"the potion only works on things that are not true"

[TriForce]

thats what haley said.

but she is saying it with the "potion effect" speach bubble wich means it shouldnt be true...

my mind is melting now

[Iain]

The potion is in effect, hence the speech bubble format; the effect boosts her bluffs.
That doesn't mean she's actually bluffing every time she speaks, e.g. panels 7 and 11 in this strip:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html

[Kish]

She doesn't need the potion to make Elan believe her explaining how the potion works. What do you take him for, Ian?

[aldeayeah]

I thougt it was a nod to the classical Liar paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox).

[Deliverance]

my mind is melting now
The potion of glibness has exactly one effect mechanically: adding +30 to bluff checks.

Bluffing has nothing to do with the veracity of what you are bluffing about. You can bluff about things you know to be true, things you know to be false, and things you don't know whether are true or false. Bluffing is all about convincing the other person that you believe something to be the truth; if the target additionally believes you know what you are talking about, he may in that way be convinced that it is true.

Bluffing is often used to pass off a lie as truth, but it is as useful for making something appear less unlikely or making something suspicious seem ordinary.

Bluffing is also a process that does not solely consist of verbal components and, indeed, some bluffs don't require any verbal components. All bluffing uses deception, but whether the deception is in the language or the body language (or both) depends on the bluff. As such, you cannot conclude that when somebody uses the bluff skill he is lying about the subject matter or that the statements he uses to bluff with are lies.

A standard D&D example of the truthful bluff is being caught in an incriminating situation by the town guard. You are innocent, but they are certainly not predisposed towards believing it. The diplomacy skill might help you increase their opinion of you and be more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, while the bluff skill might help you convince the guards that the circumstances weren't really all that incriminating or unusual and that your truthful reason for being there isn't all that unreasonable.

You could also use bluffing in the same situation to persuade the guard of a lie that got you off the hook for a crime you are actually innocent of. This would probably be an easier DC check than the truthful bluffing if you made up a plausible lie, but failing the DC check would likely have more dire results as it would seriously increase the suspicion against you to be believed to be lying.



That said, there is one caveat. How bluffing works in the real world or in D&D doesn't seem to apply in OOTS. Bluffing as shown until now in OOTS is utterly silly, as demonstrated in #768 and onwards, and seems to work completely like magic rather than being based on how language and body language is used.

Rich has made a parody of how a really bad GM would implement social skills: "Make a die roll to see if the target believes what you are saying is truth, completely regardless of what you are saying". It is a world where "Nope" backed up by a winsome smile makes an excellent bluff and "you are a Wallaby" backed by a potion of glibness and many ranks of bluff makes the victim believe he is a Wallaby. :smallbiggrin: It thus appears likely that in OOTS bluffing works by its own unique rules that have very little in common with D&D or real life bluffing. :)

[SPoD]

thats what haley said.

but she is saying it with the "potion effect" speach bubble wich means it shouldnt be true...

my mind is melting now

There is no paradox. The Giant himself points out on the first page of the Discussion Thread that everything Haley says while under the effects of the potion does not NEED to be a lie. It doesn't force you to lie, it just makes you very good at doing so. The colored speech balloon simply indicates that the magic is active, not that the statement is false.

[Majorman]

Well, this explains... absolutely NOTHING at all! So this means that maybe she really thinks that Ian raised her well, even though it is implied otherwise. Or it means that she thinks that Ian really screwed her life, but she lied to him saying he did well. Damn! Now my brain is melting.

[SPoD]

Well, this explains... absolutely NOTHING at all! So this means that maybe she really thinks that Ian raised her well, even though it is implied otherwise. Or it means that she thinks that Ian really screwed her life, but she lied to him saying he did well. Damn! Now my brain is melting.

I suppose if one is incapable of understanding Haley's emotional state based on all of her previous appearances, then it would be confusing. On the other hand, there is such a thing as "context".

We know, from Haley's own words to Elan on more than one occasion, that Haley does NOT think her father raised her well. Therefore, we can deduce that it is a lie, rather than her suddenly changing her opinions off-panel without any comment.

[slayerx]

This is NOT a case of everything she says is a lie...

The potion effects your "bluff check"...
a bluff by definition is something that is not true, so you can only make a bluff check when you are lying or trying to deceive someone. If you are not lying then there is no bluff check, and if their is no bluff check then you don't get the benefit of the potion and your speech is just normal speech... in short, haley can't get a +30 to bluff check (which can convince anyone of anything) if she is not bluffing

[GreatEscape_13]

but she is saying it with the "potion effect" speach bubble wich means it shouldnt be true...


Been a while since the Giant gave us a good mind boggling moment. What is her motivation for having the magic active in that word balloon? Nice complexity.

[Shale]

Nothing mind-boggling about it. As long as the potion is active, her word balloons are orange no matter what she's saying.

[Mr. Snuggles]

That said, there is one caveat. How bluffing works in the real world or in D&D doesn't seem to apply in OOTS. Bluffing as shown until now in OOTS is utterly silly, as demonstrated in #768 and onwards, and seems to work completely like magic rather than being based on how language and body language is used.
The potion adds 30 to skill. Haley already has a high skill. A sufficiently high bluff skill is, according to the rules, equivalent to a suggestion spell. There is no DM meddling, OOTS doesn't even have a DM. It's just following the D&D rules exactly.

[Tass]

Is it necessary to have the same discussion both in the main thread and here?

And as for the topic of the thread: Once again SPoD has it right.

[Gilmiril]

Been a while since the Giant gave us a good mind boggling moment. What is her motivation for having the magic active in that word balloon? Nice complexity.

Her motivations are irrelevant because she cannot choose to have the magic active or unactive. It's active until the potion wears off. Earlier, it wasn't active because she was in the anti-magic zone, but note that once she crossed out of that zone, it was active again.

[John Cribati]

Interesting thought: Would the potion work if you were telling the truth in such a way as to convince a person that you were lying?

[Jay R]

I just looked up the verb "bluff" in the dictionary. There are 7 different definitions and sub-definitions. Not counting the obsolete meaning of "blindfold", they all refer to trying to convince somebody of something untrue.

To bluff is to try to make a falsehood sound convincing. Trying to make the truth sound convincing may use exactly the same techniques, but it's not bluffing. No reading of the D&D game rules can change that fact.

[Yes, a word can be re-defined for game purposes, but there's no indication that the rules writers were trying to make "bluff" mean something other than "bluff".]

[Gilmiril]

That said, there is one caveat. How bluffing works in the real world or in D&D doesn't seem to apply in OOTS. Bluffing as shown until now in OOTS is utterly silly, as demonstrated in #768 and onwards, and seems to work completely like magic rather than being based on how language and body language is used.

Rich has made a parody of how a really bad GM would implement social skills: "Make a die roll to see if the target believes what you are saying is truth, completely regardless of what you are saying". It is a world where "Nope" backed up by a winsome smile makes an excellent bluff and "you are a Wallaby" backed by a potion of glibness and many ranks of bluff makes the victim believe he is a Wallaby. :smallbiggrin: It thus appears likely that in OOTS bluffing works by its own unique rules that have very little in common with D&D or real life bluffing. :)

Snuggles already said it; what you're describing is exactly how bluff works in D&D 3.5e (see here (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SkillsI.rtf) for more information).

[Jay R]

That said, there is one caveat. How bluffing works in the real world or in D&D doesn't seem to apply in OOTS. Bluffing as shown until now in OOTS is utterly silly, as demonstrated in #768 and onwards, and seems to work completely like magic rather than being based on how language and body language is used.

Rich has made a parody of how a really bad GM would implement social skills: "Make a die roll to see if the target believes what you are saying is truth, completely regardless of what you are saying". It is a world where "Nope" backed up by a winsome smile makes an excellent bluff and "you are a Wallaby" backed by a potion of glibness and many ranks of bluff makes the victim believe he is a Wallaby. :smallbiggrin: It thus appears likely that in OOTS bluffing works by its own unique rules that have very little in common with D&D or real life bluffing. :)

Of course it works completely like magic; a potion is magic. I don't think he's parodying what a bad DM would do as much as showing, via exaggeration, just how silly it is to have a social skill affected by a magic potion at all.

"You are a Wallaby" is really stupid; it has a -30 or so correction. So, with the potion, it should work as well as an ordinary bluff by Haley, who has a high bluff roll.

OOTS bluffing works exactly as implied by the mere existence of a philtre potion of glibness. This isn't parodying a stupid DM, but a stupid item.

[mucat]

Well, this explains... absolutely NOTHING at all! So this means that maybe she really thinks that Ian raised her well, even though it is implied otherwise. Or it means that she thinks that Ian really screwed her life, but she lied to him saying he did well. Damn! Now my brain is melting.
Yeah, it is technically possible, given the way the potion and the speech bubbles work, that Haley wasn't bluffing in panel 9. But everything else about the comic -- from the overall bittersweet tone of those last few panels, to the fact that she stayed carefully on her side of the anti-magic line while talking rather than going over to give her dad a goodbye hug, to the way he immediately accepted her somewhat stilted words as truth -- makes it clear she was consciously using that +30 bonus.

Plus, as SpoD says, we've seen in past conversations that Haley knows that her upbringing screwed up her mind. She loves Ian and knows he did his best; that's why she's lying to protect his feelings now. But she did mean what she told him in the cell, and one of her main goals these days is to unlearn much of what he taught her.

[Roderick_BR]

Well, this explains... absolutely NOTHING at all! So this means that maybe she really thinks that Ian raised her well, even though it is implied otherwise. Or it means that she thinks that Ian really screwed her life, but she lied to him saying he did well. Damn! Now my brain is melting.
It's her comment "only works on what is not truth" (that, as was pointed out, it another joke on how some people interpret the rules), implies that the lie was towards her father, when she convinced him that he was alright, as in "it only worked when I told dad a lie (he raising me(haley) well)".

[Nivenus]

It seems any confusion was unintended.


There's no logic puzzle. Everything Haley says in an orange speech balloon is not necessarily a lie just because she said it while under the effects of the potion.

[MoonCat]

She is only more convincing when she is lying, when she tells the truth, she isn't any more convincing than when she is just talking regularly, which didn't work. Not everything she says has to be a lie, but she will only get the +30 if she actually is lying.

[Deliverance]

Snuggles already said it; what you're describing is exactly how bluff works in D&D 3.5e (see here (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SkillsI.rtf) for more information).
As I said, it is consistent with how a really bad GM would implement social skills - a single die roll after a statement has been made without any regards to how the statement was made, believing that bluffing is all about that statement rather than being a process of convincing the target that the statement is true.

E.g. "I say: 'You are a Wallaby'" => check the bluff skill => success means the target thinks he is a Wallaby.

A somewhat more sensical implementation, that takes into account what bluffing is, is something like

"I'll try to bluff the guard into believing he is a Wallaby" => check the bluff skill => success means that your character is assumed to have presented arguments and used body language that has convinced the target into believing he is a Wallaby.

Likewise "The target believes something and says so! I say 'nope' and make a bluff check, if succesful the target will believe he was wrong because I said 'nope'" is something that no good GM would use as an implementation of the bluff skill while "The target believes something and says so! I'll use my bluff skill to convince him he was wrong. If succesful, it is assumed I've managed to convince him that I am right" is.

Bluffing in the D&D rules is part of normal communication - it isn't something that magically makes one particular sentence believable or not depending on a die roll.... unless you are a GM that implements the rules poorly or don't know what bluffing is.

The Giant knows all this, which is I have absolutely no doubt that he had great fun writing strips that played out the way roleplaying often works with players who for one reason or another don't distinguish between the outcome of an action and the action itself -in this case what the target believes when the bluff is successful vs the actual bluffing that convinces the target.

----

EDIT: As an example, bluffing somebody into believing they are a Wallaby would probably include talk about wizards, the polymorph spell, how the behaviour of the person was suspiciously Wallaby-like, with enough flim-flam that the target ended up confused enough to accept the conclusion that therefore, he was actually a Wallaby. All of these arguments being assumed to be made when the player announced that he wanted to convince the target of this being the case.

[Kish]

The potion is +30 to Bluff checks.

Bluff is only checked for lying.

The potion is not +anything to Diplomacy checks, which is the skill Haley would use to try to convince her father of something she knows to be true, such as that Elan is a good guy.

Therefore, the potion only works for lying.

This does not mean the potion forces the user to lie constantly.

The different balloon color means the user is under the effects of the potion, not that she's "using the potion," which she did exactly once, when she drank it.

The different balloon color does not mean the user is lying.

Where do people get these ideas?

[John Cribati]

*SNIP*
As an example, bluffing somebody into believing they are a Wallaby would probably include talk about wizards, the polymorph spell, how the behaviour of the person was suspiciously Wallaby-like, with enough flim-flam that the target ended up confused enough to accept the conclusion that therefore, he was actually a Wallaby. All of these arguments being assumed to be made when the player announced that he wanted to convince the target of this being the case.

With Enough Ranks in Bluff you can essentially cast Suggestion at will. That's in the Rules. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff)

[Deliverance]

With Enough Ranks in Bluff you can essentially cast Suggestion at will. That's in the Rules. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff)
No, never.

With epic bluff, you can do that, which is something completely different from having enough ranks in bluff.

You need to be an epic character - a non-epic character with a high bluff cannot attempt to use bluff as a suggestion regardless of how high a rank he has, an epic character, no matter how low a rank he has, can attempt to do so. (But will need a very high rank to succeed). See the clear statement on the issue of non-epic characters using bluff: bluff is not suggestion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm)

Epic bluffing, like many other skills taken to epic levels, allows the sort of things that they are not under any circumstances allowed to do normally no matter the rank, no matter the modifiers that apply in the situation because a) they don't make any sense whatsoever and b) are impossible to achieve without magic. These epic skills are so wacky precisely because magic trumps everything that relies on approximating real-world mechanics at epic levels that the game would be even more tilted towards casters hogging all the fun in epic than it is already were they not so outrageous and to give non-casters abilities that aren't uncommon in mythological settings.

The tongue in cheek conceit in the rules is that there's no magic involved (and hence anti-magic won't stop it), you are just really, really, good at what you are doing when you are able to squeeze your entire body through not only an extremely tight space that isn't wide enough for your head, but also through the weaknesses in a wall of force. When you can train an animal or a rare magical beast in one minute. When you can can turn anybody hostile to you into a fanatical follower with a few well chosen words and enough ranks in diplomacy. When you can fight without any penalties while hanging on the side of your mount, read the surface thoughts of others at will, move at full overland movement speed no matter the terrain... and have your trusty mount, whatever it is, and companions do the same.

Epic skills are when you can "balance" on any surface that is incapable of supporting your weight up to and including clouds. When you can climb better than Spider Man and don't need any props to do so. When you can swim up a waterfall, and when you can ignore falling damage regardless of how far you fall. Even if you are dropped 20-30 kilometers from a passing high altitude aircraft or organic equivalent.

EDIT: Damn, I forgot a favourite: Forgery! Epic forgery allows you to forge handwriting you haven't even seen or a document without having seen a similar type of document before. :smalltongue:

For the love of all that is holy, don't confuse what a skill can do with enough ranks with what the epic skill can do. Skills mostly attempt to represent real world abilities with real world constraints, epic skills do not, and thank god for that. :smallbiggrin:

[Cerlis]

while it is true that everything she says in orange bubbles isnt a lie, that that doesnt mean nothing she says is a lie unless we know its a lie.

The way i originally read it was that Haley knew/believed no amount of bluff or diplomacy would sway her father, and was hidding the fact that she has given up on her father.



Buuuut. after a thought i'm inclined to believe she was telling the truth.

However i'm just saying the idea that she is bluffing in that last panel, is hardly a "Haley is a Celestial" conspiracy theory.

[theNater]

Epic bluffing, like many other skills taken to epic levels, allows the sort of things that they are not under any circumstances allowed to do normally no matter the rank, no matter the modifiers that apply in the situation because a) they don't make any sense whatsoever and b) are impossible to achieve without magic. These epic skills are so wacky precisely because magic trumps everything that relies on approximating real-world mechanics at epic levels that the game would be even more tilted towards casters hogging all the fun in epic than it is already were they not so outrageous and to give non-casters abilities that aren't uncommon in mythological settings.
Does the fact that Haley's bluff skill has been boosted, by magic, well into epic levels have any effect on this explanation? Is it so surprising that she can do things that are impossible to achieve without magic, thanks to magic?

If that doesn't make her epic skill use acceptable, what is the requirement to engage in epic skill use, and where is that requirement displayed? I don't see a necessary feat in a quick skim of the epic feats list, and neither the epic feats page nor the epic basics seem to indicate a requirement.

[factotum]

Does the fact that Haley's bluff skill has been boosted, by magic, well into epic levels have any effect on this explanation?


Didn't you read what he said? It doesn't matter how many ranks of Bluff you have, you have to be an epic-level CHARACTER to use epic bluff--and Haley is most definitely not that.

[theNater]

Didn't you read what he said? It doesn't matter how many ranks of Bluff you have, you have to be an epic-level CHARACTER to use epic bluff--and Haley is most definitely not that.
The particular section I quoted was talking mostly about how skills at high levels need to be able to do things that are "impossible to do without magic", and I want to know if the fact that Haley was using magic was relevant.

I do recognize that the main thrust of the post is that a character must be epic level to use the epic effects of skills. That's why I included my second paragraph, in which I ask precisely what that rule is, because I can't seem to find it in the resource (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) quoted earlier in the thread.

[Deliverance]

I do recognize that the main thrust of the post is that a character must be epic level to use the epic effects of skills. That's why I included my second paragraph, in which I ask precisely what that rule is, because I can't seem to find it in the resource (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) quoted earlier in the thread.
I am not sure it is stated explicitly for skills, but since the Epic Ruleset consists of material for those who would like to play Epic Characters (playing in epic campaigns with epic opponents and gaining epic loot...) and isn't intended as ruleset for normal gameplay, applying any parts of the epic rules for character stats, abilities, skills to non-epic characters would seem decidedly weird.

The D&D ruleset is firmly based on the idea that there's a normal game governing levels 1-20 and an Epic game governing 21+ where the power is amped up. That's why the Epic ruleset breaks a large number of the rules of the base game with respects to classes, skills, feats, monsters and so on and provide new progression tables that are only relevant for those that are Epic characters.

It isn't that I don't understand the argument "when the skill is boosted to ranks that are only normal in epic levels, why shouldn't it work as it does for epic characters?" and I can certainly understand if somebody houserules it in, it is just that the entire setup is based on there being a sharp break with Epic characters gaining Epic rules that supplant the normal rules and non-Epic characters playing by the normal rules. Whether talking about skills, classes, or feats, the Epic ruleset really is a whole new world, destroying absolutes that were intended to limit power in the base game.

[Kish]

So...there is no actual rule stating that you need to be epic-level for skills to have the effects listed in the Epic Level Handbook, but anyone who doesn't create such a rule is house-ruling, while, by creating one, you are going strictly by the rules of D&D. Yeeeah.

[Deliverance]

So...there is no actual rule stating that you need to be epic-level for skills to have the effects listed in the Epic Level Handbook, but anyone who doesn't create such a rule is house-ruling, while, by creating one, you are going strictly by the rules of D&D. Yeeeah.
I don't know whether there is one in the Epic Level Handbook, I just know that I haven't seen it in the SRD. :smallsmile:

I do know that looking at the SRD, if you think that the descriptions noted as governing Epic skills (and filed under Epic skills as part of the Epic ruleset) as a default also applies to non-epic due to not explicitly stating in the SRD that they do not, you have a conflict in rules to resolve: the description of bluff clearly states that it cannot be used as Suggestion, while the description of Epic bluff clearly states that bluff can be used as a suggestion -and it isn't the only skill where the Epic ruleset allows something with a high DC check that the basic rules rule out regardless of DC check.

It also raises the question why the hell there'd be a separate section for Epic skills or something called "Epic skills" in the first place describing how skills and skill synergies work in Epic if the rules also apply in non-epic with a sufficiently high DC check.

So, yeah. I'll continue holding what I believe to be the reasonable position: given that there are that rules for player characters in the Epic ruleset that are incompatible with the rules in the basic ruleset, I'll believe that the content describing rules for player characters in the Epic ruleset is intended for Epic players only unless explicitly stated that they also apply to the basic game.

[hamishspence]

If I remember rightly, Sage Advice stated that "epic DCs" can indeed be reachable by nonepic characters.

I'm not sure if there's something similar in the Epic Handbook, or the FAQs.

[Deliverance]

If I remember rightly, Sage Advice stated that "epic DCs" can indeed be reachable by nonepic characters.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and the SRD's "Epic skills" section should be rolled into the "skills" section with incompatibilities resolved in favour of the Epic rules.

[hamishspence]

"epic skills" may be a misnomer in this case.

Most of the time, the skill DCs aren't achievable by nonepic characters- but not always.

The Epic Skill Synergies rules are still something that only applies to people of high enough level to take that many ranks, though.

[Deliverance]

"epic skills" may be a misnomer in this case.

Yeah... I just hate the thought of the SRD containing two differently labeled sections dealing with skills that are both supposed to work in the basic game but have inconsistencies, such that reading one section allows actions that the other explicitly disallows.

Not all that uncommon in splatbooks, but when something is presented as a unified whole, like the SRD, it is too bad.

Coupled with the one being labeled Epic like all the other parts of the Epic ruleset that were designed for characters of levels outside the normal game, that leads to my conviction that they are not intended to both be applied to the basic game for characters 1-20 but the one labeled Epic to supersede the basic rules in the epic game.

...You might well argue that I have too great faith in people producing rulesets that are internally logically consistent, but dammit, it is something they work very hard on doing.




Most of the time, the skill DCs aren't achievable by nonepic characters- but not always.

The Epic Skill Synergies rules are still something that only applies to people of high enough level to take that many ranks, though.
True enough.

---------

I did a quick look through the headlines in the Sage Advice online archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/asksage) but didn't see any that looked as if they would deal with Epic skills and DC checks.

[SPoD]

Yeah... I just hate the thought of the SRD containing two differently labeled sections dealing with skills that are both supposed to work in the basic game but have inconsistencies, such that reading one section allows actions that the other explicitly disallows.

Not all that uncommon in splatbooks, but when something is presented as a unified whole, like the SRD, it is too bad.

SNIP

...You might well argue that I have too great faith in people producing rulesets that are internally logically consistent, but dammit, it is something they work very hard on doing.

The SRD is not a unified ruleset, though. The SRD is a document produced by a company telling other companies what part of their intellectual property they are legally permitted to copy under certain circumstances. That's it. The fact that we all use it like it's a ruleset isn't the problem of the people who wrote it. They were under no obligation to edit and collate the rules they added later to the original release; if anything, it probably was in their best interest to NOT do so. It would have taken time and energy of several employees that would earn them absolutely nothing. They "work very hard" on the rulebooks; the SRD is an afterthought.

In other words, you take the fact that the epic skill DCs aren't included in the main skill DC write-ups as evidence that they are barred from being used by non-epic characters, whereas I take it as evidence that Wizards didn't give a crap about the usability of the SRD as a replacement for their books.

[Gilmiril]

As I said, it is consistent with how a really bad GM would implement social skills - a single die roll after a statement has been made without any regards to how the statement was made, believing that bluffing is all about that statement rather than being a process of convincing the target that the statement is true. [snip]

Yes, it's consistent with how a really bad GM would implement social skills, but that's not all that you said:


How bluffing works in the real world or in D&D doesn't seem to apply in OOTS. Bluffing as shown until now in OOTS is utterly silly, as demonstrated in #768 and onwards, and seems to work completely like magic rather than being based on how language and body language is used.


I showed that in fact, the rules for bluffing in D&D 3.5e simply give the mechanics (there is no mention of body language and such), and in OOTS, that's exactly what we get. I would hazard to say that in a lot of actual D&D games, that's exactly what we get too. Yes, a good GM would find a way to make the game mechanics fade into the background, but in OOTS, emphasizing the game mechanics leads to comdey--the more so for those of us that have endured bad GMs.

[theNater]

I do know that looking at the SRD, if you think that the descriptions noted as governing Epic skills (and filed under Epic skills as part of the Epic ruleset) as a default also applies to non-epic due to not explicitly stating in the SRD that they do not, you have a conflict in rules to resolve: the description of bluff clearly states that it cannot be used as Suggestion, while the description of Epic bluff clearly states that bluff can be used as a suggestion -and it isn't the only skill where the Epic ruleset allows something with a high DC check that the basic rules rule out regardless of DC check.
It turns out there's no conflict on Bluff: all the basic skill says is that Bluff is not a suggestion spell. This holds true for the instilled suggestion; it is nonmagical and lasts for only 10 minutes, while suggestion is magical and lasts for 1 hour per caster level.

On the general topic, I'd like to point out that the Epic rules dictate a number of situations for DCs of 20 and 30, both of which are easily accessible to non-epic characters. To have characters unable to do things which their skill bonuses should make automatic just because those things are listed in a different location seems strange to me. Not as strange as some rules, true, but still.

[Thanatosia]

How bluffing works in the real world or in D&D doesn't seem to apply in OOTS. Bluffing as shown until now in OOTS is utterly silly, as demonstrated in #768 and onwards, and seems to work completely like magic rather than being based on how language and body language is used.
It works consistantly with a world where a goblin can be standing right in front of you but you dont see him because your spot check was to low.

[Procyonpi]

The bluff skill is for specifically when what you're saying is false. Otherwise, it's diplomacy. At least, that's the way I've always read the rules.

[Swordpriest]

It works consistantly with a world where a goblin can be standing right in front of you but you dont see him because your spot check was to low.

Is there any evidence that this is anything but a false construction unsupported by the rules, intended to make the D20 rules seem even more ridiculous than they sometimes are? For example, according to the SRD description of Spot:


The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen.

Which indicates that only hidden characters need to be Spotted before they're seen. And in the description for Hide:


You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.

So how on Earth, by the rules, could you need a Spot check to see a goblin standing right in front of you, as per your scenario? :smallconfused: He can't hide if he's out in the open (notice my second quote from the SRD), and you don't need to roll a Spot check. You just see him. So your scenario is completely invalid even in the D&D world, as far as I can see.

[veti]

For example, according to the SRD description of Spot:


The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen.

Which indicates that only hidden characters need to be Spotted before they're seen.

"Primarily" and "typically" are telling words in that description. They both mean "not exclusively".


Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).

In other words, a DM may use a Spot check to determine which of two potential enemies sees the other first. If one of you is Hiding that will obviously affect the DC of the check, but the mere fact of not being Hidden doesn't automatically mean that Spot can't be used.

[Swordpriest]

"Primarily" and "typically" are telling words in that description. They both mean "not exclusively".

Yes :smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh: .... and the description goes on to say that Spot is also used to become aware of an invisible creature, to penetrate a disguise, read lips, or determine the distance at which an encounter begins (sometimes).

Nowhere -- and I repeat NOWHERE -- does it say or hint that you ever need to use a Spot check to see a creature standing in plain view in front of you, as the poster I was responding to indicated :smallmad:

I didn't quote the entire thing because it has no bearing on the ridiculous scenario presented above. However, I should have known that someone would nitpick it without bothering to look up the rest of the skill description first. As usual, you need to repeat everything in triplicate with official government seals and a mark of divine approval, or people will find an "a" out of place and turn it into some kind of giant brouhaha over some nuance so subtle that it doesn't really exist. :smallannoyed:

[ericgrau]

What people will say after you use glibness:
{table]Old statement|lie|truth
"She's honest"|"She's honest"|"She's honest"
"She's lying"|"She's honest"|"She's lying"|
[/table]
That is all.

Elan already believes the truth. Ian doesn't believe the truth.

[Gift Jeraff]

So how on Earth, by the rules, could you need a Spot check to see a goblin standing right in front of you, as per your scenario? :smallconfused: He can't hide if he's out in the open (notice my second quote from the SRD), and you don't need to roll a Spot check. You just see him. So your scenario is completely invalid even in the D&D world, as far as I can see.
But it is completely valid within the OOTSiverse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html), which is the world Thanatosia was referring to.

[veti]

Nowhere -- and I repeat NOWHERE -- does it say or hint that you ever need to use a Spot check to see a creature standing in plain view in front of you, as the poster I was responding to indicated :smallmad:

You mean "hint" as in:

Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
?

"Difficult to see", fairly obviously, is a highly subjective judgment call. If visibility is poor (e.g. in dungeon lighting conditions), if the target is wearing dark clothing, if the spotter is distracted... You see where I'm going with this?

What you "need" to do, in a D&D campaign, is whatever the hell the DM tells you you need to do. If the DM rules that you have to make a Search check to find your own spell book in the morning (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0030.html), are you going to sit there quoting "rules" at her, or are you going to grab your favourite d20?

[LuPuWei]

What people will say after you use glibness:
{table]Old statement|lie|truth
"She's honest"|"She's lying"|"She's honest"
"She's lying"|"She's honest"|"She's lying"|
[/table]
That is all.

Elan already believes the truth. Ian doesn't believe the truth.

Minor correction.

[factotum]

But it is completely valid within the OOTSiverse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html), which is the world Thanatosia was referring to.

I don't think you can take anything that happens in the first couple of dozen strips as being reasonable representations of how the Stickverse works--the comic was still in gag-a-day mode back then, and was often making jokes at the expense of the rules.

Besides, all the guys in that strip were ninjas, who appear to have a sort of Hide in Plain Sight ability--see the guy who jumped Hinjo at the Battle of Azure City for an example.

[Nimrod's Son]

I don't think you can take anything that happens in the first couple of dozen strips as being reasonable representations of how the Stickverse works--the comic was still in gag-a-day mode back then, and was often making jokes at the expense of the rules.

Besides, all the guys in that strip were ninjas, who appear to have a sort of Hide in Plain Sight ability--see the guy who jumped Hinjo at the Battle of Azure City for an example.
That said, Belkar is unable to spot Blackwing in a much more recent strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0674.html).