Glibness.... Errata?

[Hanuman]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm

So.... is this spell really as good as it sounds?

[Roc Ness]

So.... is this spell really as good as it sounds?

Yep. I have heard many a tale of a bard convincing a king that the king himself is the impostor.

[Hanuman]

Yep. I have heard many a tale of a bard convincing a king that the king himself is the impostor.
That's hilarious!

[LordBlades]

Yeah, it's that good. Glibness+optimzied bluff=insane DCs (pretty much unbeatable by regular NPCs, even with the -20 penalty for outrageous bluff).

We've banned it in most of our games after one changeling beguiler staged a coup-de-stat by disguising himself as the king, and convinced all the palace staff that the person sitting in the throne hall was a doppleganger in disguise.

[Killer Angel]

Indeed, the spell is VERY good. It let you get a free pass for very difficult situations, and a lot of other funny things.
But...



Yep. I have heard many a tale of a bard convincing a king that the king himself is the impostor.


We've banned it in most of our games after one changeling beguiler staged a coup-de-stat by disguising himself as the king, and convinced all the palace staff that the person sitting in the throne hall was a doppleganger in disguise.

Sadly, those are myths, or a very generous reading of the skill by the DM.


A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe

1 round or less.
You make up something really good? OK, they believe you for a longer time, I wanna be generous... 10 rounds.
It's a bluff, not a magic suggestion.

[BobVosh]

or believes something that you want it to believe

That is the important bit. The first one is if you want to make them throw up their arms to fend off a imaginary bat attack. The second bit is if you want them to trust you.

[Saph]

The most sensible way to run Bluff checks is that they don't make the target believe that what you're saying is the truth. They just make the target believe that you think that what you're saying is the truth.

So if you bluff someone that the sky's green, they'll believe you're being honest, they'll just think you're colourblind or something.

[ericgrau]

Yeah bluff abuse requires a very generous interpretation. If you're a rules stickler and have trouble deciding what is reasonable and what is silly, then Saph's explanation works well. This leaves glibness at something weaker than suggestion per attempt but it more than makes up for it by lasting a lot longer.

[LordBlades]

Sadly, those are myths, or a very generous reading of the skill by the DM.


Actually, it's simply RAW use of Bluff. On a sucessful check the target 'believes something that you want it to believe'.

So if a palace guard sees 'the king'(as in a person looking 100% identical with the king) and he tells him that there is a doppleganger currently disguised as a king in the throne room and it must be killed (with a sucessful bluff check), by RAW he will believe this, and act in consequence.

[Killer Angel]

Actually, it's simply RAW use of Bluff. On a sucessful check the target 'believes something that you want it to believe'.

So if a palace guard sees 'the king'(as in a person looking 100% identical with the king) and he tells him that there is a doppleganger currently disguised as a king in the throne room and it must be killed (with a sucessful bluff check), by RAW he will believe this, and act in consequence.

No. By raw, he will believe it, but will not act in consequence.
"Acting" is "react as you wish", wich usually last shorter than one round.
By RAW, he'll believe that "the king" is a doppleganger and someone should kill him. At that point, it's in the hand of the DM the guard's reactions. Your guard will go to a higher level cleric, explaining the problem, maybe...

[Eloel]

No. By raw, he will believe it, but will not act in consequence.

By RAW, he WILL act in consequence. HOW he acts is entirely upto him, since there's no magical effect compulsing the guard. He could just decide to kill whom he believes is the king (the player), to keep the nation from unnerving by doppelgangers. Oops.

[Killer Angel]

By RAW, he WILL act in consequence. HOW he acts is entirely upto him, since there's no magical effect compulsing the guard. He could just decide to kill whom he believes is the king (the player), to keep the nation from unnerving by doppelgangers. Oops.

My bad. He will not act as you wish. :smallwink:

Of course, this is not keeping in count the fact that every morning, there's probably a wizard casting contact other planes, to know if someone is scheming to dethrone or kill the king...

[ericgrau]

Once you start giving liberal interpretations of "belief" you're crossing over from RAW to RAI. These boil down to "bluff is not bluff". There is a difference between lying and implanting thoughts.

[Hanuman]

http://www.filehurricane.com/viewerthumbnails/1114200964949AM_Bluff.jpg

[LordBlades]

By RAW, he WILL act in consequence. HOW he acts is entirely upto him, since there's no magical effect compulsing the guard. He could just decide to kill whom he believes is the king (the player), to keep the nation from unnerving by doppelgangers. Oops.

Exactly. The DM can decide to screw you up at any time, but ot works the other way around too. The purpose of the game is to have fun together, not to see who knows more dirty tricks.

In this case he let it slide just because said player wanted to withdraw his beguiler with a bang (a very undead heavy story arc was coming and dude didn't want to play an enchantment/illusion focused class through it). However, nothing of what he did is not RAW.

[Hanuman]

Exactly. The DM can decide to--
--do whatever she wants to, whenever she wants, forever.
That's what it is to be a DM, you play by guidelines, maybe you stick to RAW, maybe you don't, but at the end of the day if she wants fire breathing owlbears, there will be fire breathing owlbears.

[LordBlades]

--do whatever she wants to, whenever she wants, forever.
That's what it is to be a DM, you play by guidelines, maybe you stick to RAW, maybe you don't, but at the end of the day if she wants fire breathing owlbears, there will be fire breathing owlbears.

Except, on the forums, in rules discussions sticking to RAW is usually assumed as a common ground. Rules discussions usually revolve around 'how the printed system works' not 'how I/my DM housrule a certain situation'

[Starbuck_II]

Except, on the forums, in rules discussions sticking to RAW is usually assumed as a common ground. Rules discussions usually revolve around 'how the printed system works' not 'how I/my DM housrule a certain situation'

Agreed. RAW, the magical text, is important. We can't discuss houserules as we can't know ya'lls or even all ya'lls. So we discuss what is common ground.

[Psyren]

If you have Secrets of Sarlona, psions get in on the Glibness fun too :smallsmile: (You don't even have to wiggle your fingers.)

[Hanuman]

I believe the most common ground, is understanding.

http://www.wallstory-murals.co.uk/mural_images/Rainbow%20clouds/Over%20the%20rainbow.gif













But seriously, not discussing how we run campaigns in common practice makes DM's think they have to create a formal article to express DMing trend.

Yes, RAW is good for things like "you take 1d6 damage, based on fort, not reflect, because thats the rules", but rules that requite judgement calls and social contexts have no place in non-homebrew discussion? I understand people's thoughts on keeping everything to the point, but the lack of organic conversation really hurts the culture as much as it seems like it's reasonable to assume people will post their ideas in homebrew, it simply discourages it.

[Barlen]

Yep. I have heard many a tale of a bard convincing a king that the king himself is the impostor.

It would be more fun in this situation if the king actually was an impostor, and that several of the kings advisors knew it and helped install the impostor.

"So your telling me the king is an impostor? How did you know? guards seize him!"

[Psyren]

We can discuss houserules - but RAW has to come first, otherwise we have no way of distinguishing houserules from the real thing.

And houserules should be communicated up front. Waiting until a player wastes a slot on a given spell and tries to use it to tell him "it doesn't work that way in my world" is kind of a **** move.

Rhymes with sick

[LordBlades]

I believe the most common ground, is understanding.
But seriously, not discussing how we run campaigns in common practice makes DM's think they have to create a formal article to express DMing trend.

Yes, RAW is good for things like "you take 1d6 damage, based on fort, not reflect, because thats the rules", but rules that requite judgement calls and social contexts have no place in non-homebrew discussion? I understand people's thoughts on keeping everything to the point, but the lack of organic conversation really hurts the culture as much as it seems like it's reasonable to assume people will post their ideas in homebrew, it simply discourages it.


I agree to what you say, but on the other hand, whe you start discussing facts(RAW) and opinions ('cause in the end that's what houserules are, opinions on how the game should be played) together over the internet, some people will be lost on that distinction.

I've seen quite a few D&D rules debates on forums becoming something like:

guy A: 'by RAW page x, this action has this outcome'
guy B; 'you're wrong, because in my campaign I houserule it differently'

[Boci]

I agree to what you say, but on the other hand, whe you start discussing facts(RAW) and opinions ('cause in the end that's what houserules are, opinions on how the game should be played) together over the internet, some people will be lost on that distinction.

I've seen quite a few D&D rules debates on forums becoming something like:

guy A: 'by RAW page x, this action has this outcome'
guy B; 'you're wrong, because in my campaign I houserule it differently'

Yes, but it is suprising to hear that a high bluff check ruined the game, so you banned one of the easiest ways to boost the skill, rather than changing the way bluff worked in the game.

[LordBlades]

We can discuss houserules - but RAW has to come first, otherwise we have no way of distinguishing houserules from the real thing.

And houserules should be communicated up front. Waiting until a player wastes a slot on a given spell and tries to use it to tell him "it doesn't work that way in my world" is kind of a **** move.

Rhymes with sick

I actually left a campaign for that. DM decided to houserule something in the middle of combat(namely that opening a door is a free action) just after I did something relying on the RAW interpetation of it. He then refused both to let it go by RAW this time and start applying the house rule from next time, and let my char redo his action in the light of the new rule. My char died as a result of it (i had moved through the door as a move action, and then closed it behind me as a second move, relying on the fact that the mosnter chasing us wouldn't be able to both open door and full attack in the same round).

[LordBlades]

Yes, but it is suprising to hear that a high bluff check ruined the game, so you banned one of the easiest ways to boost the skill, rather than changing the way bluff worked in the game.

That was exactly our problem with it: too easy way to boost bluff skill.

Glibness gives you +30 to bluff. Even with the -20 penalty for outrageous bluffs, you'd still be a good +10 modifier against a char that's of roughly equal level and roughly equally optimized for sense motive.

[Boci]

That was exactly our problem with it: too easy way to boost bluff skill.

Yes, so instead of banning Glibness, why didn't the DM just put some restrictions on what the skill could do?

[LordBlades]

Easiest option.

If one of your players found a 1st level spell that gives him +30 to melee attack rolls, would you find easier to ban the spell, or put some restrictions on what somebody can hit with a melee attack?

Also in many case restricting social skills looks like messing with the players just for optimizing well.

[Person_Man]

Note the following:
The DM is free to grant circumstance bonuses to Sense Motive as he sees fit. The bonuses listed under the Bluff Skill are simply examples.
NPCs can make a Sense Motive check whenever it's reasonable to do so, and the circumstance bonuses might change accordingly. For example, if the court Wizard casts True Seeing and confirms that the king is not a doppleganger, if the queen takes the Bard to her bed chamber and realizes that things are not the same, if the Bard eats a meal at a banquet that the king was violently allergic to, etc. One lie does is not the same as a durationless Dominate Person.
Bluffs don't effect people who aren't in the room at the time of the Bluff. So if the general of the army is in the barracks and is told fantastic news about the king being a doppleganger, there's no reason he would believe it unless their was compelling evidence to do so.
Bluff only works against intelligent creatures who understand the language that the Bard is speaking.
Anyone with ranks in Spellcraft who sees the Bard cast Glibness is aware that he has cast Glibness. That person can talk as a free action and tell everyone what he saw, giving everyone a huge circumstance bonus to their Sense Motive. With it's very long duration that won't be an issue if the Bard is planning to deceive someone. But if he's just walking around a dungeon and stumbles upon a group of people he wants to deceive, it's not very useful if any of them have magical training.
As a magical effect, Glibness can be detected and dispelled. All you need is one trustworthy court Wizard with a high Sense Motive check (and maybe an Item Familiar) at your side. Or better yet, the king should just be one. You don't get to stay king very long in a magical world unless you're elaborately paranoid, after all.


Having said all that, I love it when my players creatively use Bluff, and I let them get away with it if they're clever about it. But the more they push, the more the world pushes back...

[Boci]

Easiest option.

What about all the other ways there were to boost the skil?


If one of your players found a 1st level spell that gives him +30 to melee attack rolls, would you find easier to ban the spell, or put some restrictions on what somebody can hit with a melee attack?

Inapropriate example since there is no grey area in what an attack does, it either hits or misses. Bluff is very different.

Also, truestrike...?

[Psyren]

Easiest option.

If one of your players found a 1st level spell that gives him +30 to melee attack rolls, would you find easier to ban the spell, or put some restrictions on what somebody can hit with a melee attack?

That's a terrible analogy.

1) An attack roll is clearly defined in terms of what it can do - Bluff is not, making DM involvement necessary anyway.

2) Skill checks are supposed to be easy to boost (certainly easier than attack rolls.)

3) Glibness is 3rd level, not 1st.

[Telonius]

Having said all that, I love it when my players creatively use Bluff, and I let them get away with it if they're clever about it. But the more they push, the more the world pushes back...

This is approximately how I handle it as well.

[LordBlades]

Looks like we agree to disagree on this matter.

All of my gaming group agreed that getting rid of Glibness (and a few other spells for that matter, like Wraithstrike or the dragon killer aka Shivering Touch) was for the better of the game.

It also freed the DM of the need to think of ways to purposely screw over the PC when attempting something out of his/her comfort zone with the tools he allowed in the game.

[absolmorph]

Yeah bluff abuse requires a very generous interpretation. If you're a rules stickler and have trouble deciding what is reasonable and what is silly, then Saph's explanation works well. This leaves glibness at something weaker than suggestion per attempt but it more than makes up for it by lasting a lot longer.
If you can take a penalty of 50 on your check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff), then it's a nonmagical Suggestion.

[Toliudar]

I second the sheer entertainment value of bluff. I DM'ed a group whose bard only used the skill twice in an entire campaign, but the second time (augmented by Glibness), he managed to convince the entire group of mercenary guards/labourers that the BBEG had fired them - leaving a half-empty dungeon. Perhaps not strictly RAW, but much, much more entertaining (in retrospect) than mowing through dozens more mooks before getting to the final encounters.

[Killer Angel]

Looks like we agree to disagree on this matter.

All of my gaming group agreed that getting rid of Glibness (and a few other spells for that matter, like Wraithstrike or the dragon killer aka Shivering Touch) was for the better of the game.


It's your prerogative, but IMO you cannot pretend that you were "forced" to do so, 'cause with glibness there was the risk of a "coup d'etat".
By RAW, you can make someone act as you will only for a round or less, and if you want someone believes you for more time, he'll do it, but you have no control over his actions, and he will believe you only 'til some evidence of the contrary appears.
A DM that feels obligated or forced to follow a certain course of action for a glibness, playing it like a magical suggestion, IMO is making some mistake.

[HunterOfJello]

If one of your players found a 1st level spell that gives him +30 to melee attack rolls, would you find easier to ban the spell, or put some restrictions on what somebody can hit with a melee attack?

*Cough* *Cough* True Strike (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:True_Strike) *Cough*

[Ravens_cry]

*Cough* *Cough* True Strike (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:True_Strike) *Cough*
Unless you follow the Item Creation guidelines, and guidelines they are, as rules, it's not broken.

[tcrudisi]

By RAW, you can make someone act as you will only for a round or less, and if you want someone believes you for more time, he'll do it, but you have no control over his actions, and he will believe you only 'til some evidence of the contrary appears.

A DM that feels obligated or forced to follow a certain course of action for a glibness, playing it like a magical suggestion, IMO is making some mistake.

I am very confused by your argument, KA. There are two applications of Bluff, one which you can make someone act as you wish (for 1 round or less) and the other which causes them to believe something that you want them to believe (no duration).

In the previous examples used, if you were to tell someone that their king is an impostor, you are not making them act as you wish. They have many options available to them. Instead, you are causing them to believe something that you want them to believe, which has no duration. They still get to choose how to react to this information. Some will choose to attack their king, others will try to find the general to arrest him, others will flee, others will not care. The DM is not forced or obligated to follow a certain course of action that you give him, he is forced to have the character react to new information, much as though they have to react if you draw a crossbow and point it at them.

Can you please explain to me why using Bluff to convince someone of something is "making them act as you wish"?

[ericgrau]

It basically boils down to "No I'm not making them do X, I'm making them believe that X is the right thing to do which RAW allows. Unlike making them do X, which it only allows for a round or less". This is RAI nonsense behind a thin veneer of overly literal RAW.

What makes matters worse is that wording such as "a round or less" is incredibly vague (how do you decide how long?), which makes it seem like the DM is supposed to decide how to handle it and the only RAW on the matter is that there is no clear RAW, only some loose guidelines.

[Tvtyrant]

It basically boils down to "No I'm not making them do X, I'm making them believe that X is the right thing to do which RAW allows. Unlike making them do X". This is RAI nonsense behind a thin veneer of overly literal RAW.

Except that people are more complicated then that.

Take someone believing that the King is a doppelganger, and your the real one. If the person was against the king they might just kill you, so they can prove the king is a doppelganger later when it would help them. They could simply panic and run away, since everything they know is a lie.

[Jothki]

You could just have the enemies start using glibness against the PCs.

[ericgrau]

Except that people are more complicated then that.

Take someone believing that the King is a doppelganger, and your the real one. If the person was against the king they might just kill you, so they can prove the king is a doppelganger later when it would help them. They could simply panic and run away, since everything they know is a lie.

Yeah, but you might not even get that far. Even if people "know" the king is a doppelganger the laws usually require proof. Heck, even personally they'll be a bit suspicious if you refuse to deliver proof (though they'll give you the benefit of the doubt until then).

[Boci]

(though they'll give you the benefit of the doubt until then).

Not neccissarily. If someone told me my flatmate was CIA agent I wouldn't give them the benefit, no matter how convinced and sane they seemed.

[tcrudisi]

Not neccissarily. If someone told me my flatmate was CIA agent I wouldn't give them the benefit, no matter how convinced and sane they seemed.

True, but that just means they failed their bluff check due to the -20 penalty.

Now, if they had cast Glibness beforehand....

/edit - What I'm really saying is that they failed their Bluff check. Sure, you believe that they believe what they are saying, but that just means you didn't think he was trying to Bluff you. With a successful check, you would believe him. How would you react to it? Well, that's entirely up to you.

[ericgrau]

Yeah that term was a bit loose. It's more like you wouldn't immediately brush them off before they even have a chance to get proof.

[LordBlades]

Except that people are more complicated then that.

Take someone believing that the King is a doppelganger, and your the real one. If the person was against the king they might just kill you, so they can prove the king is a doppelganger later when it would help them. They could simply panic and run away, since everything they know is a lie.

However, if the person in cause is a loyal (and not very bright) palace guard, that has sworn to defend the real king and obey his every word, would he not follow an order given to him by his real king (whom he thinks the PC is) to kill an imposter (the real king in this case) out of his own free will?

[Boci]

However, if the person in cause is a loyal (and not very bright) palace guard, that has sworn to defend the real king and obey his every word, would he not follow an order given to him by his real king (whom he thinks the PC is) to kill an imposter (the real king in this case) out of his own free will?

No. That is the problem with the way bluff was used at your table, not glibness. If I were the DM at best the guard would (apologizing repeatedly to both kings) stand both up against the wall and send someone else to get a mage qualified to find out who is the real king.

[LordBlades]

No. That is the problem with the way bluff was used at your table, not glibness. If I were the DM at best the guard would (apologizing repeatedly to both kings) stand both up against the wall and send someone else to get a mage qualified to find out who is the real king.

It's just a matter of DM-ing style then. Our DM doesn't like screwing players over when they try something other than the expected approach.

And just for the record, I do not think your approach would be entirely RAW. Most people that believe something tend to act in consequence, not seek further proof of it. However, discussing the hypotetical motivations of a hypothetical person in a hypothetical situation is pretty much useless.

[Boci]

It's just a matter of DM-ing style then. Our DM doesn't like screwing players over when they try something other than the expected approach.

So wait, you equate having the guard not kill the king to screwing the PCs over?


And just for the record, I do not think your approach would be entirely RAW.

I know, I don't care. I would change it, to avoid situations like the one you described.


Most people that believe something tend to act in consequence, not seek further proof of it.

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

[tcrudisi]

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

Hm... well, I can't say what others would do, but my own reaction would boil down to one of three possibilities were I in this situation:

1) Get as far away as possible. I don't know how long an impostor has been on the throne, so I can't know for sure how he will treat me. As such, I might play it safe and gtfo.

2) Continue as though I know nothing. After all, after thinking about it for a minute, I would realize that the impostor would not want to rock the boat. So really, if I'm high up, he would not want to rock the boat by killing me.

3) Blackmail the king. "Hey King, I know your secret. Give me 100,000gp and I'll stay quiet. I have several accomplices with instructions on going public with my information tomorrow if I do not contact them." ... And then I would disappear.

Attacking the king would not be something I would even consider, even if the king was my best friend (and therefore I thought the impostor had killed him). Why? Because everyone else still thinks he's the king and he will be protected as such.

Even though magic is available, I would not seek further proof. Why? Because, well, I believe the guy who told me. He passed his Bluff check, so why wouldn't I believe him? I could see someone wanting to get proof in order to oust him as an impostor, though.

[Caphi]

It basically boils down to "No I'm not making them do X, I'm making them believe that X is the right thing to do which RAW allows. Unlike making them do X, which it only allows for a round or less". This is RAI nonsense behind a thin veneer of overly literal RAW.

Not really. The art of deception is nothing more than making people do what you want by manipulating their information. Making someone do what you want by changing their view of the situation is how Bluff works. The "brute force" application of Bluff (the first one printed, for some reason) is a much worse alternative.

[Acanous]

See, the thing here is you're trying to use Bluff as Diplomacy.
Now, a ridiculously high bluff check helps a lot, but if you really wanted a coup, and bloodless besides, you'd want to epic-diplomancy the king into lawfully naming you his successor and stepping down.

THAT is RAW.

[Fiery Diamond]

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

I agree with this. Here's what I think the guard would do - go to get some other people. "The King just told me there's a doppelganger on the throne!" he'll cry. "His Majesty wants the doppelganger killed! We must act!" Remember, he's convinced that the King told him this, but unless he's got a very low Wis score, he's not going to go anything alone when the stakes are that high. This then brings other people into the equation, and the situation could go any number of directions.

[LordBlades]

So wait, you equate having the guard not kill the king to screwing the PCs over?.

Finding rules interpretations that invalidates a PCs actions when there also is an at least equally reasonable(in my opinion) interpretation that allows them to succeed, is kind of screqing players over in my book.



I know, I don't care. I would change it, to avoid situations like the one you described..

You found this approah works for you. Removing Gibness worked for us. You're having fun with the game, we're having fun with the game. I see no problem with it.



Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

The way I see it, it's implied in a sucessful bluff check that you have brought enough arguments to the target that he is convinced what you say is true.

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

[Fiery Diamond]

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

This is also true. A lot of us civilians have a hard time remembering this as it is so utterly alien to our way of thinking (I'm talking about American civilians in general...can't speak for any other societies, though I suspect most Western cultures are similar and most Eastern ones are not).

[Boci]

Finding rules interpretations that invalidates a PCs actions when there also is an at least equally reasonable(in my opinion) interpretation that allows them to succeed, is kind of screqing players over in my book.

The party researches what happened last time a shapeshifter infiltrated the court, then plen the beguiler under and illusion convinces the court guard that it may have happened again and that he is the real king. The King and the beguiler are lined against the wall whilst the court mage is fetched, who is unconcious and lying under his bed, and waiting for the guards in his room is the party's mage disguised to look like him. He returns to the court (whilst the party fighter enters the mage's room and force feeds him a custom made potion of modify memort) and identifies the real king as the shapeshifter and is sent to the dungeon. The party now has some breathing space, but they are left with 4 options as to what to do with the real king:

1. Leave him to the courts and trust that his claims of inocence will be viewed as lies.

2. Modify his memory so that he genuinly believes he is a shapeshifter.

3. Assassinate him, but make it look like it was done for something he did whilst on the throne.

4. Come up for an acceptable reason to hasten the trial and execution.

Or, the PC has a super duper bluff check and convinces a guard to kill the king and court that he is infact the real king. Each to their own, I know what I would rather see my PCs do.


The way I see it, it's implied in a sucessful bluff check that you have brought enough arguments to the target that he is convinced what you say is true.

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

And I believe that the guard would know just how well some people can play with your mind and would thus hesisitate to take actions that are hard to reverse.

[Acanous]

The Secret Service being told he's being Bribed?
Yes. They would shoot. The guy that told them he's being bribed.

Extorted, on the other hand...

[Killer Angel]

I am very confused by your argument, KA. There are two applications of Bluff, one which you can make someone act as you wish (for 1 round or less) and the other which causes them to believe something that you want them to believe (no duration).

In the previous examples used, if you were to tell someone that their king is an impostor, you are not making them act as you wish. They have many options available to them. Instead, you are causing them to believe something that you want them to believe, which has no duration. They still get to choose how to react to this information. Some will choose to attack their king, others will try to find the general to arrest him, others will flee, others will not care. The DM is not forced or obligated to follow a certain course of action that you give him, he is forced to have the character react to new information, much as though they have to react if you draw a crossbow and point it at them.

Can you please explain to me why using Bluff to convince someone of something is "making them act as you wish"?

OK, clearly my explanation wasn't clear.
LordBlades' group removed glibness from the game, 'cause with a bluff so buffed, there was a coup d'etat.
Obviously, it's they right to do so, and if it's good for'em, OK.
I was (poorly) pointing that, as you said, by RAW, the DM is not forced or obligated to follow a certain course of action (that is eventually possible only with the first option of bluff: "making someone acting as you wish for 1 round")...
As also Boci said, the problem lies with the way bluff was used at LordBlades' table, 'cause even with glibness, it's totally in the hand of the DM to decide the way the NPCs react to bluff (although the reaction must be credible).
The NPC may believe the bluffer, but it's the DM that decide what consequences develope from such belief.


Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

This is true in many cases, but even by military law, you can (and should) disobey a direct order, if you believe/know that the order is wrong. For example, you cannot execute some civilian, claiming as an excusation "my official ordered us to do so!"

[turkishproverb]

A player tried this on me once. Deciding to let them think that interpretation of Glibness was correct (Let's not go there) I responded without much effort. It tTurned out the king's advisers and some of his guards intended to kill the king and replace him with a doppelganger anyway. The poor PC died screaming. :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

Even though magic is available, I would not seek further proof. Why? Because, well, I believe the guy who told me. He passed his Bluff check, so why wouldn't I believe him? I could see someone wanting to get proof in order to oust him as an impostor, though.

exactly... you effectively could seek further proofs. After all, you want to convince someone else of the truth you'd know, to obtain some help. :smallcool:

[tcrudisi]

exactly... you effectively could seek further proofs. After all, you want to convince someone else of the truth you'd know, to obtain some help. :smallcool:

I won't disagree with that. But with something this big, how many people would immediately act on it? I mean, that's a huge bombshell to just drop into someone's lap. Actually, I guess people would talk. I could also see some people immediately rushing to tell others, though I personally would keep that close to the vest. I would want to know what my move would be with this information before telling others; how someone acts when I tell them may force me to act quickly, so I would want to know what my plan was before telling anyone. If my plan was to escape at midnight, I'm certainly not telling anyone before 11:45pm in case they act rashly with the information, for example.

I don't really know, though. There are so many ways to act with this information. I guess that's why I don't think Glibness is totally broken. With Diplomacy you can basically get them to do what you want. With Bluff, you feed them false information that they act on. Everyone reacts differently, so it is very hard (impossible) to predict how someone will act when you feed them that false information. As such, I guess I'm okay with Glibness. The truly broken things you can do with it aren't really broken to me. Using it to get past some guards because you left your papers at home? No big deal. Using it to convince some important people that the king is an impostor and you are the real king? A big deal, but I think there are enough ways that people can respond to this information that it would be very difficult for the players to get their desired result out of that Bluff. (I'm not saying I would intentionally screw them over, just that the results would likely not be what they expected.)

[Shhalahr Windrider]

And I believe that the guard would know just how well some people can play with your mind and would thus hesisitate to take actions that are hard to reverse.
This, again, doesn’t seem like the guard really believes the you, then. He’s still second-guessing.

[Foryn Gilnith]

This, again, doesn’t seem like the guard really believes the you, then. He’s still second-guessing.

I think that goes back to a previous point, then. The guard only believes that you know this (and, presumably, that you're not completely bloody insane). But how do you know this? It could be that the king is an imposter and the guard's whole world is about to turn over. Or it could be that you have implanted memories that shouldn't be there.

[Boci]

This, again, doesn’t seem like the guard really believes the you, then. He’s still second-guessing.

He doesn't 100% believe you, if you want that you'll need to cast dominate person (and even then he'll get a save with a +2 bonus). But he acknowlodges that you make a convincing case and won't laugh in your face. That's all you're going to achieve with a bluff check, no matter how high you roll.
As a said in an earlier post however, such a bluff check could be part of a more elaborate scheme.

[tcrudisi]

He doesn't 100% believe you.... But he acknowlodges that you make a convincing case and won't laugh in your face. That's all you're going to achieve with a bluff check, no matter how high you roll.


If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it.

That sounds a lot like what you were describing. Basically, a failed (but by 10 or less) Bluff check.


A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.

They believe you. The "reluctant to go along with it because he doesn't 100% believe you" was a failed Bluff check. The "(s)he/it believes you" is when you pass a Bluff check. There's nothing that says a successful Bluff check is anything less than 100% belief. It says that for a failed Bluff check, not a successful one.

[Boci]

That sounds a lot like what you were describing. Basically, a failed (but by 10 or less) Bluff check.



They believe you. The "reluctant to go along with it because he doesn't 100% believe you" was a failed Bluff check. The "(s)he/it believes you" is when you pass a Bluff check. There's nothing that says a successful Bluff check is anything less than 100% belief. It says that for a failed Bluff check, not a successful one.

I know, and a player could quote RAW until he is blue in the face, he still isn't going to achieve any more than what I described with a successful bluff check. They are not going to get the guard to kill the king.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I know, and a player could quote RAW until he is blue in the face, he still isn't going to achieve any more than what I described with a successful bluff check.

I've seen quite a few D&D rules debates on forums becoming something like:

guy A: 'by RAW page x, this action has this outcome'
guy B; 'you're wrong, because in my campaign I houserule it differently'

:smallannoyed:

[Boci]

:smallannoyed:

I was never debating the rules. I was saying that rather than banning glibness, they should alter the bluff rules so that you cannot convince the guards that you are actually the king and that the real king is an imposter (which is the reason LordBlades's group banned the spell in the first place).

[Zeful]

I know, and a player could quote RAW until he is blue in the face, he still isn't going to achieve any more than what I described with a successful bluff check. They are not going to get the guard to kill the king.

Boci I think you're going the wrong way of expressing yourself here. Using Bluff to convince a palace guard(s) that you are the real king can't make the guard kill the king unless the DM has decided that the NPCs personality supports that action (foolish, headstrong and lacking in common sense to name a few), it's DM fait either way; but the guard(s) in question would believe the character using Glibness as speaking the truth.


In truth, trying to use this situation to kill the king is not only patently absurd (No, really it is, anyone trusted enough to be of any help in this would be level-headed commanders, and they wouldn't even simply rush the throne room, they'd be setting up circumstance to allow them to capture the "imposter" and question him about his "mission", which inevitably would reveal you as the imposter) it's a waste of the spell. You have someone in the palace who believes you are the King: rob the Royal Tresury, kidnap/rescue a princess, sex up some maids, insult foriegn dignitaries, collect intel on whatever your current quest is. Trying to kill the king and preform a Coup is simply a bad use of the Bluff skill in general and Glibness in particular.

[stainboy]

The word "believe" says very little about the strength of a person's conviction. A person can be said to believe something without being certain enough to dethrone a monarch. If the wording of Bluff stated that the target believes with fanatical, unshakable certainty, than those of you arguing that the DM is obligated to have the guards overthrow the monarch would be technically correct. But it doesn't say that.

Given an ambiguous rule, the DM needs to interpret in favor of game balance. Compare Glibness with other spells. This use of Glibness (and every other foreseeable use of Glibness, given this interpretation) is at least as strong as Mass Suggestion and probably much stronger. Mass Suggestion is a 5th level bard spell, and should be stronger than Glibness. So the DM should give WotC the benefit of the doubt and assume he/she read the rules incorrectly.

In a case like this it's not bad DMing to "change the rules" on the player. The player should always expect to work for victories and expect unforeseen challenges when things look this easy. When a good player makes a plan to get away with something ridiculous based around an ambiguously worded spell, he/she asks for clarification first. A player going into this situation expecting Glibness to be an I-Win button is hoping it will be easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Don't give in.

[tcrudisi]

In a case like this it's not bad DMing to "change the rules" on the player.

It's always bad DMing to change the rules on the player in the middle of a session.


The player should always expect to work for victories and expect unforeseen challenges when things look this easy. When a good player makes a plan to get away with something ridiculous based around an ambiguously worded spell, he/she asks for clarification first. A player going into this situation expecting Glibness to be an I-Win button is hoping it will be easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Don't give in.

I'm confused. What part of this do you think is easy? Glibness is not an "I win" button. It lets you convince someone that something you say is true. As some of us have mentioned above, this does not mean that you control Mr. Gullible's actions. Far from it. Just as I will react differently than you if I am told that <person we both care about> is an impostor, so too should the NPCs. It's human nature to be unpredictable, based on hereditary and environment and this is what prevents Glibness from being an "I win" button.

[Jayabalard]

It's always bad DMing to change the rules on the player in the middle of a session. It's sometimes bad DMing to change the rules on the player in the middle of a session; not always

[tcrudisi]

It's sometimes bad DMing to change the rules on the player in the middle of a session; not always

Touché. Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.

I should errata what I said then, by changing it to: "It is almost assured that changing the rules on a player in an attempt to take away a viable use of an ability that the player was counting on when there are other ways of handling the situation that both makes the game more enjoyable and does not gimp the player in the middle of a session is bad DMing."

[Akisa]

Bluff would make the guard believe you believe the king's is a doppelganger, the guard may also believe you're under magical compulsions.

[faceroll]

Except, on the forums, in rules discussions sticking to RAW is usually assumed as a common ground. Rules discussions usually revolve around 'how the printed system works' not 'how I/my DM housrule a certain situation'

Unless it's ToB. :smallconfused:

[tcrudisi]

Bluff would make the guard believe you believe the king's is a doppelganger, the guard may also believe you're under magical compulsions.

This has already been addressed on this page, a few posts up. By RAW, what you are talking about is "failing the Bluff check by 10 or less". If you pass a Bluff check, he believes you. If you fail by 10 or less he "thinks that you believe what you are saying though he's still reluctant to go along with you."

[Gellhorn]

Psst it's a 7 year old thread

[atemu1234]

Also, truestrike...?

My train of thought.

[logic_error]

This is an interesting debate regardless of it's necromantic Resurrection. What I think will really resolve it is definitely bluffing clearly regardless of what the perceived DM thinks the term means.

[Hackulator]

Bluff is one of the many abilities in D&D where people like to read only the parts they want when they read about how it works.

[icefractal]

Regardless of what Bluff can or can't do, Glibness is the problem. Real skills should not have a ~15 level difference trivialized by a 3rd level spell (Jump is not a real skill, so the Jump spell is ok). The very existence of it screws over anyone who heavily invests in Bluff without having that spell.

[AvatarVecna]

Bluff is one of the many abilities in D&D where people like to read only the parts they want when they read about how it works.


or[/B] believes something that you want it to believe.

The way you interpret Bluff, it can never be used to run a long con, only to distract somebody with a false fact that they can basically immediately discern isn't true ("Look, something distracting!"). The fact that you apply the one round duration of one use of Bluff to every use of Bluff is part of why you're a ****ing joke.

[SangoProduction]

What about all the other ways there were to boost the skil?



Inapropriate example since there is no grey area in what an attack does, it either hits or misses. Bluff is very different.

Also, truestrike...?

True strike...of course...doesn't even grant 30 to an attack. Let alone functionally all of them for an encounter. And it ****s with action economy and spell economy, since you're giving up a spell slot, and an in-combat action for a singular hit.

[AvatarVecna]

Psst it's a 7 year old thread

I can only assume that this post was made in response to whoever necro'd this thread, because if not, this post was the necro, which is...very weird.

[Gellhorn]

I can only assume that this post was made in response to whoever necro'd this thread, because if not, this post was the necro, which is...very weird.

While I don't remember what the now deleted post said, yes it was in reply to something :smalltongue: I'm not in the habit of going to random threads and stating their age. :smallbiggrin:

[Hackulator]

The way you interpret Bluff, it can never be used to run a long con, only to distract somebody with a false fact that they can basically immediately discern isn't true ("Look, something distracting!"). The fact that you apply the one round duration of one use of Bluff to every use of Bluff is part of why you're a ****ing joke.

No need to get personal young man, we're arguing about rules for fake lying in a pretend fantasy game.

[AvatarVecna]

No need to get personal young man, we're arguing about rules for fake lying in a pretend fantasy game.

Necessary, of course not. Posting anything at all isn't necessary. Justified though? Depends partially on your point of view, but it can't be denied that "necessary" and "justified" aren't the same thing. Also, nice non-response. I particularly like how you're assuming my age and making an appeal to authority-via-age as if it would justify your opinion on how Bluff works - an opinion I've only ever seen put forward when somebody's trying to prove things like Glibness aren't broken, but which I never see come up in a discussion of characters who just have a naturally high bluff roll.

In fairness, I can certainly see why people do that; some abilities that are really powerful might just seem powerful for their level. A Bard 8 who can give themselves a +30 to Bluff basically can't fail Bluff checks, particularly if they've invested ranks and have a good Cha (which, being bards, they probably have, and probably do); comparably, though, a Bard 20 casting Glibness is still adding +30, but +30 is a much smaller percent of his usual Bluff check (he's probably got that much from just Ranks and Cha, without even touching any items he's got), and even then, other characters can still afford to have items giving them a +30 to Sense Motive, so a +30 to Bluff is no longer the "omigod so onesided" thing that it is is lvl 8. A lot of the brokenness of Glibness (or really, of high Bluff checks in general) is that they are incredibly dependent on the particular situation at hand, including how good the actual player is at setting up a false narrative.

As an example, telling the guards that you're the king...I probably wouldn't let that work for very long unless you had a really good Disguise as well; however, if you're the "high" level adventurer (high level compared to the guards, at any rate), and you inform them that the king has been replaced by an imposter, you don't control their actions, but you can (at least for a little while) control their beliefs, particularly if you continue having the opportunity to lie to them. I agree with one of your suppositions on the guards behavior - that they'd run to get a spellcaster - but I feel that this wouldn't be their immediate reaction unless you as the DM were intentionally trying to circumvent your players' attempt at clever use of skills, which feels pretty cheap on your end. Would they go to get a spellcaster? Sure, but they wouldn't want to leave that imposter on the throne unattended, so they would probably "take the 'king' somewhere safe", even if it's in the middle of court, in an attempt to get everything figured out. Of course, if the person telling the lie is the Grand Vizier, or local High Priest, the might not bother going to fetch a trustworthy mage, because who's more trustworthy than you?

[Psyren]

Wow, this thread brings back memories.

The problem here imo isn't glibness, rather it's bluff - a problem that PF nicely fixed with the "impossible to convince" clause. Of courses, if I were the GM invoking that clause, I would give the player "backsies" if their initial proposal was something truly outlandish like "I'm the real king, kill that impostor!" Something like "get the King somewhere safe" might work instead, especially if I had my helpful party whip up a nice illusory dragon outside the window, which would then allow them to kidnap said king or gain access to his vault while everyone is distracted.

Also, there's no need for personal attacks.

[Hackulator]

I'll be honest I didn't get past the first paragraph of you response, but you read a lot into my sentence.

[AvatarVecna]

I'll be honest I didn't get past the first paragraph of you response, but you read a lot into my sentence.

What can I say, communication can be rather complex. Your rather simple non-response implied quite a bit, although I'm not sure if I should be surprised or not that you're intentionally avoiding the discussion of Bluff and only responding to the parts about you.

[Deophaun]

The way you interpret Bluff, it can never be used to run a long con
It really can't, but not because of the one-round thing, but due to the flat DC 20 Sense Motive "hunch" check. At least, it makes the long con a heck of a lot harder; you're so completely at the mercy of the DM at that point that character skills might as well be dispensed with.

[tedcahill2]

I believe is was an article about d20 modern that gave the best example of what bluff was meant to do. It said something like, while trying to sneak into a crime scene you see a cop checking press passes before letting reporters into a crime scene. You flash your library card while telling the cop "I'm with the press" and he lets you by without a second glance.

That's bluffing. What bluffing isn't is convincing someone of a lie, and having them be fooled for more than a minute.

That's how I rule it anyway.

[Mordaedil]

The easiest way to balance this spell is to simply bring it in line with other similar spells like Disguise Self, Jump etc. and reduce to level 1 and set the Bluff increase to +10.

Also, we got an OOTS strip making fun of this particular spell in the meantime, didn't we?