Wand of Glibness

[maxrz]

Basically this: I have a player who frequently makes wands of Glibness in my adventures. For those that don't know, it adds 30 to your bluff check. Thus allowing a DC 60 bluff check easily passable by level 10. Better yet, DC 50 moderately passable by level 5. So instead of fighting, he spends his whole time in combats convincing people of things like "No really, you ARE dead." or convincing them that their allies are actually enemies or my personal favorite, "We are the ground.".

How do I deal with this besides banning glibness?

[tyckspoon]

The simplest approach, IMO, is to change what Bluff does. You don't convince people your words are true- you convince people you *honestly believe* that your words are true. So if you tell somebody his allies are really enemies, he will accept that you believe that- but he won't automatically be convinced of it. You'll have to Bluff/Diplomacy him further, or present actual evidence, and it probably won't work in the heat of battle. If you go around making Bluffs that are blatantly contradictory to reality- "You're actually already dead" or "You can't see me, I'm invisible!" or "I'm a tree, nothing to see here".. all you are likely to achieve is convincing whoever you are talking to that you're quite crazy.

[Bladesinger]

What kind of world is your campaign in? Is magic such as this easy to come by? If so, it's a simple matter for some NPC wizard to look at your players' actions, use his 20+ intelligence, and put it all together. Maybe you could have an NPC Warlock use his at-will Detect Magic. Or you could give the NPCs multiple chances to disbelieve the player's lies, given the circumstances. The SRD describes giving the target of a bluff a bonus to his Sense Motive check if the lie is unbelievable--the more outlandish the lie, the higher the bonus on the Sense Motive check. I once had a PC roll over a 20 on his bluff roll to convince an NPC that the burning tree not 10 feet away from them was not in fact on fire. The NPC believed him...for about 3 seconds. I gave that particular Commoner another check (with a healthy bonus) when his own eyebrows singed off.

Basically, let your player have his fun with the small folk, especially if his antics aren't compromising the other players' fun. If he starts messing with the powerful people, however, have them call him on it--painfully, if need be (a high-level Cleric of Saint Cuthbert or Hextor casting Discern Lies comes in wonderful handy here).

EDIT: This post elevated me from a Pixie to a Halfling. Yay, evolution!

[Cespenar]

Things like "No really, you ARE dead." and "We are the ground." are simply not possible. This is Bluff, not Symbol of Insanity.

Also:


A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate.

So if nothing else, you could rule the checks to be longer than 1 round, while the recipient tries their best to off them.

[TuggyNE]

One other thing is that most Bluff results only last a round or so.

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. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

To expand on the last sentence of that quote a bit, there's actually an epic skill usage of Bluff that is suggestion: +50 to the DC. So for an outlandish suggestion bluff like "You're no longer able to breathe air, you'd beter jump in that lava because that's the only thing you can breathe"*, you might assign +20 for crazy, and +50 for suggestion, which probably pushes it out of reach.


* Yes, I have heard of this being attempted.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A battle is a DC -10 Listen check to notice, which means it's considerably loud. If he's trying to make Bluff checks during combat, chances are opponents aren't even going to notice he's said anything at all.

A Bluff check can only succeed if it's believable. "You're dead," and, "Don't mind us, we're just the floor," are obviously untrue, so such a bluff will automatically fail. Something like, "We're your orc buddies, we're just in disguise to trick some adventurers," is actually somewhat believable, as long as he can speak Orcish without an obvious accent. Glibness doesn't let him convince opponents that up is down, no matter how high his check result.

Take a look at the epic uses of Bluff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff), particularly using it to plant a Suggestion. That's a +50 DC, on top of the +20 DC for way-out-there or otherwise beyond just putting the target at risk. That's probably what you're allowing him to accomplish with just his +30, but it looks like he's actually going well beyond that. It functions as the spell Suggestion, which contains the following: "Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell." There you have it, even the most epic-level powerful use of the Bluff skill cannot even accomplish what you've allowed him to do.

There's nothing wrong with Glibness, you just need to keep in mind whether someone would even consider believing his bluffs, or if they don't even need to roll a check at all. Also remember that you can tell him that they just didn't hear him, maybe he can try to get closer and yell a bit and waste another round trying to bluff an opponent who's not even paying attention to him.

[hymer]

@ maxrz: There's been some great answers already, but I gotta ask: Is this really the story your players want to tell? Or is this player just more into 'winning' than 'playing'?

[maxrz]

I guess my biggest problem was not being able to find the DCs for some of these things. I've done the +20s and the discern lies things. But discerning lies gets old. The +50 will really help. So will the length of how long bluffs last. All in all, saved and thank you guys :)

@hymer : This particular player doesn't like to actually fight, he's a pacifist. So he takes the roll of skill-monkey and party buffer with his cool bardic stuff. However, what makes him have fun is making other people have fun, and trolling the DM seems to be the new thing. I'm not too terribly bothered by it yet, it seems to be working. I just wanted to figure out what on earth I was doing wrong to allow bluff to be so powerful. Side note. He recently rolled 3 natural 20s in a row to get a nymph to, well, anyways. It's all in good fun.


Thank you all :)

[supermonkeyjoe]

All the bluffing in the world wont save you from mindless creatures, how does the character deal with undead, constructs and plant creatures? Also fighting things that don't speak the same language or are deaf could prove a problem.

[Acanous]

occasionally, however, remember to let him use bluff how he wants to. It's no fun if your one schtick became useless overnight, especially on someone optimized for it. One or two mindless encounters is OK. Five in a row is a bit much.

Also, IIRC, it's another -20 to make Bluff a free action. That might be a house rule, but I'm sure I read it somewhere :p

So, bluffing in combat "You can't breathe air! Better jump in that Lava, since that's what you breathe!" is -90. -50 for suggestion, -20 for blatantly outlandish, -20 for making it fast enough to do in a round.

But if he makes it? That guy jumps in the friggin' lava.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

To expand on the last sentence of that quote a bit, there's actually an epic skill usage of Bluff that is suggestion: +50 to the DC. So for an outlandish suggestion bluff like "You're no longer able to breathe air, you'd beter jump in that lava because that's the only thing you can breathe"*, you might assign +20 for crazy, and +50 for suggestion, which probably pushes it out of reach.


So, bluffing in combat "You can't breathe air! Better jump in that Lava, since that's what you breathe!" is -90. -50 for suggestion, -20 for blatantly outlandish, -20 for making it fast enough to do in a round.

But if he makes it? That guy jumps in the friggin' lava.

Both of those automatically fail (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm):
"Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

You can't kill someone, or get them to kill themself, with Bluff.

[Killer Angel]

You can't kill someone, or get them to kill themself, with Bluff.

Yep. At most, you can obtain a "wut?" from the subject, that for a moment stares funnily at you, and then continues fighting (maybe losing a move action for that round, if you want to houserule so).

[TuggyNE]

Both of those automatically fail (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm):
"Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

You can't kill someone, or get them to kill themself, with Bluff.

Right, fair enough, that's even more secure. :smallsmile:

[hoverfrog]

Glibness is of no use whatsoever if someone cannot hear you. Is it not still standard practice in a fight to cast Silence on the wizard and other spell casters as soon as possible? Holy word isn't alone in spells that cause deafness. Deafness can also occur naturally or as the result of accidents.

Nor is glibness any use if someone cannot understand what you're saying. Maybe the party is facing someone with a poor understanding on Common, a group of proud dwarves who speak only the tongue of their forefathers, or psionic creatures who "speak" only with their minds and have no use for spoken words. How about knowing that there are harpies nearby the guards routinely block up their ears with wax plugs.

Here's another suggestion: Word has gotten round about a deceitful liar who uses magic to convince people of outrageous things. Tired of giving away treasure or running from a fight that they should be able to win the wealthy have begun making magical circlets or rings to bolster their Sense Motive checks. Some of these have fallen into the hands of monsters.

Or word has gotten around about this glib individual with a distinctive wand and guards are instructed to attack him on sight without giving him an opportunity to speak, preferably at long range and out of earshot.

How about: counterspell. That works against wands, right?

Finally have someone use one of these wands against the party and see what sort of defences they put up against it.

[Slipperychicken]

There are the scaling penalties for how unbelievable your lie is, all the way up to -20 for "I am actually a llamasu polymorphed into a halfling". So you can continue the scaling, with -60 for "We are the ground", and automatic failure for "You are dead".


You can suggest to your players to make their lies more believable. They should remember that their world contains all kinds of bizarre effects which easily explain many inconsistencies. If you don't want someone to attack you, you can say "A powerful Wizard has enchanted me (with Craft Contingent Spell), so that the moment you strike my flesh, countless spells will activate and obliterate you. By the way, I'm also an Astral Projection, so even if you do survive, you can't kill me anyway." With such a massive Bluff check, you could probably just tell people that you're an inspector, who has been secretly disguised so that he can observe the facility unmolested.

[Alleine]

You could also force him to elaborate on "You're actually dead right now! Surprise!". Because at the moment it doesn't matter how high his bluff check is he's not even trying to convince anyone, he's just saying amusingly random things. Get him to try and reason it out with the target/roleplay his usage of bluff more in depth. If he can successfully build a shoddy chain of not-quite-logic to finally convince someone that they're dead, congrats! It took him a few rounds and he got challenged. If he fails to justify the lie adequately just give him a nice large penalty.

There's also no reason you need to stop at a -20 for 'almost too incredible to consider'. Telling someone that they are, in fact, dead is not 'too incredible to consider', it's more along the lines of 'outright impossibility' since they're standing there listening to him talk.

[doko239]

Telling someone that they are, in fact, dead is not 'too incredible to consider', it's more along the lines of 'outright impossibility' since they're standing there listening to him talk.

Not entirely true. The reality of an afterlife is well-known in D20 universes, but the specifics thereof aren't. You could make an argument that the target truly is dead, and that all they're perceiving is their own personal version of hell or some such.

Other suggestions: "This is all a dream", "you're insane", "I'm a ghost, ooga booga" etc. Basically, just go full Total Recall on them, you don't have to convince them you're telling the truth, just get them to doubt reality.

[SSG Ghost Rider]

Both of those automatically fail (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm):
"Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

You can't kill someone, or get them to kill themself, with Bluff.


This is the big one. All the other things don't seem too terribly bad anyways. If that is his thing let him do it. And use the knowledge here that he can't make anyone jump in lava or slit their own throat no matter how good of a liar he is. Maybe just for fun throw an undead or two his way and call it a day.

[Qwertystop]

Both of those automatically fail (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm):
"Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

You can't kill someone, or get them to kill themself, with Bluff.

Not quite. You may not be able to convince them to commit suicide, but you might be able to convince them that something false is true, which leads them to do something that they think is a good idea but is actually suicidal. For example, after a novice assassin poisons his knife, you might be able to suggest that the bottle was actually a mislabeled pition of, say, Cat's Grace. This could lead to him downing ten doses of Con poison.

[ericgrau]

The simplest approach, IMO, is to change what Bluff does. You don't convince people your words are true- you convince people you *honestly believe* that your words are true.

I don't think this is a change, I think this is the definition of bluffing. I think the problem is people try to expand what bluffing is, because after the rules don't say they can't. This is a bad approach to interpreting the rules; ya, it's an interpretation of RAW not RAW. To say that bluffing is a deception to make others think you are making an honest statement is another interpretation of RAW, and I'd say it's a much better one.

If it's not a bluff then it's not a Bluff, simple.

I'm all for super high skill checks doing great things within a limited scope, but the key is the limited scope. If you're in a random combat with strangers that scope is virtually nil. Outside of combat or in a plot related combat you can do amazingly interesting and fun things, if you're creative (not "hey you, I'm your king").

[Mercenary Pen]

If you want a moment of comic relief before telling this player he can't kill people with bluff, having a humanoid go around the battlefield shouting "You can't kill me, I'm already dead!" might get a laugh or two...

[Yahzi]

An NPC rogue sneaks up, grabs his wand, and uses it on him:

"You really believe that Glibness wands no longer work."

Problem solved! :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

Or word has gotten around about this glib individual with a distinctive wand and guards are instructed to attack him on sight without giving him an opportunity to speak, preferably at long range and out of earshot.

How about: counterspell. That works against wands, right?

The problem here is that glibness lasts for a minimum of 70 minutes. Therefore it was likely cast ahead of time, so the wand is probably out of sight and it is far too late for counterspelling.

[candycorn]

The problem here is that glibness lasts for a minimum of 70 minutes. Therefore it was likely cast ahead of time, so the wand is probably out of sight and it is far too late for counterspelling.

Dispel, however, works very well against wand spells.

[hoverfrog]

An excellent point. A dispel magic or an antimagic field (or dead zone) of some kind would eat away at the charges of the wand. If your enemies routinely buff themselves with spells then dispel magic is a good way to reduce their power and effectiveness against you.

If you think that the spell is broken then you could just reduce the duration to a round a level.

Also with a duration of 70 minutes or two hours or whatever there are bound to be gaps in when this effect is on a person or are they really going through a dozen or more charges a day from the wand per person?