I want to believe

[Moff_Tarkin]

In response to Anguish,

First of all, a guard who has been ordered to not let half-lings in might not have to make a sense motive check. If you have one of those people who follows orders to the letter at all cost then there is no way a half-ling is getting by. You have to disguise him as a gnome or find another way in for him. It may not be clear to some people, but there are guys who follow orders like that, and that is the kind of guards I want.

Another real life situation. Lets say you have a military guard that is told that any car driving up to a particular outpost without proper ID must be fired upon. One day, toward the outpost drives a car with the President of the United States, the Pope, and the guard’s mother. There are people out there who would open fire on that car. I’m just trying to explain how some people will follow rules so fanatically as to not be deterred by a social check.

And as for the friend stealing my dice. A bluff check doesn’t always help him either. One time, only one time mind you, he beat my sense motive check; because he was telling the truth. I still insisted it was him and pressed him on it until I realized I had not even brought out my dice yet. In my defense, when you have a record like he does, you shouldn’t be surprised at such accusations. Its just further proves my point that failing a check doesn’t mean you necessarily believe what’s going on.

The adventure before this one, a PC killed a rotten-toothed inn keeper because we all knew he was up to something, even though we were unable to find hard evidence of wrong doing. I personally have doubted people in real life, called them liars who were trying to take advantage of me. Most times I actually turned out right but sometimes I have been wrong. Being a monstrous cynic allows you to bypass the whole bluff vs diplomacy thing. Besides, it better to not trust someone who is being honest then it is to trust someone who is being deceitful.

 

[aboyd]

First of all, a guard who has been ordered to not let half-lings in might not have to make a sense motive check. If you have one of those people who follows orders to the letter at all cost then there is no way a half-ling is getting by.

It almost sounds as if you are arguing in your DM's favor, now. The core books support this viewpoint. The PHB page 68 says "Favorable or unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. Two circumstances can weigh against you: the bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like."

So I wouldn't let game mechanics bully me around too much. If the guard was told "no halflings on penalty of your life," then I wouldn't even allow a roll. Or perhaps I'd allow the roll but discard the result. Or perhaps I'd give the roll a 50 points more difficult DC -- the kind of thing perhaps the gods or epic level characters could pull off.

The DMG page 30 also supports you -- and the DM mentioned in the original post, somewhat. It says, "For extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances, you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than -2. For example, you can decide that a task is practically impossible and modify the roll or DC by 20."

I'm not saying your DM was right about everything, but the idea that the DM adjudicates things and gets to say something is super-difficult to disbelieve? That's in there. Core rules say he can play with core rules.

I think the biggest problem we have is the modules he has been running. The dungeon crawl modules from Goodman Games I believe. We keep coming across crazy things in these modules that show a complete lack of understanding of the basic rules.

It's funny, because I was about to use some of those DCC modules as an example of how I handle this stuff. Sure, the DCC modules get some stat blocks wrong. But one thing they get right is to deliberately go outside the mechanics of the game to develop a story. For example, the module "Into the Wilds" opens with the local royalty having a long-cursed bloodline that eventually kills every heir to the throne. In addition, the curse was made by what appears to have been a warrior-type. D&D 3.5 edition core books provides no mechanism for this. If the players wanted to replicate the effect, they would have a miserably difficult time doing it. Yet, the curse exists, as-is, in this module. One of the modules in the DCC compilation "The Adventure Begins" contains an artifact that automatically, without save, kills every NPC level 5 or higher, in the entire world. There is absolutely nowhere to find that artifact in the core books. There are no rules for how it operates, except for what you read in the module itself. These things are totally made up, and the DM has to wing it when enforcing these things.

Regarding the D&D comic, The Order of the Stick, there are tons of rules lawyers who post on the forums, complaining that it's not possible for the cartoon characters to do certain things within the rules. But one of the problems that continually trips up these guys is that Rich (the guy making the comic) will often have custom material that he made up for it -- for example, the "Snarl" is unknown to D&D books. There is no known stat block for it. Also, the "soul splice" effect that he showed in the last 30 or so comics was completely made up. People would try to argue about how it worked -- "the rules say this or that" -- only to have Rich pop into the forum and say, "It's my custom thing that works how I say it works, whether that's OK for you or not." And then that's how it was.

I provide those examples as what I personally follow when I am working on my own games. I typically never have any core rulebook monster operate as the core rulebook suggests. Everything is custom, even if I'm just tweaking the HP or something small. I follow rules -- I typically put a post-it note that outlines the modifications next to the stat block, so that I can stick to my changes, for better or worse.

I have had it backfire. I'm running the Cage of Delirium module right now (haunted house) and I'm running it with the optional Unhallow effect, as I thought "ha ha, that'll make it tougher to beat these undead." But the cleric in our group is evil and commands/rebukes undead instead of turning them... and the Unhallow effect helps him. Well, tough luck for me. He got to waltz through a couple tough combats. Lucky him.

Anyway, the point is that if I were the DM mentioned in the original post, I wouldn't even name the illusion effect in place. It's isn't programmed, isn't permanent, isn't in the spell list in the PHB. It's custom, and it works in a way that reacts appropriately to someone hacking at the head of the vampire. That way the players cannot backseat drive or "armchair DM" the game. I might not even ask the players to roll to disbelieve, or at least I wouldn't tell them if they failed. (The rolls would happen, but usually I ask for a series of rolls from each player before the game starts -- 2 listen checks, 2 spot checks, a couple other things -- and then I secretly apply them when the time comes.) That way the player isn't cued to think, "Oh, I should metagame now."

So I think the DM was probably right to try to make the effect work the way he intended it to work. But it was a mistake to try to drive it from the rules, a mistake to name the effect for the players, a mistake (maybe) to let them know they were doing Will saves to disbelieve, and a mistake to dictate after that. Instead, I would have simply made the illusion behave either appropriately or inappropriately as the players did things. If they metagamed, I'd probably pull the rug out from under them, and tweak expectations. If they played in character, I'd probably work to give them in-game rewards that matched how they operated their characters.

 

[irdeggman]

In response to Anguish,

First of all, a guard who has been ordered to not let half-lings in might not have to make a sense motive check. If you have one of those people who follows orders to the letter at all cost then there is no way a half-ling is getting by. You have to disguise him as a gnome or find another way in for him. It may not be clear to some people, but there are guys who follow orders like that, and that is the kind of guards I want.

So very wrong here IMO (and per the RAW).

Bluff is about convincing someone that something is believable.

What is the bluff about in this situation?

Trying to convince the guard that the halfing is not in fact a halfling.

See PHB pg 68 the last example

"You might find this hard to believe, but I'm, actually a lammasu who's been polymorphed into a halfling. . . ." +20 to the DC


Now if in the games you are playing all you are doing is making a bluff roll against a Sense Motive check then something is missing.

You need to specify what it is you are trying to convince the target of of.

In games I run I also have the players role-play their interaction (and describe to me any "set up" they are doing). This provides me with the information necessary to apply situational and circumstance modifiers to the roll.

 

[udalrich]

Part of what makes this situation complicated is that the PCs have several pieces of information:

1. There is something which looks very much like a vampire in his coffin, recovering from his wounds.
2. There is a missing kama

I'm also assuming the spell had a tactile component, so that the illusion was believable. Even if you fail your save against an illusion, if you then try to touch it and your hands go throw it, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that something strange is happening (and an illusion would be high on the list).

If the PCs only knew 1, they should decapitate/burn the body, search for loot with their usual thoroughness (which might include detect magic) and move on. If it's ever relevant, they believe that they did indeed kill the vampire.

Given that the PC's know 1 and 2, it's perfectly reasonable for them to search for the missing weapon (especially if they do well enough on the knowledge check to realize that the vampire's gear should still be around). If they're high enough level that it plausible for the kama to be magical, detect magic is perfectly appropriate. Searching for openings that would admit a gaseous form vampire but not a kama is very likely using out of character knowledge.

Going to the halfling example, if, while the halfling is bluffing the guard, his companion casts a silent, quickened invisibility (so the guard doesn't actually see why he disappears), once the guard notices that the companion has disappeared, he's still going to be concerned by that, even though he believes he's talking with a lammasu polymorphed into a halfling.

"Yes, Mr. Lammasu, I know you're allowed in there. But us guards get concerned by people who disappear. Can you wait here a minute while I get this straightened out?"

 

[Rabulias]

Though it treads a bit close to meta-gaming, remember that the PCs live in a world where magic and illusions are real. If they have any experience at all with illusion magic, they could reasonably think to themselves: "Hmmm... could be I have fallen prey to a powerful phantasm. If so, my insight alone is unable to pierce it. How else can I test what I see before my eyes?"

With the right circumstances, a situation can still be suspicious, even when all physical evidence points to the contrary.

And I am uncomfortable allowing spells without the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor to "force" characters into behaving and believing a certain way.

 

[Vegepygmy]

And I am uncomfortable allowing spells without the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor to "force" characters into behaving and believing a certain way.

That sounds like a pretty good rule of thumb, in fact.

 

[irdeggman]

Though it treads a bit close to meta-gaming, remember that the PCs live in a world where magic and illusions are real. If they have any experience at all with illusion magic, they could reasonably think to themselves: "Hmmm... could be I have fallen prey to a powerful phantasm. If so, my insight alone is unable to pierce it. How else can I test what I see before my eyes?"

With the right circumstances, a situation can still be suspicious, even when all physical evidence points to the contrary.

The die roll results are supposed to reflect what the PC has pieced together from such "doubts".

Using this logic to have players say I don't care what the result was I don't believe it so I want my character to act this way. . .

If there is a lot of "evidence" afoot to work in the PC's favor then the DM is supposed to factor that into situational and circumstance modifiers to the DC of the check.

And I am uncomfortable allowing spells without the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor to "force" characters into behaving and believing a certain way.

yes and no.

You are not "forcing" characters to behave in a certain way. You are attempting to "force" players to remove player knowledge from PC knowledge.

For example - just because a player has read and memorized the entire MM does not mean that his 1st level halfling fighter PC knows all about demons and what a vampire is and how to dispatch one. By using vampire in my example I am not trying to make a direct correllary to the situation of the OP.

I have a player in my Age of Worms game who loves to mix the two. He tries to write up such complex character histories that his PC knows all about everything in some manner, even though his skill ranks can't possibly reflect that.


Bottom line - this is an excercise in keeping player and PC knowledge separate. This is and always will be a difficult challenge in the world of role-playing.

 

[akbearfoot]

IMO the missing kama debunks any attempt to stop the PCs from casting detect magic, or searching the coffin furthur. Or the rest of the room thouroughly for that matter. Regardless of whether or not they failed their saves against the illusion. I would honestly expect ANY party to thouroughly search anything and everything even remotely close to such a creature.


I make a few assumptions. That the PCs are high enough level to have had experience with cleverly concealed secret compartments. And that the PCs -assume- the vampire did not have time to go and hide his stuff before returning to his coffin. The OP said the coffin was right near them, so I assume it was in a nearby room.


There is absolutely no rational for refusing to let a character do something he's probably done a thousand times already, and it has nothing to do with the illusion. They believe they killed the vampire, fine. But they still want to find his gear, and any of his treasure he was hiding.


As far as the illusion goes...the DM can deal with the PCs gaming it to get around it. He has given them good reason to make sure they are thourough. There is no way to draw a line between player knowlege and character knowlege in this case. It seems clear that there was sort of mishandling with the rules regarding illusions on the DMs part.

Good example...is an illusionary wall. If we find an illusionary wall in a dungeon and get past it. Now, later on come to a dead end room where we expect an exit but cannot find one. Say we feel all the walls with our hands and we all fail the save so we all fail to find the illusion that we all think is there. So now, I close my eyes and walk around the room, dragging my sword across the wall. No way for an illusion to trick a inanimate object, so the sword is eventually going to pass through the illusory wall. By your DMs logic, you wouldn't be able to do anything else in order to find the secret exit, not even have the wizard who was wanting to save his last detect magic use that. I think that is a rediculous judgement.


Does he only ever allow 1 pc to search something? For example, fighter searches room with his -2 search check and fails to find anything...Now the rogue can't search the same room because 'they believe there is nothing to find'? Thats crazy talk.

 

[Dross]

One option for the DM:
See what the players are going to do after "successfully" destroying the vampire, then if they fail the save that is what they do. If they succeed, then they can change their actions to what is appropriate. Use Knowledge checks in a similar way.

But there is the problem of the missing Kama. It's got to be somewhere so how do we find it? (I personally think the Vamp should have been smart enough to cover this with some type of illusion or contingency plan/magic.)

What is the SOP of the party? if Detect Magic is typically used, there is no way I'd prevent it being used in this situation, even if it inadvertently revealed the illusion.

As a DM i would not reveal the exact spell to the players: "It acts like a programed illusion but there seems more to it" is a perfectly acceptable answer in my opinion. The other side to this is to say "The evidence does not support your theory" if the players go off on a wild tangent (I've done this myself while the party was trying to work out what several sets of tracks meant).

 

[irdeggman]

IMO the missing kama debunks any attempt to stop the PCs from casting detect magic, or searching the coffin furthur. Or the rest of the room thouroughly for that matter. Regardless of whether or not they failed their saves against the illusion. I would honestly expect ANY party to thouroughly search anything and everything even remotely close to such a creature.

Correct - but IMO that has "nothing" to do with disbelieving an illusion.

When the OP phrased it as such that is when he crossed the line between player and PC knowledge.

Whne the player who failed his saving through asked the other PC to do a detect magic to determine if it was an illusion or some other sort of trickery that is when it crossed between player knowledge and PC knowledge.

If he had said that the kama was missing and that they should detect magic to "find it" or something along that path things would have beenperfectly fine IMO. But the OP's post made it seem to me like the player who failed his save was trying to find a way to get around the fact that his PC thought things were fine - except for the missing kama.


I honestly don't know why the DM gave them that piece of information in the first place though.

But the fact that the PC failed the save means that the illusion seems real to him - hence the vampire itself is qppears the way it is supposed to be.

Now the PC could be trying to find out where the missing kama went - but that should be a separate issue.

And yes I would also expect the PCs to search the place for any loot. If their standard method of searching included casting detect magic everything is fine per a normal preestablished pattern, if not then things are a tad different and why (as announced in character) they are doing it determines if it is metagaming or not.

There is absolutely no rational for refusing to let a character do something he's probably done a thousand times already, and it has nothing to do with the illusion. They believe they killed the vampire, fine. But they still want to find his gear, and any of his treasure he was hiding.

I absolutely agree with this one - but see the intent of casting detect magic from above and what was in the OP's original post.


As far as the illusion goes...the DM can deal with the PCs gaming it to get around it. He has given them good reason to make sure they are thourough. There is no way to draw a line between player knowlege and character knowlege in this case. It seems clear that there was sort of mishandling with the rules regarding illusions on the DMs part.

Does he only ever allow 1 pc to search something? For example, fighter searches room with his -2 search check and fails to find anything...Now the rogue can't search the same room because 'they believe there is nothing to find'? Thats crazy talk.

I don't think that was what was posted - I believe it was cast detect illusion to determine if there is an illusion or other trickery. Which IMO is a lot different than allowing a rogue to do is normal speal by searching using skill checks.


Now I make an assumption here based on the OPs posts - it appears that the DM got tired of trying to explain what the PCs knew versus what the player's knew and finally said "you can't do that regardless of the rules". IMO this was said out of frustration because the players were trying to "game the rules" and the "intent" of the saving throw results (and probably the same with skill check results too).