Voluntary Ineptitude?

[King Atticus]

I'm playing a Factotum character in a campaign right now and obviously as such I'm all about the skills. I also happen to be the only evil member (although I don't really try to screw over the party) of a party of goody-goodies :smallbiggrin: I ran into an interesting situation in one of our last sessions: For one reason or another we had found ourselves without a mage but with a pumped-up UMD I'm able to utilize pretty much any magic item we run across. So the party got it's hands on a Staff of Life (w/ 5 charges). Now I'm of a mind that the 5 heals are miles ahead of 1 resurrection because my character is all about survival and people should try to stay alive in the first place. [I realize sometimes things happen and people die randomly but I hate people throwing away characters] Our party Pali ended up way weak due to some strength damaging spell or another, I was the only party member who even had spellcraft, and I saw my opportunity to use the staff to heal her (and thereby end the resurrection temptation), because we were not very far from the next major encounter and we needed her at full strength. I rolled my spellcraft and legitimately failed to know what the spell was and that it had a temporary duration and talked the party into letting me use the staff to fix her up. This got me thinking that thankfully I failed that spellcraft check so I didn't know enough that I would have to chance a bluff check against the group and that it would be very convenient if I could ensure certain skill failures should a situation like this arise again. I know you can voluntarily fail saving throws but I was wondering about skill checks.

TL/DR: Can you voluntarily fail skill checks if for some reason it's in your best interest not to succeed on them

Before it begins, yes I realize this could be considered very shady, but...I'm evil (for the first time ever!) :smallwink:

[hymer]

Maybe I'm just dense, so please bear with me.
Why would you want to fail your check in the first place? It sounds like you could have saved a charge of a useful magical item if you had made your Spellcraft check.

[Deepbluediver]

I don't think you can voluntarily fail skill checks, because if you make a check then that implies you are actually trying. What I might do here is roll a bluff check to make the other party members THINK you tried and failed to UMD.

[King Atticus]

Not dense at all, that's a great question. The answer is...I know my party. We've got a guy who has been through 5 characters so far in this campaign and if we had a resurrection just sitting around I know it would just go to him the next time he does something stupid and gets himself killed. I'm more than willing to sacrifice 1 of those charges in order to make it useful to the whole party. In my mind it was in the best interest of the party because they would do anything in their power to bring him back every time so now this isn't in their power.

[Cyrion]

I think that by their very nature as skills, most skill checks could be voluntarily failed. "Oops, I just can't get that lock pick to catch right..." "Oops, I didn't put enough oomph into that jump..."

I would say that the exception would be in things like knowledge skills where either you know it or you don't. However, in that case, what you actually tell others or act upon is entirely up to you... :smallamused:

[CTrees]

Well, if you have a rough idea of the DC, taking ten could potentially auto-fail, in cases where you're allowed to take ten.

Alternatively, as a DM? Yeah, I don't see why you can't just "not try very hard" and elect to fail. You can voluntarily fail saves, so why SHOULDN'T you be able to fail skil checks? However, hiding the fact you're half-arsing it to the party? I'd probably make that a bluff or sleight of hand check, as appropriate.

[teslas]

I don't think you can voluntarily fail skill checks, because if you make a check then that implies you are actually trying. What I might do here is roll a bluff check to make the other party members THINK you tried and failed to UMD.
This is really all that needs to be said on the matter.

You especially can't fail Spellcraft, Knowledge, and Sense Motive checks. You, as a player, have no control over whether or not your character does or does not know something that would call for one of these checks. If it comes to the point where it's time to roll a d20, there's nothing you can do about it, as the situation that has caused the roll has already occurred.

Many other checks are like this, though there are things you can do about it. For instance, Decipher Script and Forgery (when telling if a document is forged), are actions that take deliberate time and effort. If you choose to simply forgo rolling, it'd be a Bluff check to tell others that the document or writing says something that it does not, or to say you tried and simply don't know.

[Diarmuid]

I agree with Teslas. I think a better option would be to simply voluntarily choose to not make the check.

In your example, you could have done the exact same thing, and probably might have (per your description of the situation with having Raise Dead available) even if you had properly identified the spell.

That might have required a Bluff check if you were trying to convince the party, but it should be pretty believable and barring metagaming by the others likely wouldnt even have elicited Sense Motive rolls.

[teslas]

Also, the DM in that situation, if people claim they do not believe you, should always roll the hidden Bluff and Sense Motive for each of the players, and simply inform them of the results, even if the player is telling the truth. They should always hear dice hit the table in this type of situation. No exceptions.

As a DM, I simply do not allow Bluff/Sense Motive/Diplomacy to work on other PCs. It's up to a person's ability to role-play to trust another player at face value or to doubt them and to keep themselves from meta-gaming. (This does not count Bluff checks to send subtle messages or Sense Motive to sense someone who is mind zonked, of course).

[Deepbluediver]

Alternatively, as a DM? Yeah, I don't see why you can't just "not try very hard" and elect to fail. You can voluntarily fail saves, so why SHOULDN'T you be able to fail skil checks? However, hiding the fact you're half-arsing it to the party? I'd probably make that a bluff or sleight of hand check, as appropriate.

The difference is that Saves are normally an involuntary response, and so you can choose to not try. With skill checks, you actively have to choose to make one in the first place. That's why rather than choosing to fail a UMD check, I said you needed to suceed on a bluff check (or sleight of hand, I guess) to make the party think you tried, and couldn't activate it, which is what the OP seems to be going for.

[Cog]

As a DM, I simply do not allow Bluff/Sense Motive/Diplomacy to work on other PCs. It's up to a person's ability to role-play to trust another player at face value or to doubt them and to keep themselves from meta-gaming. (This does not count Bluff checks to send subtle messages or Sense Motive to sense someone who is mind zonked, of course).
The potential problem with this lies in people choosing to play a character who is skilled at things they aren't. If my fighter had reason to attack another party member, I would feel cheated if I had to rely on my own fencing skills instead of my character's; it would be the same for a rogue who had reason to lie to a party member. It's certainly something that a DM ought to keep a close eye on, and shouldn't be abused if the group as a whole doesn't enjoy the results, but simply denying somebody the character resources they've invested in feels like a slippery slope to me.

[JadePhoenix]

Actually, Diplomacy not working on PCs is RAW

[Ashtagon]

I'd say you can always choose to "take 1" on any d20 roll.

If an observer thinks you were intentionally failing, Bluff vs Sense Motive to detect the bluff.

[Cog]

Actually, Diplomacy not working on PCs is RAW
Since when does being RAW prevent it from being a potential problem? :smallcool:

[Rejusu]

The difference is that Saves are normally an involuntary response, and so you can choose to not try. With skill checks, you actively have to choose to make one in the first place. That's why rather than choosing to fail a UMD check, I said you needed to suceed on a bluff check (or sleight of hand, I guess) to make the party think you tried, and couldn't activate it, which is what the OP seems to be going for.

Some skill checks are also involuntary responses though. If you see a spell being cast you make a spellcraft check to see if you know what the spell is. If there's something making noise you make a listen check. These kinds of skills (including knowledge) are the ones I'd say you can't voluntarily fail. You either heard something or you didn't. If you didn't then that's fine but if you did you can't unhear it and would have to lie about hearing it in the first place. Same with knowledge, if you know something then you'd have to lie that you don't know it.

Anything that requires a deliberate effort though I'd say you could quite easily fail purposefully. Though as others have suggested you might need to convince the party that you were actually trying. Maybe a sense motive vs bluff but you add in the modifiers of the skill check you were making to either side.

So for instance if you wanted to pick a lock it'd be Bluff + Open Lock vs Sense Motive + Open Lock. So a character that's not very good at lock picking would find it harder to determine whether another character was only pretending to pick the lock.

[teslas]

TL;DR: None of this is important with respect to the thread's subject, move along.


I'd say you can always choose to "take 1" on any d20 roll.

If an observer thinks you were intentionally failing, Bluff vs Sense Motive to detect the bluff.
RAW, you cannot "take 1". It's just not an option. Even if you did want to expand the rules a bit, which in my opinion we've already collectively determined isn't really necessary, there are more elegant ways of doing things than introducing this type of mechanic.



The potential problem with this lies in people choosing to play a character who is skilled at things they aren't. If my fighter had reason to attack another party member, I would feel cheated if I had to rely on my own fencing skills instead of my character's; it would be the same for a rogue who had reason to lie to a party member. It's certainly something that a DM ought to keep a close eye on, and shouldn't be abused if the group as a whole doesn't enjoy the results, but simply denying somebody the character resources they've invested in feels like a slippery slope to me.
Let me start off by saying that I can absolutely understand what you're getting at here. However, given a half-competent table of people interested in fun play, this is probably not an accurate comment or analogy.

It is up to the player to handle his interactions with other PCs. As stated before, the Diplomacy skill just doesn't work against PCs. End of story. As far as Bluff and Sense Motive goes, yes, I expect the player with, say, a dwarf whatever, with 8 wisdom, 6 charisma, and no ranks in Sense Motive to play himself accordingly. Failing to do so is a fault of the player, not the mechanic.

I am probably also a total horse's ass as a DM when it comes down to some players' standards. For instance, if your Cleric with 8 intelligence comes up with some huge and complex plan involving interlocking machinery, a close-knit time table of events involving a half dozen people, and draws off of knowledge skills that he does not possess in a single round of combat, I flat out tell them that no, their character just isn't capable of conceiving such a thing--especially in that length of time.

The slippery slope in my opinion comes in with the contrapositive of what you are saying: players having an effective real-life intelligence score of 13 and a charisma of 7 (joking aside, this is probably an accurate statting out of the majority of us ;p) wanting to play their characters that way and relying on dice rolls to shore up the gap, but only when convenient--not actually putting thought and effort into role-playing their 10 int, 14 charisma rogue as it might ought to be. My tables, as a player or as a DM, have always been rather role-play light (most likely extremely so compared to some of you), but we still take our character's abilities, world views, and mindsets seriously.

You must trust your players to play their characters. If they cannot do this, then yeah, you might have to enact some sort of juvenile policy about allowing Sense Motive and Bluff to work on fellow PCs. I would strongly suggest you take full advantage of well-thought Circumstance bonuses/penalties to such things if this ever becomes the case. And really, it all boils down to finding something that works for your group of people. Roll Balance checks against one another while in conversations for all it's worth, so long as it works (and that sounds as ridiculous as you saying roll Sense Motive checks to me).

One last point: if the DM doesn't give you enough opportunities to use your Bluff/Sense Motive check against NPCs, he either isn't doing a decent job or didn't sufficiently warn his players that the campaign wouldn't involve a lot of NPC interactions. Such things should not be necessary for use with other PCs. And that's not even mentioning the other uses the two skills have that have nothing to do with either lying or suspecting lies.

[Deepbluediver]

Some skill checks are also involuntary responses though. If you see a spell being cast you make a spellcraft check to see if you know what the spell is. If there's something making noise you make a listen check. These kinds of skills (including knowledge) are the ones I'd say you can't voluntarily fail. You either heard something or you didn't. If you didn't then that's fine but if you did you can't unhear it and would have to lie about hearing it in the first place. Same with knowledge, if you know something then you'd have to lie that you don't know it.

Anything that requires a deliberate effort though I'd say you could quite easily fail purposefully. Though as others have suggested you might need to convince the party that you were actually trying. Maybe a sense motive vs bluff but you add in the modifiers of the skill check you were making to either side.

So for instance if you wanted to pick a lock it'd be Bluff + Open Lock vs Sense Motive + Open Lock. So a character that's not very good at lock picking would find it harder to determine whether another character was only pretending to pick the lock.

hmm...ok, I'm willing to accept that a few skill check might be played as involuntary responses. Use magic device, though, would not be one of them.

I really like the idea of adding the skill ranks from what you are trying to bluff to that versus check though.

@teslas
I have seen the question of dice in role vs roll play argument pop up plenty of times; generally people seem to seperate into two factions: those who want the social interaction skills to be based entirely on player decision, and those who prefer to let the dice make the final determination.
I've heard arguments for both sides, and what I think is most important is that whatever you decide you firmly establish it before the game begins (if possible, even before character creation).
If the game has already started, and if even one player has sunk a lot of points into social skills, then I feel you need to go with the dice option since changing it now would make that player feel cheated. Either that or I guess you could let them rebuild their character, but for some reason I think that feels almost as bad.

My prefered way of doing something is to say that a character has to be consistent when it comes to social interactions. What I mean is, if they are going to be the ones determining how convinced or how suspicous their character is in any given situation, then they also don't get to roll dice to bluff their way out other circumstances. If you (the player) wants to be the ultimate determiner of your characters actions, then you also hand more power over to the DM to determine if you roleplaying is actually convincing enough.
What I really hate is players trying to claim that they can never be influenced about anything or making really OOC decisions, while trying to diplomance every NPC they meet into becoming their best friend while robbing them blind.

[Seatbelt]

I've always played that bluff/sense motive work on players, but diplomacy doesn't. As a player you have access to most of the information floating around the table. So as a player you know when a character is lying. Some people can probably roleplay this adequately, but some can't. My present group is mixed. Some of the players have no problem handling that but others are having trouble separating PC knowledge from player knowledge.

Having a bluff check vs a sense motive check ensures that everyone is fully aware what their characters know, and it provides an easy metric by which we can say "this is metagame, and this isn't."

[King Atticus]

I've always played that bluff/sense motive work on players, but diplomacy doesn't. As a player you have access to most of the information floating around the table. So as a player you know when a character is lying. Some people can probably roleplay this adequately, but some can't. My present group is mixed. Some of the players have no problem handling that but others are having trouble separating PC knowledge from player knowledge.

Having a bluff check vs a sense motive check ensures that everyone is fully aware what their characters know, and it provides an easy metric by which we can say "this is metagame, and this isn't."

This is how my group plays also.

[Rejusu]

hmm...ok, I'm willing to accept that a few skill check might be played as involuntary responses. Use magic device, though, would not be one of them.

Nope it wouldn't. Anything you choose to do you can choose to fail. But some skills are used reflexively rather than deliberately so it's important to distinguish between the two.


I really like the idea of adding the skill ranks from what you are trying to bluff to that versus check though.

My only worry is that this might make it a little too easy for the dedicated skill monkeys to fool the party. But then again this is the kind of thing they're supposed to be good at. I think it'd be better this way though because it'd give the rogue with the poor charisma a chance against the party face. Likewise it gives the wizard with a good score in UMD to spot when the rogue is faking it.

[DrDeth]

. We've got a guy who has been through 5 characters so far in this campaign .


Let me guess- you’re playing in one of those games without a dedicated healer, as “wands of CLW can do all the needed healing and there’s never a need to heal in combat”?:smallyuk:

[King Atticus]

Let me guess- you’re playing in one of those games without a dedicated healer, as “wands of CLW can do all the needed healing and there’s never a need to heal in combat”?:smallyuk:

Actually right now we are because I know I'm keeping myself alive and I can UMD the wands. But it wasn't always so, The character in question started out as our cleric and at another point we had a straight up healer. So we've had heal-sticks but nobody we can count on for the long haul.