Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1545867" data-attributes="member: 5171">Yup.Never used Sense Motive or Spot in a conversation, or Knowledge to figure out something that might apply well to the situation?  That's Wisdom and Intelligence right there.Nope and nope.  I have several very intelligent friends who can't lie to save their lives.  If you've built a high-Int character with no ranks in bluff, you've just built them.  Thank you for asking.High Intelligence lets you put more ranks into Bluff, however, and Strength can be used to either get a circumstance bonus (like you'd get from picking someone up by the lapels) or instead of Charisma on a per-time basis as the GM feels appropriate.  I believe that's listed as an official option somewhere.See "Complex checks" in Unearthed Arcana if you want to get really involved in complex rolling systems.  Failing that, the modifier in the book for every conceivable situation is right in there.  +2, as a general rule of thumb, or more or less as the GM feels appropriate, up to and including the +20 bonus to Sense Motive checks a target gets if your bluff is completely ludicrous.  It's in the book.That's a bit like asking how a wall's climb DC can be known before the player decides to try to climb it.  The DM says "Hey, this guy's unfriendly, but he's also afraid of the law, so if you bluff or intimidate and use the town guards in some way, you'll get a +4 to your check.  Otherwise, you get a -2, because this guy dislikes you."  The stage is set for the players.What is this, the eighth time we've brought this up?  Yes, Mil, they do.  Please stop with the false rhetoric.  If I want to bluff my way past the guard, I can roleplay out that bluff to the best of my ability.  If my bluff is very believable ("The king's attendant told me to come by to pay some tax or something, said I was late in my payments, so I really have to get in"), you get a bonus on your Bluff check.  If it's somewhat more difficult ("Look, I won't lie to you, I've got to get in there to see a girl; let me in, and I'll tell you all about her later, eh?"), you get a penalty.  If it's ludicrous ("I am Fildo the Leprechain, let me in and I'll grant you wishes!"), you get a huge penalty.  It's in the book.You can do the same thing in combat, if you use that logic.  The DM can always say that you hit or miss or kill the bad guy or take 100 points of damage.  Your big problems boil down to "The DM can screw me" and "I can't automatically win regardless of the rules by giving a speech that somebody with my character's charisma and skill ranks has no business giving."Except that it's not reducing, they're only preset in the same sense that every DC in the game is preset, and they don't do any such thing.1) The system doesn't discourage you from stripping naked and running around the room shouting "Look, guys, I'm invisible!" either.  That's what the GM is for.  In this case, the GM would need to know what kind of bluff you were making, anyway, so even by the basic rules, he needs to ask you for more information.2) It's a valid way to let it go if that's the way you want your games to run.  If you don't want your games to run that way, then it's not valid.  Ta-dah.Sounds like the GM's job, not the book's job.  The book gives the player a list of racial archetype personalities to use as a template, a list of class behavioral tendencies to use as a template, and a list of nine possible alignments to use as a template.  That's a whole lot of "here's how you can roleplay your character" right there.1) Bull. 2) Bull.  3) Bull.  4) You're pulling out the "I could have a bad GM" argument again.  Can we all as a group agree that "Yes, but what if I had a bad GM?" is not a valid argument by anyone?  A GM who lets you level every time you roleplay is not good.  A GM who ignores every attempt of yours to roleplay and doesn't let circumstances affect dice rolls is not good.  Please.  If a White Wolf Storyteller puts sugar in my gas tank, kicks me in the shins, and then steals my girlfriend and takes her into the back room for a "personal roleplaying session", does this prove that the Storyteller system is bad?  No.  So stop using "My GM was bad" and "But what if GMs do this?" as powerful argumentative proof of your position.  They don't work.  Every time you've said this, the people here have said, "Wow, sounds like you had a bummer of a DM."  Nobody is defending that behavior.  But it's not relevant to this conversation.For the sweet love of fey-touched halflings, why, sweet merciful eight-sided-dice, why do you keep turning "Not let you do something your character couldn't do, based on your ability scores and skill ranks" into "Not letting your actions affect the game"?  Your Cha8, no-social-skills character can certainly affect the situation.  He's just not likely to improve it much on his own.  If he uses the right information (like using the fact that he knows the dude is afraid of the town guard in his intimidate check), he could get a circumstance modifier, even.  That's in the book.  If you wanted more, then you should have played a more charismatic character, or someone with more ranks in social skills.You're mashing cause and effect together.  The low-charisma character (played by a high-charisma player) is saying the rude stuff because his character isn't charismatic.  He knows that his roll isn't going to be very high.  He's anticipating that.Feh.  Should have left awhile ago.  This is a silly discussion.</blockquote>

Verification