Winking skeletons

[Vinyadan]

I know that Xykon's charisma score is very high - if I remember correctly, higher than 23 - but I was asking myself: how hard would be to succeed with such a bluff check as the one seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html)?
Is there a circumstance bonus because the evil guys are usually played as total idiots by the DM, to allow the good guys - PC - to take them out, so that the order supposes Xykon to be "trustable" (even though he said "wink wink")?

Also, would you think that the absence of facial expressions due to the lack of skin allows liches to lie more easily?

[Kish]

Well, I'm pretty sure lichdom grants a Charisma bonus.

Beyond that, only one member of the Order had put any ranks in Sense Motive at the time Xykon used that bluff on them, and she wasn't there. The others all believed that Elan's goateed twin and his blatantly evil group of adventurers were heroes.

[CrimsonAngel]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e381/CrimsonAngelChris/oots/g126.png

[Mastikator]

Liches have a +8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot checks. Otherwise same as the base creature.
Abilities: Increase from the base creature as follows: Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +2. Being undead, a lich has no Constitution score.
Also, being venerable, Xykon has a +3 bonus to int, wis and cha. Giving a total of +5 int wis and cha.

Sorcerers have bluff as one of their few class skills. My guess is Xykon put a lot into it, and since he has at least 23, probably more, and at least 21 levels, he has at least 30 in bluff. Basically, even with massive circumstance penalties from his lie being unbelievable, it's still a very hard sense motive check to beat. One that a fighter with moderate wisdom might not make.

[Zevox]

Also, being venerable, Xykon has a +3 bonus to int, wis and cha. Giving a total of +5 int wis and cha.
+6 for a total of +8, actually. The bonuses from each age category stack (+1 middle age, +2 old age, +3 venerable).

Zevox

[Volthawk]

+6 for a total of +8, actually. The bonuses from each age category stack (+1 middle age, +2 old age, +3 venerable).

Zevox

Nope, the penalties are -1,-2 and -3. The bonuses are +1,+1 and +1.

[NerfTW]

I wouldn't even consider that a difficult bluff. His army is lined up to look like they're guarding the gate. (with an obvious weakness) He's been purposely baiting them through the dungeon this whole time, leaving his big guns hidden. They hear him tell his minions to not let anyone near the gate.

The Order was young and stupid. They automatically assumed that this was an actual order and not just an attempt to get them to do what he wanted.

If we were going by the numbers, I would think the bluff would be very easy, almost at the level of shouting "LOOK OVER THERE!".

[ref]

Crimson, dude, make that 15.

[Eloel]

He's also a min of 25 lvl (beats Darth V handily), for +6 Cha due to levels.
+6 levels, +5 tomes (or wishes. Don't tell me he didn't use those), +3 age, +2 Lich, minimum +6 enhancement (could be more if he has an epic item), and probably a minimum of 16 starter. That's 38 Cha, for +14 to the check. As a previously-human sorcerer with non-negative Int, he nas a minimum of 3 skill points to spend every level, with little to spend them on, so it's likely he has bluff maxed. That's 28 ranks (min) of Bluff, for +42 on his check. Since he has nothing better to do than craft items, there's a -good- chance that he has a +Bluff item, though with +42 he doesn't need it.

IF he has a +10 item of some sort (why not?), he has a better than even chance of instilling a Suggestion without casting a spell on anyone without Sense Motive ranks or very high wisdom.

And even without suggestion, he only has a -20 penalty for "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider.", which auto-succeeds for him.

[SadisticFishing]

Heh, two things: #1, a good bluff check should be roleplayed as a good bluff check, that's... pretty much the whole point.

#2... It was funny. The Giant decided that the rules would win out over how the game should be played, and Xykon's MASSIVE bluff totally overshadowed the fact that he almost clearly said that he was bluffing.

[Ancalagon]

Heh, two things: #1, a good bluff check should be roleplayed as a good bluff check, that's... pretty much the whole point.

Better don't start with something like this on this forum. There seems to be a very strong group that seems to literally worship the rules. Rules allow this, rules don't allow that, but a die said X, the spirit of the rule does not matter, it's about what it literally says etc.
Sometimes I have the impression RP is just considered to be some optional fluff to some mechanical calculations.

[magic9mushroom]

Better don't start with something like this on this forum. There seems to be a very strong group that seems to literally worship the rules. Rules allow this, rules don't allow that, but a die said X, the spirit of the rule does not matter, it's about what it literally says etc.
Sometimes I have the impression RP is just considered to be some optional fluff to some mechanical calculations.

That's when we're engaging in debates about the Rules as Written.

[Ancalagon]

That's when we're engaging in debates about the Rules as Written.

Yes, that's when, imho, the fun gets shot down. ;)

[Kish]

Engaging in debates about "the rules as written" in the Roleplaying Games forum is one thing. In the Order of the Stick forum, they're nominally-if-at-all on-topic and aggravated responses are to be expected.

[Ancalagon]

Don't get me wrong: As RPG-geek I like rule debates to a certain extend and it's cool that OotS is based on rules and that rules often get reflected in the comic. We can also use rules to deduct some abilities of the characters (as "what spell COULD this friend/foe bring into a battle").
All those things are good and shiny but some people simply overdo it - especially given that a) RPG-rules never are meant to stand in the way of the GAME and b) Rich stated explicitly that he's disregarding the rules at certain points.

[Zherog]

Heh, two things: #1, a good bluff check should be roleplayed as a good bluff check, that's... pretty much the whole point.

So... when a rogue attempts to Tumble in order to get into a flanking position, do you require the player to do some somersaults on your floor? And then, when the rogue attempts to stab the bad guy in the kidney, I have to wonder who the player stabs to show exactly how it was done...

[Acero]

So... when a rogue attempts to Tumble in order to get into a flanking position, do you require the player to do some somersaults on your floor? And then, when the rogue attempts to stab the bad guy in the kidney, I have to wonder who the player stabs to show exactly how it was done...

the air maybe?
No summersaults required

[Zherog]

OK, so your players are required to act out their attacks. They aren't required to act out some skills (Tumble) but are required to act out others (Bluff).

Presumably, if their acted-out attacks are done poorly (maybe the fighter can only fake-swing his sword twice in six seconds, rather than four times), then the attack fails, right? Because that's exactly what you're saying about Bluff -- if the acting isn't good enough, despite what the player rolls and despite whatever modifier the character has, the attempt fails.

[Magicyop]

Don't get me wrong: As RPG-geek I like rule debates to a certain extend and it's cool that OotS is based on rules and that rules often get reflected in the comic. We can also use rules to deduct some abilities of the characters (as "what spell COULD this friend/foe bring into a battle").
All those things are good and shiny but some people simply overdo it - especially given that a) RPG-rules never are meant to stand in the way of the GAME and b) Rich stated explicitly that he's disregarding the rules at certain points.

Preach it, brother!

The rules are there to HELP you. If you have to trip over them to accomplish the game you want to accomplish then just disregard them where you need to.

Also, to the snarky person who is saying that players should act out stabbing people, you're not understanding roleplaying. You are NOT your character. But in the middle of a conversation with an NPC, it should not sound like this: "And so I was visiting the duchess' castle, and -BLUFF CHECK, DM!- nice talking to you." It should sound more like: "And so I was visiting the duchess' castle, and I found this gem, see, just lying on the ground! Well, nice talking to you."

You are not your character. But when you are in character and having a conversation, things like bluff checks can't just be a silent moment where you roll a dice and change how the NPC thinks. They have to be you continuing the conversation and adapting your lies to how well you rolled.

You just have to use thought. There are situations where doing as your character does is appropriate, and situations where it isn't.

[Zherog]

Is my name so hard to spell that I get "that snarky person" instead? I mean, don't get me wrong - I defintely was being snarky, and it's certainly not the first time I've been called out for it... But my name isn't that hard to spell, and was even in the post above yours... *shrug* Snarkiness mostly aside, let's backtrack a bit and rehash, because I think my snarkiness is getting in the way of my point (and for that I apologize):

Vinyadan started the thread by linking to 106 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html) and asking about Xykon's Bluff check from that comic - a bluff so cheesy, it's accentuated by X actually saying "wink, wink" after it.

SadisticFishing then commented: "a good bluff check should be roleplayed as a good bluff check, that's... pretty much the whole point." And this is where I took exception and used a high-snark factor to try and make my point.

I agree with your point, Magicyop, that a player should say something other than "I Bluff the stupid ogre." But that's not what SF said -- or, at least, it's not how I interpreted what he said. What he's essentially saying is that when a player's character has a high Bluff check, the player needs to be able to tell great lies in order for the skill to succeed. And that's really no different -- again, snarkiness aside -- from saying the player of a dexterous character needs to be able to Tumble or the player of a high-level fighter needs to be able to swing a greatsword 4 times in 6 seconds in order to get all his attacks.

The player doesn't need to tell a great lie. He/she doesn't have the skill, the character does. The player should absolutely put forth some effort. Your "I found this gem" example, I think, is perfect. It's not really a very good Bluff, when it comes from the player. But that's why the player has ranks in the skill -- because it's something his character is good at.

I absolutely do not endorse the "I bluff the stupid ogre" concept. But I also absolutely do not endorse the concept of punishing the character because the player isn't good at a particular skill. And it's the latter point that I was taking exception to.

edit: gah! I'm amazed how often I hit "post" instead of preview! Double Gah! *ahem* Anyway...


They have to be you continuing the conversation and adapting your lies to how well you rolled.

This I disagree with, but that's OK. I have the player roleplay the scene as best as he/she possibly can. Then roll the check (whether it's Bluff or Diplomacy doesn't really matter, though we're talking about Bluff). The check determines how well the character did. Your way -- roll the dice then roleplay the result -- is perfectly fine; nothing wrong with it at all. I just prefer the other direction.

[Snake-Aes]

Isn't "acting out the action" pretty much something that people only do because they WANT to? My groups tend to avoid that because it means you can measure a player's punch with rules, but can't measure his bluff if the PC doesn't have a silver tongue. To keep things fair, requiring the guy to act a social skill check isn't necessary. Doesn't stop us from doing it when we are inspired and everyone is happy.


You'll find out it's incredibly hard to argue someone is not going to be happy about what they do when they have such large smiles on their faces.

[Winthur]

Also, to the snarky person who is saying that players should act out stabbing people, you're not understanding roleplaying. You are NOT your character. But in the middle of a conversation with an NPC, it should not sound like this: "And so I was visiting the duchess' castle, and -BLUFF CHECK, DM!- nice talking to you." It should sound more like: "And so I was visiting the duchess' castle, and I found this gem, see, just lying on the ground! Well, nice talking to you."

Reminds me of a convention session with a rather charismatic player character. Really light-hearted game.

-Hey, lady, let's hit it off together.
-I don't want to!
-*takes dice* But you do. :smallbiggrin:

It was said so smugly that it was perfect and funny at the same time. :smallsmile:

[Ancalagon]

I'm trying to handle that with a compromise: You have to do at least SOMETHING that goes into the direction of what your character wants to do.
It does not have to THAT brilliant but just doing nothing and rolling isn't going to do the trick.

If the roll then is very successful after a rather lame bluff (or whatever) you can go over it with a wink but at least you did not do... nothing. I would also suggest (really, nothing more) you don't play characters you really, really cannot play (as example from a LARP: if you are around 160cm in height and roughly the same in width... don't play a half-elf half-fairy.)

The same goes for P&P. If you know you never come up with quick, witty responses don't play the character that wields (hum... at least that's the plan) his rapier as sharp as his tongue.

[Zherog]

I think we're awfully close to being in agreement, Snake. In my games, I want the wallflower to be able to play a silver-tongued bard capable of charming everybody he/she meets. I don't expect the wallflower to be a Shakespearean actor. Heck, I don't even expect the wallflower to be a small-time community theater actor. "I tell the guard I found the gem," is good enough for me -- the character has the silver tongue, not the player. That's why Charisma is a stat and Bluff and Diplomacy are skills. All I ask for is more than, "I Bluff the guard." To be fair, I also ask fighters to add flair once in a while to attacks -- "I duck under his sword and smash my mace into his knee" -- rather than, "I attack."

(as a complete tangent to the Bluff discussion: if I particularly like a player's roleplay, I grant the roll a +1. I never penalize the roll for the player's roleplay, though -- even when the player does say, "I Bluff the guard." It's a little bonus, but it does seem to help, at least at my table.)

[Snake-Aes]

:p the memories...
Once I was in a similar "caught with your pants down" situation with the local military and I said "I bluff the captain". The Master looked at the rolls (i succeeded) and said "You told the captain you wear leather thongs with thorns and are sexually attracted to soldiers". Never halfassed my actions after that.

[Magicyop]

I think we're awfully close to being in agreement, Snake. In my games, I want the wallflower to be able to play a silver-tongued bard capable of charming everybody he/she meets. I don't expect the wallflower to be a Shakespearean actor. Heck, I don't even expect the wallflower to be a small-time community theater actor. "I tell the guard I found the gem," is good enough for me -- the character has the silver tongue, not the player. That's why Charisma is a stat and Bluff and Diplomacy are skills. All I ask for is more than, "I Bluff the guard." To be fair, I also ask fighters to add flair once in a while to attacks -- "I duck under his sword and smash my mace into his knee" -- rather than, "I attack."

(as a complete tangent to the Bluff discussion: if I particularly like a player's roleplay, I grant the roll a +1. I never penalize the roll for the player's roleplay, though -- even when the player does say, "I Bluff the guard." It's a little bonus, but it does seem to help, at least at my table.)

Sorry for not adding your name, I only just noticed that you can still look at the thread while you're writing and I was too lazy to open a new window. What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I agree with it completely. When I mentioned about adapting the lie to fit the roll, I rather meant downward, instead of upward: Someone is not required to be a brilliant actor to lie, but if they attempt to lie and roll poorly, they can easily make up a decidedly awful and unconvincing lie.

[Zherog]

*shrug* like I said, not the first time I've been called "that snarky guy." Probably won't be the last, either. It was mostly a (bad) attempt at humor...