A convoluted question about bluff

[Etrivar]

Hullo Playgrounders!

In a recent session, I had a little problem with the bluff skill. The situation was thus:

We didn't know how the cleric at the local temple in town was going to react to the news we were bringing her, and she may have gotten violent. So, in case we had to kill her, the rogue and I (the party sorcerer) told the ranger and the fighter to have their stuff packed and be ready to run. As it turns out, she reacted very well, but the rogue decided to play a little joke on the two still at the inn. So the rogue runs in, screams "GET YOUR **** AND LETS GO!" then runs out. The dwarf gets well past the exit to town before he figures it out, and he is pissed. So the rogue bluffs "It was the sorcerer's idea".

This lead me to discover a gaping hole in the social interaction system of 3.5: there is no check you can make to convince someone of the truth.

The only thing that I could think of to do was: agree that "yes, it was my idea". Since that was untrue, it would prompt a sense motive/bluff check. I then intentionally fail my bluff check, thereby automatically making him pass his sense motive, letting him know that the statement "it was my idea" was a lie.

Would this reverse-bluff work?

[Knaight]

This lead me to discover a gaping hole in the social interaction system of 3.5: there is no check you can make to convince someone of the truth.

Given that telling the truth would reverse the lowered opinion of the character brought on by the lie, Diplomacy seems like a perfect fit. That said, D&D usually has a blanket immunity to social skills placed on the PCs.

[Etrivar]

It would help him see me in a better light, yes, but it would not make him believe that it hadn't been my idea.

[Talentless]

Meh, anyone who takes the rogue(skill monkey)'s word over the Sorc in such a situation is rather gullible. (Note: Only applies if you have been completely honest with your party member's at all times before hand.)

[NNescio]

Meh, anyone who takes the rogue(skill monkey)'s word over the Sorc in such a situation is rather gullible. (Note: Only applies if you have been completely honest with your party member's at all times before hand.)

Well, both have Bluff on their skill lists... and the Sorc's lack of skill points is sorta balanced by him having Cha as a primary stat and access to various mind-affecting spells, so...

[Etrivar]

Well, my bluff modifier is better than the rogue's, so that logic doesn't really apply to our group.

And I have been lying to them left and right, but they don't know that :smallbiggrin:

[NNescio]

Well, my bluff modifier is better than the rogue's, so that logic doesn't really apply to our group.

And I have been lying to them left and right, but they don't know that :smallbiggrin:

It's ain't cheating unless you're caught. :smallbiggrin:

[Big Fau]

Problems like this are the reason I disallow the Social skills being used against other players, as they can make people act out of character (Epic Diplomacy usages, for example).


While the RAW doesn't apply it to Bluff, consider showing this to your DM:


You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

[Etrivar]

Ok, the third party option is sorta like what happened, with the rogue and I being the people trying to convince the dwarf (the third party) of the truth.

No one has answered the actual question, though; would the auto-fail work?

[Big Fau]

Ok, the third party option is sorta like what happened, with the rogue and I being the people trying to convince the dwarf (the third party) of the truth.

No one has answered the actual question, though; would the auto-fail work?

You can't intentionally fail a Skill check (only Saving Throws).