Taking 9.. or 8, or 7....

[Pielorinho]

But I'd call that a Bluff check.

If we're dealing with the apple pie contest, and if we assume that the judging is blind until the winning pie is chosen, then the rogue with no ranks in cooking and a high bluff check is likelier to bake a winning-but-not-incredible pie than the half-orc barbarian baker with max ranks in Profession: pastry-chef. I don't like that at all.

In this example, it's easy to imagine that Thogg remembers a recipe for a pie that he found many years ago on the body of a dismembered halfling: while the pie was pretty decent, it used boarfat in the crust instead of the rendered beholderkin lard that is Thogg's signature touch. Thogg, by using boarfat instead of beholderkin lard, is acting in a standard, studious manner--but he's not doing as well as he normally does when he follows his standard recipe.

I'd definitely allow him to take 10 with whatever circumstance penalty he desired.

Other circumstances:
-A villain forces you to forge a will declaring her to be the King's sole heir; you forge them, but you put some flaw in them that the king's advisor is likely to notice.
-You've been captured, and your captor is forcing you to march on a precarious path. You deliberately fail your balance check on a narrow ledge, hoping to follow up with a Diplomacy check to convince your captor to untie your arms.
-YOur party mates are bugging the heck out of you, trying to get you to use Diplomacy to convince the princess to sneak off with them. You make a halfhearted attempt in order to get them off your back.

It's not something I've ever seen come up, but if it did, I certainly think it'd add to the fun, not be overpowering, and be easily explained within the rules. I can't think of a good reason to disallow it.

Daniel

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Some of those really are better handled with a Bluff check 'I pretend to trip while on the ledge' for example - you are trying to convince the bad guy to do something. And he may or may not buy that the fall was deliberate.

Others seem fairly legitimate to me - you are hoping that the flaws will be noticed - and in fact I might give the attempt a higher DC than trying to perform the task normally - you are trying to be subtle enough for the antagonist not to notice, while at the same time obvious enough to be noticed by someone else, as in the forged document. Perhaps a Sense Motive check to read the antagonist's 'tells' would bring the DC back down. Others, like the princess, might be the same 'Princess, would you come with us? It will be a great way to lose some of that excess weight!'

The Auld Grump

 

[Jdvn1]

If we're dealing with the apple pie contest, and if we assume that the judging is blind until the winning pie is chosen, then the rogue with no ranks in cooking and a high bluff check is likelier to bake a winning-but-not-incredible pie than the half-orc barbarian baker with max ranks in Profession: pastry-chef. I don't like that at all.

I don't see how this follows. Did you miss the word "not" in my post?

As in, you're really good, but you don't want to show off how good you are. You make a Bluff check to try to deceive others into thinking you're not as good as you are.

 

[Pielorinho]

I don't see how this follows. Did you miss the word "not" in my post?

As in, you're really good, but you don't want to show off how good you are. You make a Bluff check to try to deceive others into thinking you're not as good as you are.

No, I saw the word "not." The pie example involves someone wanting to appear to be a good, but not masterful, baker. Someone with a high bluff check might be able to pretend to make a tasty pie, and watching him might make you think he's baking a tasty pie; but his bluff check is not at all going to help him actually make a tasty pie. He'll not realize that the shortening in a pie crust should be cold, or that you need to put the pie ina hot over in order to avoid having the crust turn mushy, or that the apples need additional sugar and a thickening agent, or that half a cup of cinnamon is too much, or something like that.

Only someone with profession [baking] will know all this. And the master baker will know a variety of different recipes, including her signature recipe and some recipes that are inferior to her signature recipe. By choosing an inferior one, she can bake a pie that is good, but not up to her usual standards.

Her charisma and her ranks in bluff don't enter into it.

Daniel

 

[Fieari]

The key is that the bluff check isn't there to pretend you're making a better pie, it's to pretend that you can't make a better pie, even though you really can. It's the half-orc with proffession pastry chef who wants to lose (the half-orc mafia is putting pressure on him because of some serious bets) but doesn't want the judge to know that he's purposely taking a dive.

The human rogue with lots of ranks in bluff would be able to convince the audience that he knows what he's doing, but that won't work on the judges who simply taste the (horrible) pie. The human rogue would also be able to convince an audience that the reason he missed the opponent's jugular vein with the knife was due to incompetence, and not, say, mercy (or pulling a scam that requires people to believe that they're trying to kill each other). The half-orc, who isn't so subtle, could as easily miss his cohort's jugular vein (deliberately miss when attacking) but it'd be obvious that he wasn't actually trying to kill his opponent. Everyone would be able to read his true intentions plain as day.

 

[Pielorinho]

The key is that the bluff check isn't there to pretend you're making a better pie, it's to pretend that you can't make a better pie, even though you really can. It's the half-orc with proffession pastry chef who wants to lose (the half-orc mafia is putting pressure on him because of some serious bets) but doesn't want the judge to know that he's purposely taking a dive.

It depends, and this is why I mentioned that I'm assuming the judging is blind. If the judging is blind, then the bluffer doesn't get a chance to work her mojo: the judges can only go by the finished product. As a guy who's been backing for nigh on twenty years, I have no idea how one would bake a pie such that it suggested, "Meh. I could do better."

Judges of a pie contest are going to assume that each contestant is doing the best possible job, unless there's extraneous evidence to the contrary. No bluff check is required to convince them of that, if all they have to go by is the end product. No bluff check can possibly convince them of that.

I may be missing some detail. Can someone explain how one would bake a pie that, by itself, made it clear that the baker could do even better than this obviously good pie?

(Sure, you could deliberately do that: shape the crust into letters detailing a superior recipe, or bake an exquisite pie and top it with slices of rotten meat. I'm talking about one that unintentionally conveys that message).

Daniel

 

[Fieari]

When doing an Appraise check on something, as a blind judge would, the bluff skill doesn't come into play. I'd only apply the bluff check to onlookers directly watching the action in question. An expert chef looks like an expert chef, whether he's deliberately putting in too much flower or not. There are practised motions that demonstrate competence. The way they crack the eggs, the way the rolling pin is utilized. True, the end product might be deficient if the chef is trying to throw the match (the expert chef also knows the pitfals he usually avoids) but without bluff, he'll still look competent to anyone watching him.

 

[Pielorinho]

When doing an Appraise check on something, as a blind judge would, the bluff skill doesn't come into play. I'd only apply the bluff check to onlookers directly watching the action in question. An expert chef looks like an expert chef, whether he's deliberately putting in too much flower or not. There are practised motions that demonstrate competence. The way they crack the eggs, the way the rolling pin is utilized. True, the end product might be deficient if the chef is trying to throw the match (the expert chef also knows the pitfals he usually avoids) but without bluff, he'll still look competent to anyone watching him.

While this may be true, I doubt that anyone but another expert chef would be able to tell the difference. Most people will judge a baker's competence by the end-product; and I think this would be true for most skill uses that result in an end-product.

If a character is being observed using a skill by another character proficient in that skill, then yes, a bluff check should be required. However, if the character's skill use is being judged by its result--either because the judge doesn't observe the actual use of the skill, or because the judge isn't trained in the skill--then I think it'd be appropriate to allow a character to take whatever penalty she desires to take on the skill use.

Daniel

 

[Fieari]

I can agree with that.

 

[Ferret]

Out of topic, but I once thought of introducing a rule called take 5. Half the time but you use a 5 instead of the roll. Over powered was the descision.