I don't want to use my feat!

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Interesting. I see it as the exact opposite. I see this as a very convincing argument to use Spot for someone trying to hide their actual ability. I appologise for that.

My reasoning would be that you notice subtle clues less in their mannarisms but in how they handle themselves. In other words, you don't notice the typist trying to look poor because they want to move their hands to the proper places, you can't tell that. What you do notice is that when they hit the Enter key, they always use their pinkey and they only hit the Space key with their thumb. In other words, Spot.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Spot - Sense Motive..

I can see how that would make sense.. and had to reread and think a couple thought before replying

The hand movements are not hidden, such as palming a coin.. which is a matter of 'did you notice it or not {spot}. They are out in the open, a matter of do you know why that movement was done.

And your reply will include the real illusion magic of misdirectin where the invisible item is in plain sight

Honestly, I can see either Spot, Sense Motive, or both together used in various circumstances....

Damn. I hate it when I keep thinking while I type!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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..

Yes.

If he is a ruler, his face will be on coinage, official art, depicted by actors in staged plays in travelling shows, etc.

If he's merely powerful...eliminate the coinage. But, on the other hand, he may be on wanted posters.

If he was a (real world) knight, his coat of arms will be known to ANYONE who knows the heraldry system of Europe. For this reason, knights who had been dishonored or were in disgrace often carried shields that were unmarked or blacked out. A powerful samurai's crest, and possibly even his family swords would be equally recognizable. A ronin would have to divest himself of clothing, armor and weaponry to remain anonymous.

Like I mentioned before, the faces of both Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill Cody were well known outside of their primary areas of habitation because their amazing feats made them the subject of poplular fiction, complete with illustrations.

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?

It depends on what actually makes him recognizable. If he ALWAYS walks around in blue robes, wearing green robes MIGHT make an effective disguise. On the other hand, if he also carries the Eye of Vecna in a crystal locket, they might call him the "Blue Robed Mage" rather than "Rath, High Disciple of Vecna" to avoid being killed, and a mere change of robes won't cover that fact completely. (And a change of wardrobe would be more like Disguise than Bluff).

After all- Tycho Brahe was pretty famous for a scientist, partly because he wore a prosthetic nose made of a silver/copper alloy. Were I to see a man in Europe in the late 1500's with a silvery nose, I might assume it was Tycho. I might be wrong, but "Silver nose" would have to feed me a good line.

Or perhaps he's identifiyable for other reasons. My mom taught music in a ghetto school in New Orleans. There were around 1600 students...one of whom was hispanic. You could pick him out from across the stadium. Everyone knew when he was absent. I was on the flip side of that. I was one of 2 black kids at a school in Kansas (and I was the short one) so everyone knew who I was, even if they hadn't met me. Later on, I was the first black to graduate from my High School. Today, kids who have only seen my picture from 19 years ago 20' up on a wall recognize me as "The black guy!" (There have been other black graduates, but my picture is in a sea of predominantly white faces.)

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?

He wouldn't. All the coach can do during a game is put plays in and scream. During practice, he'd use Profession (coach) to impart to his players how to run a sweep or how to defend it- giving his players the tools to execute the play or decipher that the play is being used against them.

The check while the game is in play would be a Sense Motive check, and it would be by each player on the field. Why? Because a sweep (and all of its related plays) is about misdirection- the blockers don't only block other players- their presense and motion obscures the actions of smaller players...who may then continue to run (inside, outside or in between the blockers), pass the ball away, etc. The defensive players have to read the movement and decide where the heck the ball is actually going.

To bring it back to the inspiration for the sweep: The Battle of Arbela. Alexander's Cavalry (with him riding lead) rode parallel to Darius' assembled Persian forces, and thus concealed his javelineers and slingshot specialists who ran alongside the cavalry. Darius ordered his cavalry to parallel Alexander's cavalry to prevent the Greeks from flanking his forces...even as that cavalry almost left the field of battle. When Alexander turned his cavalry at about 165degrees to charge the Persians, the concealed javelineers and slingshot specialists devastated the isolated Persian cavalry, and the Greeks were thus able to flank the Persians at will.

Darius and his generals had no clue as to what was going on, and it cost them utter defeat. As far as they were concerned, Alexander was either trying to flank them or flee the battle.

Had they pierced Alexander's subterfuge, Greece would have been ruined.

Bluff vs Sense motive covers that mechanic elegantly.

That those 2 skills are not part of everyone's class skill list isn't my fault. Personally, I see those as everyman skills, as basic to human existence as climbing or running.

I mean, who hasn't tried at least a little fib, or had to try to catch someone in a lie?

Quote: Dannyalcatraz
And even a Field Marshal may never have seen battle.

The reply:
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.

Not necesarily. If the generals of Rome had been better at "Sense Motive," Spartacus would have been a historical footnote, as opposed to a legend. The professional soldiers of Rome that conquered the world lost to one man leading a group of condemned criminals from all walks of life...in battles where the Legionaires had a 3 or 4-1 manpower advantage, weapon and armor advantage, and supply line advantage.

Never underestimate the skills of a true grifter. There's a famous case of a guy who sold shares in a depleted mine out in California. He claimed it produced gold, silver, lead, diamonds, rubies...anything of value...despite the geological impossibility of it all. And when potential investors (doctors, psychologists,lawyers- rich folk of all kinds) came out to visit the site, the mine invariably produced what he said it would. He was caught, tried, and found innocent...and on the way out of the courtroom, was selling shares in his mine to the jury.

Another one sold the Eiffel Tower for scrap metal...3 times.

Bluff and Sense Motive are about manipulating and understanding the way people think. I don't think that is especially related to ANY particular class, despite the way the game was designed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just to clarify- I'm not saying something like Profession (soldier) doesn't have bearing on the question of figuring out military deception.

I see it as giving a synergistic bonus to Bluff.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

More on Spot + Bluff

Had some time to think about it more..

Spot will let you notice some of the physical particulars, such as the finger placement for a typist, but Sense Motive is still needed to determine if that placement is derived from a hidded skill or just plain luck.

So, in this regard, I would give a bonus to the Sense Motive for a high Spot

Technically it should be an Spot check rolled that modifies a Sense Motive check, and finally on to a Profession(Scribe) modified by all the earlier rolls... but that gets rather ungainly in play and becomes one of the many comprimises you get when playing a table top game.

So to, the general should have Sense Motive, Spot, Gather Info, Knowledge (Tactics), Knowledge(History), and Profession(soldier) checks modify an opposed {non-RAW} skill check of "Battlefield Command" to detemine the gains/losses of a certain phase of battle.

Anyway... still straying afar afield from the original post

 

[ThirdWizard]

Heh, perhaps they should have included something on this.

Suffice to say PCs in my game generally arn't generally going to be recognised by the general populace of a city they arn't active in, unless they have something that really sets them apart.

To bring it back to the inspiration for the sweep: The Battle of Arbela. Alexander's Cavalry (with him riding lead) rode parallel to Darius' assembled Persian forces, and thus concealed his javelineers and slingshot specialists who ran alongside the cavalry. Darius ordered his cavalry to parallel Alexander's cavalry to prevent the Greeks from flanking his forces...even as that cavalry almost left the field of battle. When Alexander turned his cavalry at about 165degrees to charge the Persians, the concealed javelineers and slingshot specialists devastated the isolated Persian cavalry, and the Greeks were thus able to flank the Persians at will.

Perhaps the problem is that I see the troop movement as the important factor. I don't think anything is going to be influenced by particularly how the troops are moving. They can be pretending to retreat, looking back over their shoulders with panic on their faces or they can be pretending to retreat with a determined look on their face, and it won't affect what the enemy troops decide to do. The enemy will still determine whether or not to pursue based on the situation given to them based on their military training.

Darius and his generals had no clue as to what was going on, and it cost them utter defeat. As far as they were concerned, Alexander was either trying to flank them or flee the battle.

They had no clue because, say, they didn't have enough Knowlege (tactics) so they didn't recognise the maneuver. I just can't wrap my mind around them not recognising the maneuver when performed with exactly the same movement by someone with a high Bluff skill because the enemy forces for some reason acted out the scenario better. It makes no sense to me.

Never underestimate the skills of a true grifter. There's a famous case of a guy who sold shares in a depleted mine out in California. He claimed it produced gold, silver, lead, diamonds, rubies...anything of value...despite the geological impossibility of it all. And when potential investors (doctors, psychologists,lawyers- rich folk of all kinds) came out to visit the site, the mine invariably produced what he said it would. He was caught, tried, and found innocent...and on the way out of the courtroom, was selling shares in his mine to the jury.

Those would be Bluff checks.

Bluff and Sense Motive are about manipulating and understanding the way people think. I don't think that is especially related to ANY particular class, despite the way the game was designed.

I could buy that. I don't see battlefield tactics as manipulating the way people think, though.

So to, the general should have Sense Motive, Spot, Gather Info, Knowledge (Tactics), Knowledge(History), and Profession(soldier) checks modify an opposed {non-RAW} skill check of "Battlefield Command" to detemine the gains/losses of a certain phase of battle.

A bit complex?

Personally, I like simple things. Not to say that that isn't more exacting, but for me a simple Profession (Soldier) would work, perhaps with a +2 bonus for 5 ranks in Knowlege (Tactics). Oh, I know, it isn't quite right, but much faster. And since there are no rules for it, I'd choose something that would be easy to remember and adjudicate. Not that a more complex check wouldn't work, but it isn't my style.

Going back a bit. What about Sherlock Holmes pretending to be Clueso (from the Pink Panther). He's pretending to be something he is not, acting out a role that is in fact the antithesis of what he is. He's pretending to miss those things that are obvious even to a casual observer where normally he picks up on the most subtle of clues.

I'd probably make it a Disguise check. That would mean that it would be opposed by Spot. Bluff is trying to make NPCs react a certain way, whereas Disguise is about making NPCs believe you are not what you actually are. In this case, I'm just looking at what the PC is trying to do and the opposed rolls is a consequence of the PC's action based on the skill. So, its more of an incidental choice.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Complexity...

Yes it is, and if I was running a game were a PC were to take the field as a commander, I would actually layer on a couple more complexities, the primary one being what we now call the battle-staff. These professional soldiers would be doig skill checks of thier own, then presenting the information gained to the commander. It can't be a straight +2 aid another as the information the staff is working from may not be accurate.

My favorite published module is Chrome Berets, a CP2020 adventure, in which the PC's {who are normally a small group of adventurers out to grab glory and gold for themselves} get hired by an unknown for a strange mission. The Johnson's are actually representing a small tropical island goverment who is facing a rebellion, and losing. The PC's get handed the keys to the military forces and promised much reward if they win.
If they lose, a reward will be the last thing from thier minds as the rebels will be sure to slaughter them.

Fun game

But I digress even farther.

I agree, each incident of disguise/bluff should be considered on its own, and a number of complex factor *could* {not 'should'} be added into the mechanics of the scenario. GM fiat modifiers work just as well. Both skills could be used in a number of situations, altho one skill roll may be more appropriate.
Perhaps a jump back to a 2E MS/HS rule of making the DC on both skills with one roll?
Anyway, its mostly acedemic for me at this point.

BTW, why did you feel it was important to point out where Inspector Clueso's character is from and not Sherlock? Did you think we are uncultured swine?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yes it is, and if I was running a game were a PC were to take the field as a commander, I would actually layer on a couple more complexities, the primary one being what we now call the battle-staff. These professional soldiers would be doig skill checks of thier own, then presenting the information gained to the commander. It can't be a straight +2 aid another as the information the staff is working from may not be accurate.

I agree. If this were a common occurance then a detailed system would be preferable, especially if it gave the PC options to affect the outcome.

I agree, each incident of disguise/bluff should be considered on its own, and a number of complex factor *could* {not 'should'} be added into the mechanics of the scenario. GM fiat modifiers work just as well. Both skills could be used in a number of situations, altho one skill roll may be more appropriate.

Yep yep. There's no way either of us could think up solutions to all situation on a message board. PCs are just far far too unpredictable. I mostly find it interesting, but it is good to start thinking about things before they ever come up in game to be better prepared for those random occurances. I can't count the number of times that I've seen something off the wall on these boards then later it came up and I was prepared for it because of that!

BTW, why did you feel it was important to point out where Inspector Clueso's character is from and not Sherlock? Did you think we are uncultured swine?

I see you are familiar with Clueso!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

ThirdWizard
I don't see battlefield tactics as manipulating the way people think, though.

""The first casualty of war is truth." attributed to many speakers-Rudyard Kipling, US Senator Hiram Johnson, Arthur Ponsonby, Samuel Johnson, and Aeschylus.

While this was meant as comment on how politicians present war to their constituents, it applies in equal force to the way a war is prosecuted.

Much of war and combat is about making your enemy think one thing before you do another in order to gain tactical advantage.

A feint in solo combat is obviously an example of this- and many tactical maneuvers are nothing more than feints on the scale of massed forces.

A tactical retreat is designed to make your opponent think you are fleeing part of the battlefield in order to get him to pursue you into a battlespace of your chosing where you have the advangage. You have made your opponent think he's routing your troops, even as he heads into ambush.

For many months before D-Day, the Allies made certain troop movements with the intent of making the Germans move their troops. Those resultant movements opened up gaps in Germany's forces that the Allies exploited.

Camouflage, smoke screens, potemkin villages and so forth disguise troop strength or movement in a particular area, either making the opponent delay action, expend resources or otherwise act in ways that are contrary to their actual best interest.

In all of these cases (and more), you make the opponent act the way you want through deception- you are altering his thought processes. It is no less thought manipulation than conning a granny into giving up her nest egg.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Personally, I like simple things. Not to say that that isn't more exacting, but for me a simple Profession (Soldier) would work, perhaps with a +2 bonus for 5 ranks in Knowlege (Tactics).

I am seeing a lot of skills being presented that fighters do not possess within the core rules as class skills, this seems to indicate that fighters should not become the best generals.

This is my primary beef with presenting skill checks to accomplish fighting within the capabilities - it makes the bard & rogue most able & the fighter least. The fighters martial mastery must be imho unrivalled & thus I have to reject any suggestion of using skills in any method of resolution.