I don't want to use my feat!

[Voadam]

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.

I don't see how this shows that a powerful knight who shows up somewhere else with an unmarked shield needs to make a check not to be ID'd.

In robin hood doesn't King Richard and his knights show up in disguise at the end, simply by dressing as wanderers when they return? Are they in D&D terms simply putting on other clothes or are they masters of bluff and or disguise skills?

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I still don't see how that is a Bluff check. And, who is making the Bluff checks in this example? I would like to see some actual examples of play, perhaps that would help me understand your point. As it is, your examples just arn't convincing me yet.

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.

That's really a problem with the Fighter class. :\ They arn't good at anything except running up to people and combating them under core rules. I personally think that every class should have Profession. As it stands, there is no way to say that a Fighter is a good battlefield commander other than making it a pure roleplaying basis, whether you use Bluff, Profession, Knowlege, etc.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Better Quote..

Dannyalcatraz, your point is better illustrated by this:

All warfare is deception

Generally I think we are all in agreeance that the PC class of Fighter is designed to do a infantry grunt more than a combat tactician.

..

Oh, Third Wizard.. I own the recent collecters edition set of DVD's

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I disagree.

I can slowly type with 2 fingers on the keyboard and constantly have to look down to see where I am placing my fingers and you would have no clue that I am a trained typist.

Ditto for any other activity.

No Bluff check needed.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see how this shows that a powerful knight who shows up somewhere else with an unmarked shield needs to make a check not to be ID'd.

In robin hood doesn't King Richard and his knights show up in disguise at the end, simply by dressing as wanderers when they return? Are they in D&D terms simply putting on other clothes or are they masters of bluff and or disguise skills?

No, they just put on other clothes.

Disguise is for when your opponents know you (or know who you are disguised as) or when you are in view of suspicious characters. But in most circumstances, if you are just dressed up as a commoner, most everyone should think you are a commoner, no roll needed.

Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Spot check results. If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Spot checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Spot checks.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

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.

How is that a problem? There are some generals with a reputation for skill at personal combat, but not a lot. Alexander, Saladin, and Richard III led from the front and had reputations as fierce warriors. Julius Ceasar, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, George Washington, Wellington, Nelson, Napoleon, Rommel, Nimitz, etc have no reputation for personal skill at arms that I'm aware of.

History is also replete with stories of skilled warriors whom nobody thought to make a general and who probably would not have made particularly good ones. Seargent Rock was a sergeant. AFAIK, the Red Baron never made general. When I read a history of Iwo Jima, it listed dozens of men who racked up impressive kill counts and most were never even made officers. Now, I'm sure a number of those soldiers would have made great officers, but if combat prowess and command skill went hand in hand, the marines would have been fools for not handing them a star or two. As far as I know, there's no particular correlation between exceptional martial skill and exceptional command ability.

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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
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.

Thirdwizard
I still don't see how that is a Bluff check. And, who is making the Bluff checks in this example? I would like to see some actual examples of play, perhaps that would help me understand your point. As it is, your examples just arn't convincing me yet.

Its a Bluff check by the Allies to make the troop/equipment movements more believable to the Axis powers, based on their Sense Motive check.

Wikipedia:In order to persuade the Germans that the invasion would really be coming to the Pas de Calais, the Allies prepared a massive deception plan, called Operation Fortitude. An entirely fictitious First U.S. Army Group was created, with fake buildings and equipment, and false radio messages were sent. General George Patton was even mentioned as the unit's commander. The Germans were eager to find the landing location, and had an extensive network of agents operating throughout Southern England. Unfortunately for them, every single one had been "turned" by the Allies, and was dutifully sending back messages confirming the Pas de Calais as the likely attack point. To keep the pretence running for as long as possible, the deception was continued into the battle, with air attacks on radar and other installations in the area.

Another deception, Operation Skye, was mounted from Scotland using radio traffic, designed to convince German traffic analysts that an invasion would be also mounted into Norway, or perhaps Denmark. German troops were retained in Norway against this phantom threat that would otherwise have been moved into France.

Its a classic tactical level Bluff. They were "making the untrue plausible," they engaged in misdirection, just at a tactical, not personal level. Deciding to move Axis troops in response to Allied movements puts them "at significant risk." Had the Germans pierced the deception, Operation Overlord might have turned out very differently.

Elder-Basilisk
How is that a problem? *edit*AFAIK, the Red Baron never made general. *edit* Now, I'm sure a number of those soldiers would have made great officers, but if combat prowess and command skill went hand in hand, the marines would have been fools for not handing them a star or two. As far as I know, there's no particular correlation between exceptional martial skill and exceptional command ability.

1) Its a problem because the system does not allow much leeway for the intelligent, skilled warrior who doesn't have levels in rogue. "Essential" skills like Profession (soldier/warrior/gladiator, etc) and Knowledge (military tactics) should be class skills for any of the warrior classes- not that any warrior has to take them. There is no way to model the career marine who rises through the ranks and is a tactical genius. His KS will always be stuck at cross-class levels, ditto his Prof. skill levels.

RAW- a Bard or Wizard could take KS (military tactics) and always be better at it than a warrior, and EVERY core class except Barbarian and Fighter have Profession as a class skill- so any of them could be a better professional soldier. Does this seem right?

Simple solution- Make those Prof & KS into class skills for warrior classes.

2) Despite being a minor Prussian noble by birth, Richthofen never advanced beyond the rank of Rittmeister- equivalent of Captain- by choice. He was repeatedly asked to retire from flight duties, but insisted that his skill in combat and training the elite pilots of Germany's Jasta 11 made his presense at the front neccessary.

3) Many military forces make it difficult for any enlisted man, however talented a warrior, to advance to the status of an officer. However, every commander of note has studied the tactics of the ages. Even in modern military tactics classes, things like the phalanx and "crossing the T" are taught (however briefly) because they provide the fundamentals for learning the tactics of the present.

Learning military tactics is just that- LEARNING. Its a knowledge skill.

Applying that knowledge is something else, however. While I know a lot about military tactics, I would have a snowball's chance in...Pheonix, Arizona...of actually being able to make useful tactical decisions in real time.

There is a difference, too, between being a good soldier and being a good leader. Some people are simply not fit to lead others into combat.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

How is that a problem? There are some generals with a reputation for skill at personal combat, but not a lot. Alexander, Saladin, and Richard III led from the front and had reputations as fierce warriors....

History is also replete with stories of skilled warriors whom nobody thought to make a general and who probably would not have made particularly good ones....

...As far as I know, there's no particular correlation between exceptional martial skill and exceptional command ability.

History is not part of the fantasy archetypes afaic, the D&D general is the fighter ever since 1st edition when they got a swag of troops at 9th level. Okay 3rd edition challenged that conception by allowing the leadership feat for all but still the archetype lingers (the bonus for a stronghold & penalty for familiars) and I still buy into it.

The rules should serve the game, using the skills mentioned do not serve my game & possibly a majority of others too. How then can it be accepted? Not everything needs a mechanic for resolution, especially when game balance is not affected. This fighter is a good/great/rotten general for some justification? Great, carry on.

 

[KarinsDad]

Its a Bluff check by the Allies to make the troop/equipment movements more believable to the Axis powers, based on their Sense Motive check.



Its a classic tactical level Bluff. They were "making the untrue plausible," they engaged in misdirection, just at a tactical, not personal level. Deciding to move Axis troops in response to Allied movements puts them "at significant risk." Had the Germans pierced the deception, Operation Overlord might have turned out very differently.

Except that the Bluff skill in DND does not give you this.

It gives you a personal level of Bluff, not a tactical one.

Plus, Bluff is CHA based. A tactical level Bluff should be WIS or INT based.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

KarinsDad
Except that the Bluff skill in DND does not give you this.

It gives you a personal level of Bluff, not a tactical one.

Nothing in the skill as written says its personal only.

KarinsDad
Plus, Bluff is CHA based. A tactical level Bluff should be WIS or INT based.

THAT is potentially a 100% valid critique. Why do you feel Tactical Bluff should be WIS or INT based? A Bluff of any kind is about being pursuasive.
Charisma is described as being appropriate for "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." (PHB p9) That is exactly what a Tactical Bluff is trying to do- influence opposition forces.

WIS and INT, on the other hand are about being perceptive or retaining information.

Bluff's opposition skill, Sense Motive, is WIS based- seeing through deception is one mark of true wisdom, or having enough information about a particular situation as to make the Bluff useless. Sufficient INT should give SM bonuses where appropriate. For instance, if you know from your studies (KS Arcana) that Khrel the Obscure was destroyed in a well-witnessed magical mishap (and you have his skull sitting in the back of your lab), then anyone claiming to be Khrel the Obscure is probably not going to succeed at bluffing you.

Perhaps Bluff is incompletely modeled. Perhaps Bluff (especially at a tactical level) should have synergistic modifiers from other stats. But it really isn't a WIS or INT issue.