- in every campaign I have EVER DMed or played in since 1977, any PC over 9th level is going to have a rep.
So, when you posit that a 9th lvl+ is concealing his skill or ability within his area of expertise, YES- I will insist on a Bluff roll, especially in the light of WoTC explicitly allowing Sense Motive to be used to assess opponent's power level.
That falls clearlly into making the "outrageous...seem plausible" category.
For other cases of concealment of expertise (and like I already said), it would depend on the particular situation- like if the players or NPC have reason to be suspicious ("Yes, my beloved wife and children whom you're trying to kill went that way- See! There are their tracks!"), if the failure to perform is obvious in context (the ranger going in the opposite direction of bloody paw prints "What? Are you going to beleive ME or your own eyes?"), etc.
These would range from "outrageous" to the "untrue seem plausible" category.
The difference between "outrageous" and merely "untrue" would be modifiers.
No, not at all.
Like I said- in every campaign I have EVER DMed or played in since 1977, any PC over 9th level is going to have a rep.
So, when you posit that a 9th lvl+ is concealing his skill or ability within his area of expertise, YES- I will insist on a Bluff roll, especially in the light of WoTC explicitly allowing Sense Motive to be used to assess opponent's power level.
That falls clearlly into making the "outrageous...seem plausible" category.
For other cases of concealment of expertise (and like I already said), it would depend on the particular situation- like if the players or NPC have reason to be suspicious ("Yes, my beloved wife and children whom you're trying to kill went that way- See! There are their tracks!"), if the failure to perform is obvious in context (the ranger going in the opposite direction of bloody paw prints "What? Are you going to beleive ME or your own eyes?"), etc.
These would range from "outrageous" to the "untrue seem plausible" category.
The difference between "outrageous" and merely "untrue" would be modifiers.
ThirdWizard
First Post
You realize it could be a 3rd level wizard making one magic missile?
Or maybe he's a 20th levle caster... new to Sigil.
Or perhaps he's 7th level making his fireball 5d6 damage.
Or he could have just crossed the ocean and noone knows him.
Or maybe he's cast alter self, polymorph, or a slew of illusion spells.
Or maybe he just decided to wear green today.
In any case, none of the "people will recognise him" arguments hold up. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're chaning the subject. If he's trying to appear to be someone else, that is a disguise check. He is attempting to be something he is not. Note that disguise is Charisma based, it isn't just some makeup and clothes, it is a sustained act. This is very different than Bluff, which would be more like "This is not the wizard you are looking for."
And military tactics would be a Profession of some kind. It has to be. There is no reason a street smart rogue makes the best military tactician. It wouldn't be Knowlege because that isn't use of knowlege, but it would be a Profession check. Whatever Profession you want to make it, be Military Tactician, General, War Leader, or what have you is fine. But it is still a Profession check.
Or maybe he's a 20th levle caster... new to Sigil.
Or perhaps he's 7th level making his fireball 5d6 damage.
Or he could have just crossed the ocean and noone knows him.
Or maybe he's cast alter self, polymorph, or a slew of illusion spells.
Or maybe he just decided to wear green today.
In any case, none of the "people will recognise him" arguments hold up. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're chaning the subject. If he's trying to appear to be someone else, that is a disguise check. He is attempting to be something he is not. Note that disguise is Charisma based, it isn't just some makeup and clothes, it is a sustained act. This is very different than Bluff, which would be more like "This is not the wizard you are looking for."
And military tactics would be a Profession of some kind. It has to be. There is no reason a street smart rogue makes the best military tactician. It wouldn't be Knowlege because that isn't use of knowlege, but it would be a Profession check. Whatever Profession you want to make it, be Military Tactician, General, War Leader, or what have you is fine. But it is still a Profession check.
Yep, and that would be a pretty easy bluff roll to succeed at.
From another Prime Material Plane? OK. Heavy mods to succeed.
See Magic Missile answer, supra.
What level? 15th+, he's still one of the best in his field in the world...for all time. Unless he actively changes more than spell level (using Disguise or spells to alter his visage), there's still a good chance he'd be recognized. A level 15+ character isn't Joe Schmoe- he's Mike Tyson. He's a legend.
Less than 9th? Unlikely to be recognized for WHO he is, but Sense Motive can still (potentially) reveal his relative power.
Heavy mods to succeed at Bluff, depending on the spell. Change species or just his face? But here you've gone beyond just lowering spell level- he has invested a great deal of energy in changing how he is percieved.
You know, the last time Pres. Bush changed his tie, I still recognized him.
It takes more than a minor costume change to make someone less recognizable. A powerful mage's robe is PROBABLY a magic item- unlikely that he has more than one of it.
Except that that doesn't comport with Profession as written.
Someone with a high Profession (soldier) skill would have recieved the neccessary training to "use the tools of the trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, how to handle common problems." However, he may not have ever seen combat. Combat isn't the daily task of the soldier. Drills, training, cleaning, keeping watch and otherwise maintaining preparedness- these are the soldier's daily tasks.
While he would be familiar with how tactics have been used historically, and will have performed drills, he may not have any concept of how those abstract tactics translate visually onto the battlefield in real time with all those other distractions (smoke, fire, screams of the dying, etc.)
If you play defense in football, you get to look at page after page of "X's and O's" that diagram plays. You will practice those plays. But until you get into a game, your ability to distinguish between a sweep and a reverse or a screen is suspect.
(For the record, Alexander's tactic was the inspiration for the football play known as the sweep.)
Calling it Profession (Field Marshal) is no better- its just a needless subset of (soldier) that is better reflected by looking at achievement and levels. And the Field' Marshal's daily routine is determining training regimens, controlling logistics, making battle plans- not actually going into battle.
And even a Field Marshal may never have seen battle.
When Spartacus led the slave revolt against Rome, his army of Gladiators slaughtered several legions of Rome's army. Why? Because the leaders of those particular legions were completely untested. They held their rank by virtue of their social status, not because of their military skill. Spartacus, trained in battle, trained in the gladiatorial pits, crushed those legions.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Trey
Generals and Tactics: D20 is not designed for mass battle scenarios. RAW does not cover the instances of complex battle command and control and the minor implementation {Feat: Leadership} is of small scale. No single current skill can be used in a tactical manuever such as described. It is the combination of multiple skill checks, some of which dont exist in the RAW.
Disquise vs Bluff:
A character would disguise himeself to appear to be someone he is not.
A character would bluff someone to appear to have different abilities than they actually have. Or doing something that they are not {feint}.
The two skills can be used together to appear as an unknown, minor mage.
My take is that the more proficient you become, the smoother and easier the task appears. Take typing on a keyboard for example.
A trained typist can attempt to appear less skilled, but the habitual positioning of the fingers on the keys can give them away. A high level mage may cast a single a single bolt magic missile, but a discerning observer would be able to tell that that spell was cast at a lower power than it could have been.
What skills exist, in RAW, for discerning observers?
Spot, which is used primarily for noticing physical things such as a sleight of hand manuever.
Sense Motive, which is used primarily for noticing the intent of the observed character.
Which one makes more sense to use in this circumstance? Sense Motive.
What skill is used to foil Sense Motive? Bluff.
If the Mage wished to appear less skilled to the observer, that would be a bluff attempt. If the observer had Spellcraft and was observing the power of the spells, that bluff attempt would have a circumstance bonus.
IMHO, most of the above sidetrack thread on bluffing comes from campaigns were social skills are neglected and or ignored.
Back on track, Egress asked for a RAW answer to whether a character can voluntarily not gain a benefit from a feat *PER THE RAW*. The answer, to which he has yet to repond to indicate satisfaction, is a resounding No. The RAW does not address this matter as use of the mechanic is pointless in play. There are already RAW answers for convincing someone of an untruth, and those rules work quite nicely.
As a side note on the Reputation, Eberron has it spelled out that characters become known as they reach higher levels, but ThirdWIzard is right in that arguments based on that have little or no bearing on the point at hand.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Somedays I think having a CP2020 screen name makes it harder to be taken seriously around here
Generals and Tactics: D20 is not designed for mass battle scenarios. RAW does not cover the instances of complex battle command and control and the minor implementation {Feat: Leadership} is of small scale. No single current skill can be used in a tactical manuever such as described. It is the combination of multiple skill checks, some of which dont exist in the RAW.
Disquise vs Bluff:
A character would disguise himeself to appear to be someone he is not.
A character would bluff someone to appear to have different abilities than they actually have. Or doing something that they are not {feint}.
The two skills can be used together to appear as an unknown, minor mage.
My take is that the more proficient you become, the smoother and easier the task appears. Take typing on a keyboard for example.
A trained typist can attempt to appear less skilled, but the habitual positioning of the fingers on the keys can give them away. A high level mage may cast a single a single bolt magic missile, but a discerning observer would be able to tell that that spell was cast at a lower power than it could have been.
What skills exist, in RAW, for discerning observers?
Spot, which is used primarily for noticing physical things such as a sleight of hand manuever.
Sense Motive, which is used primarily for noticing the intent of the observed character.
Which one makes more sense to use in this circumstance? Sense Motive.
What skill is used to foil Sense Motive? Bluff.
If the Mage wished to appear less skilled to the observer, that would be a bluff attempt. If the observer had Spellcraft and was observing the power of the spells, that bluff attempt would have a circumstance bonus.
IMHO, most of the above sidetrack thread on bluffing comes from campaigns were social skills are neglected and or ignored.
Back on track, Egress asked for a RAW answer to whether a character can voluntarily not gain a benefit from a feat *PER THE RAW*. The answer, to which he has yet to repond to indicate satisfaction, is a resounding No. The RAW does not address this matter as use of the mechanic is pointless in play. There are already RAW answers for convincing someone of an untruth, and those rules work quite nicely.
As a side note on the Reputation, Eberron has it spelled out that characters become known as they reach higher levels, but ThirdWIzard is right in that arguments based on that have little or no bearing on the point at hand.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Somedays I think having a CP2020 screen name makes it harder to be taken seriously around here
ThirdWizard
First Post
Dannyalcatraz said:
In a world without TV or radio or really any way for anyone to know what he looks like unless they've seen him before...
What if you had never actually seen his face? I don't understand. If the great Blue Robed Mage Rath walks around in green, why on earth is anyone going to know it's him unless they've met him before or have had reason to see his picture before?
Neither with Bluff. Because in the case of directing armies, you arn't doing anything but directing. You arn't using any kind of Charisma or any kind of body language, or anything relating to yourself in the least. You're directing an army to move somewhere. They probably don't even know why they're going where they're going. I see no reason at all to use Bluff to determine if a trick you thought of works.
Profession on the other hand is your general ability to do things within a given field. A baker knows how to make good cakes, a librarian knows how to help people find books, a general knows how to position an army to take advantage of military tactics. Bluff doesn't even come into play.
Why would the coach use a Bluff check to determine how good his team is at performing said "sweep?" Would his influence and ability to teach them to work together have much more influence over the maneuver than his personal ability at trickery? Indeed, wouldn't his Profession (coach) skill proove to be the important thing in knowing when to use the "sweep" and when not to use it? [Whereas Knowlege (football) would allow him to know the basics of how the "sweep" maneuver works.]
He'll be better at it than a 3rd Rogue who specializes in fast talking local town guards and has a Bluff +9 as opposed to his cross class Bluff of +3 ability.
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
Snarf's Complete Two Weapon Fighting and Grappling Guide
