On the magic that is Bluff

[Doughnut Master]

When I first got into D&D, I was blown away by the stupidly powerful things you could do with a high charisma score. Bluff, in particular, was just stupid. It seemed that simply by casting Glibness and having a great smile, you could alter reality for low-level guards.

As time went on, I started doing more thinking about Bluff and I changed the way it worked somewhat. Rather than being a simple "bluff and roll to see if someone believes it" check, succeeding a bluff check merely means that the opponent believes that you are telling what you at least believe to be the truth.

For instance, saying something like "your king is really an evil dragon in disguise!" and succeeding on your bluff check against the royal guard would yield the following result. 1. The guard believes you are telling the truth. 2. The guard believes you are a complete lunatic.

I'd like to develop this type of interaction further, possibly combining it with other skills. Does anyone have any advice? How do you guys treat the skill?

[Silva Stormrage]

When I first got into D&D, I was blown away by the stupidly powerful things you could do with a high charisma score. Bluff, in particular, was just stupid. It seemed that simply by casting Glibness and having a great smile, you could alter reality for low-level guards.

As time went on, I started doing more thinking about Bluff and I changed the way it worked somewhat. Rather than being a simple "bluff and roll to see if someone believes it" check, succeeding a bluff check merely means that the opponent believes that you are telling what you at least believe to be the truth.

For instance, saying something like "your king is really an evil dragon in disguise!" and succeeding on your bluff check against the royal guard would yield the following result. 1. The guard believes you are telling the truth. 2. The guard believes you are a complete lunatic.

I'd like to develop this type of interaction further, possibly combining it with other skills. Does anyone have any advice? How do you guys treat the skill?

That actually is how I treat the skill bluff. Also I did away with the listed modifiers to bluff. I give the bluff a modifier based on how well the player sells it.

[Flickerdart]

The duration of a Bluff is but a single round - presumably, while the target mulls it over and thinks about how it could be, or looks over at the object of the Bluff to confirm or deny it. You could tell the Guard that the king is a dragon - but he would look at the king, and see that nope, he doesn't seem to have wings or a tail! It would give you enough time to hide behind a tapestry or shank him in the ribs, but not nearly enough time to stage a coup or get the guard to attack his king for you (because even if your Bluff succeeded, red dragons are scary).

[hydroplatypus]

basically as DM I rule that bluff works based on how much sense the bluff makes. For instance saying "you are a newt" will not work regardless of modifiers, as no one (ok mabye that 3 int, 3 wis guard over there, but no one else) would actually fall for that. Saying that the king is a dragon is an interesting one, as Dragons can shape shift to human form. In fact in my setting one city is blatantly ruled by a dragon, so this might actually work depending on actual circumstances.

Also I ban glibness for the reason that it breaks the game.

[Flickerdart]

basically as DM I rule that bluff works based on how much sense the bluff makes. For instance saying "you are a newt" will not work regardless of modifiers, as no one (ok mabye that 3 int, 3 wis guard over there, but no one else) would actually fall for that. Saying that the king is a dragon is an interesting one, as Dragons can shape shift to human form. In fact in my setting one city is blatantly ruled by a dragon, so this might actually work depending on actual circumstances.
Player: "You are a newt!"
Guard: "A newt? Gosh, he sounds awfully convincing, but I don't look like a newt, and don't sound like a newt, and hey where did they go?"

Bluffs last for a very short time, remember? Also, not all dragons can shapeshift, and very few people can make the Knowledge checks to know that even some do.



Also I ban glibness for the reason that it breaks the game.
Only if you let Bluff break the game - something that suggestion can do a lot better, and hey, at the same level too.

[Etrivar]

Also I did away with the listed modifiers to bluff. I give the bluff a modifier based on how well the player sells it.

See, I don't like it when people do that. That restricts the character's capacity for deceit, to the player's capacity for deceit. I could be an absolute idiot, incapable of convincing the sky that it's blue, but that doesn't mean that my character should labor under the same deficiency.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, I currently have the same issue. My bard has a +21 Diplomacy mod, and about the same Bluff (pre Glibness). But while I can write decently well, I'm terrible at coming up with exactly how things should be worded on the spot. Thus, I mumble a bit, trip over a word or two, and the DM rules that my character fails at the check despite the fact that I might roll in the mid 30s for my check.

That...pisses me off.

[Traab]

Id rather stick to bluff working on possibilities. "Hey prison guard, im here to escort the prisoners to their trial." That could work, show them a forged scroll with the order to do a prisoner transfer, make a bluff check, and they could buy that. The better your bluff skill, the more likely it is your roll will succeed. "Hey prison guard. The king told me to tell you to kill yourself. Do it." No matter how good at bluffing you are, he isnt going to kill himself.

[Vladislav]

re: Keld

Well, if the DM would say "oh geez, you rolled 30, he believes whatever it was you just mumbled", it wouldn't have been the best solution too. Doesn't make for the best storytelling, eh?

You should talk to your DM, and be straightforward about it. Tell him that, eventhough you're not a smooth-talker in real life, you want to play someone who is. Just like the Barbarian's player over there, isn't really good at swinging a weapon, but plays someone who is.

Come to some sort of compromise. Maybe .. how about that, I'm getting an idea here ... roll before roleplaying! And if you roll poorly, you get to negotiate in your usual inept style, thus justifying the failure, while if you roll well, take a minute to think about it, maybe the DM can even throw you a hint ("the guard seems to be portly and fond of snacks" "uhm, I tell him there's a doughnut sale behind the corner!"), and produce a more believable roleplay.

[Vandicus]

re: Keld

Well, if the DM would say "oh geez, you rolled 30, he believes whatever it was you just mumbled", it wouldn't have been the best solution too. Doesn't make for the best storytelling, eh?


I suspect the issue is not a lack of clarity or the plausibility of what Keld was saying, but rather that when he says it it does not come out in a particularly convincing fashion(irl).

[SowZ]

See, I don't like it when people do that. That restricts the character's capacity for deceit, to the player's capacity for deceit. I could be an absolute idiot, incapable of convincing the sky that it's blue, but that doesn't mean that my character should labor under the same deficiency.

There should be a combination. A player who sells something well should get a bonus otherwise it is a pure numbers game, (ugh,) and doesn't make much sense, either, since saying something with a winning smile OR saying something with good logic/argumentation doesn't make a difference. Someone could be smart but have 6 charisma. By the same logic, if he has solid evidence and good arguments he should be able to convince someone of a truth.

Of course, high charisma assumes that you are saying things which sound reasonable but that is why it is a combination of both. The truth is, there will always be a potential disparity between player mental scores and character scores. A genius character should be able to comprehend astrophysics and come up with brilliant plans but some people will never be able to do it. You can diminish this some, but trying to get rid of it entirely makes the social aspect of the game booooorrriiinnnggg.

[Vandicus]

There should be a combination. A player who sells something well should get a bonus otherwise it is a pure numbers game, (ugh,) and doesn't make much sense, either, since saying something with a winning smile OR saying something with good logic/argumentation doesn't make a difference.

Someone could be smart but have 6 charisma. By the same logic, if he has solid evidence and good arguments he should be able to convince someone of a truth.



http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Bluff_Skill

A. Funnily enough, they have rules for plausibility. That being said, a player should be not be punished/rewarded for the delivery so much as for the content.

B. Bluff is for lying to people. Unless a person's got a solid reason not to believe you(such as winning their sense motive vs a bluff check), they should believe solid evidence and good arguments per the rules of Diplomacy.

[Cofniben]

Bluff isn't as overpowered, the skill you want to focus in is diplomacy. If you get over a 25, any hostile enemy will become indifferent, and if you get over 35, they will be friendly, and 50 they become helpful. It is very broken, and you just need to make amazing rolls, which is very possible. If you are a Half-Elf with 18 Charisma, and are level 2 with full ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty) and Sense Motive, and you have the feat Negotiator, you will have a +19 to your roll, making it very possible to turn a hostile enemy to an indifferent one, and the rolls are even less if they are just unfriendly.

So in conclusion, Diplomacy is more broken then Bluff.

[Vandicus]

Bluff isn't as overpowered, the skill you want to focus in is diplomacy. If you get over a 25, any hostile enemy will become indifferent, and if you get over 35, they will be friendly, and 50 they become helpful. It is very broken, and you just need to make amazing rolls, which is very possible.

Diplomacy is definitely the crazy one. The OPness of bluff that has been mentioned in this thread all seems to be due to a lack of understanding of how the skill operates.

[Doughnut Master]

I run diplomacy as described in This Old Rule on this site. That seems to work pretty well. It works well. Even friendly npcs aren't taken for granted, working out good deals can be tricky, and that handsome bard is unlikely to convince the local sovereign that he ought to be "king for a day".

[ericgrau]

The bluff skill says bluff is not a suggestion spell. Some take that to mean that bluff cannot do magical things. Others take it to mean that it can alter perceived reality in any way except suggestion.

Those in the first camp tend to use common sense in that bluff can only be used for bluffing and thus success only means that the foe believes you are telling the truth. Those in the second camp tend to "house rule" bluff so that it success only means that the foe believes you are telling the truth. In the end the result is the same.

I take the same view on diplomacy. Rich does make a good point on it, though: his players liked knowing exactly what they could do without the DM saying "no". If using the original rules, I'd suggest letting nearly everyone in the world believe that the silver-tongued PC believes his own words to be true and I'd suggest letting nearly everyone in the world ally with him whenever it's reasonable. Otherwise he'll rightly wonder why he's blowing resources into it instead of playing something else.

[Larpus]

My DM uses the duration of Bluff to be dependent on how plausible it is.

"You're a newt" only lasts for a single round, enough time for the person to recover from being dumbfolded for being told that with such conviction (being more that the target believed that you actually perceive that as truth rather than believing that indeed he is a newt).

However "your king is a dragon" followed by a non-bluff line of "because you know some dragons can shapeshift and look just like humans" lasts for as long as it takes for the target to make the necessary checks to discern the truth or is convinced otherwise.

A nice trick I've used couple times already with Bluff is to tell the truth, such as if you're being interrogated as to the whereabouts of the rest of the party, and there are two ways to go for it:

1. Simply just tell your DM "I'll tell the truth but use Bluff to make it look like a lie", once you succeed, forego your roll on purpose (so they can see you're lying) and then finally do your act, telling a believable lie.

2. This one is more complicated and can get your character killed. What you need to do is first say the most blatant lies, the kinds of which will never ever, ever stick, do this about 3 times and start to say things (also lies) that are plausible, your modifier should be bad enough that they still won't believe you and then tell the truth, by then the guards won't believe anything that leaves you mouth, successfully throwing them away from the correct answer.

[Amphetryon]

That actually is how I treat the skill bluff. Also I did away with the listed modifiers to bluff. I give the bluff a modifier based on how well the player sells it.

Not to belabor the point or sound like you're Doing It Wrong, but do you apply similar modifiers based on the player's actual ability to swing a sword or pick a lock?

[Doughnut Master]

My DM uses the duration of Bluff to be dependent on how plausible it is.

"You're a newt" only lasts for a single round, enough time for the person to recover from being dumbfolded for being told that with such conviction (being more that the target believed that you actually perceive that as truth rather than believing that indeed he is a newt).

However "your king is a dragon" followed by a non-bluff line of "because you know some dragons can shapeshift and look just like humans" lasts for as long as it takes for the target to make the necessary checks to discern the truth or is convinced otherwise.

A nice trick I've used couple times already with Bluff is to tell the truth, such as if you're being interrogated as to the whereabouts of the rest of the party, and there are two ways to go for it:

1. Simply just tell your DM "I'll tell the truth but use Bluff to make it look like a lie", once you succeed, forego your roll on purpose (so they can see you're lying) and then finally do your act, telling a believable lie.

2. This one is more complicated and can get your character killed. What you need to do is first say the most blatant lies, the kinds of which will never ever, ever stick, do this about 3 times and start to say things (also lies) that are plausible, your modifier should be bad enough that they still won't believe you and then tell the truth, by then the guards won't believe anything that leaves you mouth, successfully throwing them away from the correct answer.

But if you want to use your Bluff skill to make the truth look like a lie, wouldn't forgoing the roll simply reveal that you're a bad actor? The guards would then see you're trying to disguise the truth as lies and thus take what you said at face value.

[FearlessGnome]

But if you want to use your Bluff skill to make the truth look like a lie, wouldn't forgoing the roll simply reveal that you're a bad actor? The guards would then see you're trying to disguise the truth as lies and thus take what you said at face value.

Unless that's what he wants them to think!

Yeah, sorry. What you said is a valid point. He'd have to do a successful bluff.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Unless that's what he wants them to think!

Yeah, sorry. What you said is a valid point. He'd have to do a successful bluff.

Ok let me get this straight:

You need to bluff successfully, to convince the gaurd that your truth is actually a lie without stating it? Am I reading this right?

EDIT: A bit more on topic, my group uses Bluff, Diplomancy, and Intimidate in trading settings, like cashing in loot. Bluff in this sense is to convince a particular item is worth more (or less, as appropriate) by lieing about what makes it more or less. "Ooo but you see! This sword is crafted by the finest blacksmith in the world, Brock Smithy. See that giant gash in the blade? Thats his mark."

[Larpus]

But if you want to use your Bluff skill to make the truth look like a lie, wouldn't forgoing the roll simply reveal that you're a bad actor? The guards would then see you're trying to disguise the truth as lies and thus take what you said at face value.
What? No, no.

The line of actions is:

1. Truth as a lie, roll.

2. Normal lie that seems as likely as the truth, forego roll to actually look like you're lying twice and just failed to impress (this of course is following the definition of bluff as you manipulating your body/voice to convince others of whatever you want to, so by not rolling you're just making sure they hear it as a lie).

3. Normal lie that is as likely as the other two, but this time you do roll to convince them this is the truth, so now whatever you said in 1 and 2 are obvious lies, but 3 is the truth.

It's quite a long-shot and has very limited actual use (as opposed to just lying/getting out of there), but there was a time when this was useful: I was at a situation where an escape seemed unlikely/impossible and was being interrogated by a guild of mercenaries who were after my party, so regardless of what I told my captors, eventually they'd torture me, I'd fail a save (we were using Fort and Will saves for torture) and end up singing the truth, so I used the above strategy so even after I failed my saves and told them the truth, they were suspicious enough and had to divide their forces between multiple targets.

Also, sometimes convincing others that you're a bad actor when you are not can be useful, since they'll be less suspicious of you (similar to an Evil character who looks like a good guy and does his evul stuff without anyone knowing it was him, people will be less likely to suspect him since he's "good").

[Flickerdart]

There's actually rules in BoVD for torture - and the torturer gets a stiff penalty on Sense Motive. So the more likely course of action would be that you tell them something, they believe you and go do whatever, and by the time they figure out you lied, a significant amount of time would have elapsed.
This is why Zone of Truth is great.

[Larpus]

There's actually rules in BoVD for torture - and the torturer gets a stiff penalty on Sense Motive. So the more likely course of action would be that you tell them something, they believe you and go do whatever, and by the time they figure out you lied, a significant amount of time would have elapsed.
This is why Zone of Truth is great.
Aw chucks, we weren't using those, since the situation kind of just happened (curse you bad rolls), the DM just came up with the rules rather on the fly (there were couple days so he could think about them) and the result was as such:

The torture will be either mental, physical or both, for example, not being fed is mental (with a physical penalty, but still primary mental), enduring pain is physical and having a limb/finger amputated is both.

There is an increasing DC of the rolls with each successive torture and if I had 2 failed rolls in a row, I'd have to tell the truth out of desperation.

Also, as I mentioned, the situation was unlikely of me being rescued or able to free myself, so my best bet was to throw them away from the party so they could quickly finish what they had and could look up for me, it passed quite an amount of time of me being held (during that time I was rolling solo scenes and had control over a temporary PC/NPC whenever the rest of the party was playing).

Anyway, being the rules and situation as such, I decided that the best course of action was to convince them that the truth was a lie so even if they ended up giving it a shot, they not only could just miss the party, but also wouldn't be sure what to try next and being pressed for time would split their men through multiple locations hopefully getting thin enough in numbers so they won't be more than a small annoyance to my friends and for there to be few of them at their HQ so I can escape; which is what happened.

And yeah, they didn't have anyone to cast for them, it was a low magic setting.