glibness problems

[kaaskeizer]

for the ones that have been a Dungeon Master and encountered the same problem; how does one pierce the veil of glibness?
i personally let them prove nearly anything they bluff up together, place dead magic zones at the entrances of major city's or ill send an "investigator" (random npc on its quest) to figure out if the pcs spoke of the truth

this has been working just fine, my problem with glibness is that you can use it anywhere any time at any given situation (for example; feint attacks)

a spellcraft check is really usefull (dc 16 to see trough glibness)
but not every1 (especially non- casters) have &/or train this skill

my question is, do any of you know any other way(s) to pierce/see trough glibness without having to actually prepare for it? (other then spellcraft)

let me know!! ^^

many thanks;

-your every day innkeeper
-the goblin mayhem team
-the troll bridge guards
-the ravaging orc gangs
and many more

[Vaz]

Ban it? If it's causing that much problem, and they're breezing through missions with Glibness, outright banning is a much better fix than arbitrarily giving every enemy an item of +30 to counter bluff.

I'm AFB right now, but the SRD says http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm


Your speech becomes fluent and more believable. You gain a +30 bonus on Bluff checks made to convince another of the truth of your words. (This bonus doesn’t apply to other uses of the Bluff skill, such as feinting in combat, creating a diversion to hide, or communicating a hidden message via innuendo.).

I know the SRD arbitrarily changes stuff, but they also tend to be pretty good on the FAQ's and Errata and including that.

[Darth_Versity]

this has been working just fine, my problem with glibness is that you can use it anywhere any time at any given situation (for example; feint attacks)

You can't use glibness to feint


Your speech becomes fluent and more believable. You gain a +30 bonus on Bluff checks made to convince another of the truth of your words. (This bonus doesn’t apply to other uses of the Bluff skill, such as feinting in combat, creating a diversion to hide, or communicating a hidden message via innuendo.)

[Killer Angel]

You can't use glibness to feint

Plus, I don’t see the problem at all. Sure, +30 is a huge bonus, and you’re going to win almost all the bluff checks… so what? It’s the skill bluff, so the subject will believe you for a short period of time (one round, or a little more).

[Synovia]

Just a note here, but the Bluff skill is supposed to essentially work by you convincing the NPC that you think something is the truth. There are situations where the NPC can absolutely believe that you think something happened, and have them not believe you.

Its possible that the result of a bluff check is the NPC thinks you're crazy.

The NPC is also supposed to get a +20 modifier on their Sense Motive check if the claim is "almost too unbelievable". The NPC is also supposed to get a big bonus if the PC is putting them in danger.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Despite having a scaling counter in sense motive, bluff can cause a lot of the same issues as diplomacy by placing a set DC on lunacy. Most of the silliness Hailey did in 767- was legit under "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider +20 DC".

What's "too incredible to consider" in a fantasy world?

The best ways I can think of to deal with it are

1. Come up with rating system like the Fanatic-Indifferent-Hostile one diplomacy uses that goes from Blind Faith-Will never believe anything you say, ever (sorry I don't know a one or two word way to express this sentiment). The bottom level should give a penalty equal to or greater than the bonus given by glibness or make bluff and even honest communication impossible and should probably be reserved for people that have swallowed several magically enhanced whoppers either from a specific person/group or several in a very short period of time.

2. rule some things "too incredible to consider" if modules can say people won't believe the truth from high charisma PC's when the truth is just highly improbable you can say "No" to some bluffs.

3. Allow bluff's to work but let people reexamine the bluff later possibly as a new sense motive (taking 20 if they have time to sit and think about it, like say a guard would) vs. the the original bluff - Cha mod and magical buffs, because the magic isn't in your head so in reflecting you can see more clearly. Now they can come after you possibly with help and with a bonus if you try to rebluff them.


Its possible that the result of a bluff check is the NPC thinks you're crazy.

This too a successful bluff can make people think you're mistaken/insane.

[Deophaun]

Also keep in mind, after 1 minute of interaction, any can take a DC20 Sense Motive check to tell if something's wrong. You can be the best liar the universe has ever known, but you'll be found out after 10 rounds.

[Person_Man]

It's a spell, and thus can only be used limited times per day.

Bluff is not mind control. Yes, the troll might believe that you're his friend for a while, but 5 minutes later he's going to remember he loves the taste of humans, and that his master wants him to eat all of them. And if those humans are still in the dungeon...

Plenty of enemies are mindless or otherwise immune. And there are many, many ways to challenge PCs with traps, riddles, puzzles, world changing decisions, etc.

You can use Glibness against the PCs as well. They're the ones spamming it, after all, so they can't complain about a DM being "unfair."

If a player does a thing that they really enjoy doing that perfectly RAW, let them, even if it doesn't fit with your preconceived notion of what "should" happen in your game. D&D is about having fun, not about living out a draft version of your never to be published short story.

[Big Fau]

I know the SRD arbitrarily changes stuff, but they also tend to be pretty good on the FAQ's and Errata and including that.

The SRD doesn't change arbitrarily. It changes when WotC updates it (which they haven't done since they discontinued 3.5).

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Also keep in mind, after 1 minute of interaction, any can take a DC20 Sense Motive check to tell if something's wrong. You can be the best liar the universe has ever known, but you'll be found out after 10 rounds.

Is that an interpretation of "hunch"? If so, I like it.

[Killer Angel]

Just a note here, but the Bluff skill is supposed to essentially work by you convincing the NPC that you think something is the truth. There are situations where the NPC can absolutely believe that you think something happened, and have them not believe you.

Its possible that the result of a bluff check is the NPC thinks you're crazy.


Or they can believe you, but still don't do what you want.
For example, the guard can be absolutely sure that you are, indeed, a loyal officier and simply forgot the password, so won't cry "Alarm!". But won't open the door neither, or will call its commander to let you pass...

[ahenobarbi]

this has been working just fine, my problem with glibness is that you can use it anywhere any time at any given situation (for example; feint attacks)

No you can't use Glibness to feint attacks. You get the bonus only "on Bluff checks made to convince another of the truth of your words".

[SowZ]

Just a note here, but the Bluff skill is supposed to essentially work by you convincing the NPC that you think something is the truth. There are situations where the NPC can absolutely believe that you think something happened, and have them not believe you.

Its possible that the result of a bluff check is the NPC thinks you're crazy.

The NPC is also supposed to get a +20 modifier on their Sense Motive check if the claim is "almost too unbelievable". The NPC is also supposed to get a big bonus if the PC is putting them in danger.

That is how it should work, maybe, and it is definitely how I run the game. However, it is not how the game actually works. By RAW, you can use bluff to straight up convince someone something is true. Not just convince them that you believe it. You can houserule the skill as you see fit, of course. I do.

[TypoNinja]

Or they can believe you, but still don't do what you want.
For example, the guard can be absolutely sure that you are, indeed, a loyal officier and simply forgot the password, so won't cry "Alarm!". But won't open the door neither, or will call its commander to let you pass...

Too stupid to be tricked NPC's are useful here. They believe every word, but also know what their orders are and are simply not quick enough on the draw to follow any logic that would require them going against those order.

"Emperor Palpatine, Sir! Good evening, Your Grace! No, Sir, can't let you in. Orders says nobody in unless they on the list Sir! Lemme go call the boss Your Grace, I'm sure he'd be happy to add you to the list Sir."

Also Bluff is not suggestion and even suggestion won't make people take obviously harmful acts, and 'harmful' to a guard could also include letting people by that he shouldn't.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That is how it should work, maybe, and it is definitely how I run the game. However, it is not how the game actually works. By RAW, you can use bluff to straight up convince someone something is true. Not just convince them that you believe it. You can houserule the skill as you see fit, of course. I do.

Note that the description for the +20 modifier says "Almost too incredible to believe." If a bluff is almost too incredible, they buy it if they fail to beat your bluff with sense motive. If it's outright too incredible to believe, they just plain don't believe it.

Guard: "I cannot let you pass without written orders or my CO's okay."

Rogue disguised as city official: "I'm your CO's boss. If you don't let me through I'll have to tell him who inconvenienced me."

Guard buys it and lets him pass.

Rogue in scruffy adventuring gear, same bluff: guard tells him he's a damn lier and to scram before his patience runs out.

If a bluff isn't at least vaguely plausible, it just doesn't work.

[TuggyNE]

Also Bluff is not suggestion and even suggestion won't make people take obviously harmful acts, and 'harmful' to a guard could also include letting people by that he shouldn't.

Note: Bluff actually can emulate suggestion, but that's an epic DC (+50, to be precise, added on to whatever else). If you can't make that, you can't do suggestion-type stuff.

[ericgrau]

Generally with skills you have a high chance of success but within a severely limited scope. Note only is "bluff not suggestion"... it's not stronger than suggestion and it is not dominate. The only reason glibness is level 3 and not lower level than suggestion is because it allows several checks.

Let players use bluff only to bluff, to get away with a lie so that the listener believes that the player is honest about it, that the player believes it. Not to mind control or to rewrite the beliefs of others. Most foes aren't even open to discussion.

Now you can reward the player for roleplaying when the opportunity for a clever trick presents itself, without breaking the system the rest of the time and forcing you to ban what would have been an interesting option.

[Slipperychicken]

Just a note here, but the Bluff skill is supposed to essentially work by you convincing the NPC that you think something is the truth.


That is a complete, shameless lie contrived by DMs who want to nerf Bluff.


A successful Bluff check indicates that the target [...] believes something that you want it to believe.

Bluff lets you convince people of things. Specifically, what you want the target to believe. Much like real-life deception.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That is a complete, shameless lie contrived by DMs who want to nerf Bluff.



Bluff lets you convince people of things. Specifically, what you want the target to believe. Much like real-life deception.

And just like RL, if you say something that is completely and utterly nonsensical, the target will simply assume you're a madman and ignore you.

[Toliudar]

In order to avoid making nonepic uses of Bluff MORE powerful than the Suggestion spell, I also recommend reading the skill to mean "make someone believe that you're not lying" instead of "make someone do whatever you want them to do for 1 round".

[SowZ]

Note that the description for the +20 modifier says "Almost too incredible to believe." If a bluff is almost too incredible, they buy it if they fail to beat your bluff with sense motive. If it's outright too incredible to believe, they just plain don't believe it.

Guard: "I cannot let you pass without written orders or my CO's okay."

Rogue disguised as city official: "I'm your CO's boss. If you don't let me through I'll have to tell him who inconvenienced me."

Guard buys it and lets him pass.

Rogue in scruffy adventuring gear, same bluff: guard tells him he's a damn lier and to scram before his patience runs out.

If a bluff isn't at least vaguely plausible, it just doesn't work.

Al that means is that the more absurd the statement, the harder the modifier. It does nothing to change the fact that Bluff, by the D&D rules, actually changes the mind of the target when successful.

[Mnemnosyne]

Note: Bluff actually can emulate suggestion, but that's an epic DC (+50, to be precise, added on to whatever else). If you can't make that, you can't do suggestion-type stuff.

A straight bard is 7th level when he's casting glibness. He can put 10 ranks into bluff, probably has at least a +4 charisma modifier, could have a masterwork item. That's a +46 to bluff. Any roll of 15 or higher will allow him to instill a suggestion in anyone that has up to 10 ranks of sense motive.

[SowZ]

A straight bard is 7th level when he's casting glibness. He can put 10 ranks into bluff, probably has at least a +4 charisma modifier, could have a masterwork item. That's a +46 to bluff. Any roll of 15 or higher will allow him to instill a suggestion in anyone that has up to 10 ranks of sense motive.

Cast Heroism for another +2. You can have a +Cha item, and if you aren't going to get one for some reason there is Eagle's Splendor. Either way, at least +1. Another +2 from Synergy. We are at 51 without much optimization of bluff at all.

If we are spending this much effort on it, though, we may as well go diplomacy.

[Deophaun]

If the DC 50 Bluff check is a problem, keep in mind that ELH is 3.0. 3.5 rules override it. You can interpret that to mean that no, a DC 50 check isn't a suggestion, because the 3.5 PHB specifically says Bluff cannot do that.

[SowZ]

If the DC 50 Bluff check is a problem, keep in mind that ELH is 3.0. 3.5 rules override it. You can interpret that to mean that no, a DC 50 check isn't a suggestion, because the 3.5 PHB specifically says Bluff cannot do that.

Check again.



Instill Suggestion in Target
This is identical to the effect of the suggestion spell, except that it is nonmagical and lasts for only 10 minutes. It can be sensed as if it were an enchantment effect (Sense Motive DC 25).


Listed as +50 DC.

[Deophaun]

Check again.
Yes, but who plays according to the SRD?

[NichG]

First off, the idea that because PCs can use it against NPCs means you should have NPCs use it against PCs doesn't really work, for two reasons. One is simply, the players are actual real people and telling someone to RP someone who is utterly convinced that red is blue and this guy who just killed a village was actually healing them is going to utterly smash their immersion in the game. Secondly, it means they might as well just be a passive audience for as long as the effect persists. Mind control against PCs should generally be used sparingly and with a light touch.

PCs using Glibness also poses a problem though, in that it can be a silver bullet that forces ridiculous scenario redesign to imagine a world where its common. In a world with Glibness and Bluff-convinces-the-target rules, all places of politics, all government offices, all military encampments would have to constantly be shrouded in antimagic fields, but even beyond that all negotiations would take place in text rather than by voice or face-to-face communication, because basically anyone who trains for it can exert un-defeatable mind-control over anyone around them by Lv7. Its a setting that may be interesting to think about, but all this design to create a stable world in the face of the rules of the game dilutes whatever the game was going to be about before hand. Bluff-as-"I believe that you believe" makes a lot more sense.

For the Epic Bluff, set a Will save 10+HD/2+Cha mod of the user, but allow it to actually work as the spell; suggestion gets a will save to resist it, and so should effects that emulate suggestion. Do not allow save DCs to be set by skill checks (and frankly, this includes Bard Perform -> Fascinate in my book).

Furthermore, get rid of all spells that add bonuses to skill checks: Jump, Camoflauge, Divine Insight, Moment of Prescience, Improvisation, Glibness, Guidance of the Avatar, etc. Not only are the numbers crazily variable across these spells, they really devalue the skill system by existing and, in a game where they're being used heavily, again force the setting to distort to be consistent the existence of the spells. Now suddenly every watchman is a cleric or wizard, every soldier is a cleric or wizard, etc.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

My personal rule is that no bluff check will make someone believe that you are telling the truth, if the circumstances are suspicious enough. Guards are aware that very good liars exist, so a paranoid guard will never go further than "I cannot tell that this person is lying."

[Scow2]

And just like RL, if you say something that is completely and utterly nonsensical, the target will simply assume you're a madman and ignore you.

Not true - Only on a failed bluff check. On a successful one of insane-enough DC, it DOES make you challenge you worldview and accept what they have to say as truth. People are resistant, but not immune to having their minds changed about a subject.

Some people make the mistake of having a bluff check merely be whatever the player says - the character would be MUCH more persuasive and knowledgable... and if necessary, making it clear that they're in just as much danger by NOT believing the bluff.

According to the rules, if you successfully bluff someone, they WILL believe you or act as you wish. Failure doesn't even always mean that they don't believe you: It could merely mean that they don't want to go along with it - but only if they FAIL their sense motive check.


Also keep in mind, after 1 minute of interaction, any can take a DC20 Sense Motive check to tell if something's wrong. You can be the best liar the universe has ever known, but you'll be found out after 10 rounds.Except nothing's really wrong.

Except all that would do is maybe give a situational bonus to your next Sense Motive check to tell if he's lying or not - You can get a hunch he's untrustworthy, but his very next bluff check can assuage those fears.

[Deophaun]

Except nothing's really wrong.
Except for the guy lying to you, you mean.

Except all that would do is maybe give a situational bonus to your next Sense Motive check to tell if he's lying or not - You can get a hunch he's untrustworthy, but his very next bluff check can assuage those fears.
A very hefty situational bonus. The guy who's untrustworthy just told you he's trustworthy. His character reference is impeccable. Let's interact with him for another minute, I'm sure he won't mind.

It's just going to get worse for the liar from there.

Yes, it is possible to tell a lie that's an utter masterpiece of deception, backed by extensive knowledge and total confidence, but it's also possible for people to stop listening once you ping their BS detectors. At that point, your lie can be 100% believable and completely convincing, but your target stopped caring about the truthfulness of your statements.

[Slipperychicken]

And just like RL, if you say something that is completely and utterly nonsensical, the target will simply assume you're a madman and ignore you.

Only if you fail. And the believability of the lie is reflected by modifiers as listed on the table in the Bluff entry.

Automatic failure on Bluff checks is a houserule you seem to have confused for RAW.

Bear in mind a modifier of +30 or more represents truly superhuman skill. It may be easier to digest this when you realize real people can't leap 30ft chasms, wrestle grizzly bears, or nuke whole countries with magic. It's quite in line with other feats which powerful D&D characters routinely achieve.

[Krobar]

Blufing someone to think that you were healing all those villagers only works until that person remembers that they are, in fact, all dead - not healed.

And belief in something doesn't necessarily force any particular action. If the guy doesn't care about the truth of what you're saying for whatever reason, that's just too bad for you.

"I didn't kill those guys...".

"Then I'm sure the judge will set you free. You're still coming with me."

There are many ways to properly defeat a high bluff roll. Don't nerf the skill just to make it easy on yourself.

Have the occasional NPC that just doesn't care what the truth is. If a guard sticks to his orders, telling him your his boss's boss won't get you far. A properly run bureaucracy is VERY hard to bluff your way past, because many bureaucrats simply don't care about what's true or not. Proper procedure must be followed.

Just a few things to keep in mind.

[Gavinfoxx]

A properly run bureaucracy is VERY hard to bluff your way past, because many bureaucrats simply don't care about what's true or not. Proper procedure must be followed.

"Didn't you know? They changed that procedure. The correct response in this situation is..."

[Kuulvheysoon]

"Didn't you know? They changed that procedure. The correct response in this situation is..."

Any grunt guard working for a living wage wouldn't take that kind of risk.

They'd follow what they know - having someone that they've never met telling them that a rule (drastically?) changed would likely give them a hefty circumstantial bonus, especially if it's a major change (eg. letting someone in with out the proper clearance).

I could see you getting away with this, however, if it's something minor (convincing the guard to let your previously charmed guard inspect your gear instead, for example - he's got no real reason to suspect that the other guard is compromised).

[ericgrau]

It all falls back to a bluff is a bluff. Once you start making others believe things in a way that is not a bluff, then everything falls apart. It is not a blanket license to rewrite someone else's beliefs, it is only a changing of beliefs within the context of deception.

The problems come from super literal readings that ignore the context, namely the title of the skill.

[Krobar]

"Didn't you know? They changed that procedure. The correct response in this situation is..."

Well as you should know any change in policy or procedure has to be signed off by no less than five different people, each of whom forwards me a copy of the memorandum, then I have to sign each copy, acknowleging that I've seen and understand them, and forward them back. I keep one copy for my own records. And I've received nothing from anyone. So until I receive the required written notice you can just go sit on that bench over there and wait.

[Gavinfoxx]

Well as you should know any change in policy or procedure has to be signed off by no less than five different people, each of whom forwards me a copy of the memorandum, then I have to sign each copy, acknowleging that I've seen and understand them, and forward them back. I keep one copy for my own records. And I've received nothing from anyone. So until I receive the required written notice you can just go sit on that bench over there and wait.

"They changed that procedure too! It was getting unworkable."

[Krobar]

"They changed that procedure too! It was getting unworkable."

Are you still here?

It's closing time. You're going to have to come back tomorrow. Have a nice day.

[Acanous]

Come on, people. Bluff at DC+50 emulates Suggestion, which is a low-level spell. Even with Glibness, you are going to have a rough time hitting +50 while being a primary caster.

Why screw with bluff to make things harder on mundanes? The skill SHOULD be more powerful than a spell, especially when enhanced by magic.

[Acanous]

Any grunt guard working for a living wage wouldn't take that kind of risk.

They'd follow what they know - having someone that they've never met telling them that a rule (drastically?) changed would likely give them a hefty circumstantial bonus, especially if it's a major change (eg. letting someone in with out the proper clearance).

I could see you getting away with this, however, if it's something minor (convincing the guard to let your previously charmed guard inspect your gear instead, for example - he's got no real reason to suspect that the other guard is compromised).

As a grunt guard working for a living wage, I can support this.

Policy changes ARE in writing, signed by the boss. If you've got forgery, you could pull it off by posing as a messenger. Bluffs that WOULD work on a guard are things like "There's a fire in that building! Send for help!" Which would get him to leave his post.
This is one of those cases where the numerical skill reflects the character's competance at deceiving people. Your DM should tell you things like "The guard wouldn't believe that" when you propose an outlandish bluff- your character with +10 in Bluff should KNOW what is unbelievable and what is not, and let you come up with something plausable.

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing is, in bluff in D&D... you can, by the rules, change what someone believes. Regardless of how outlandish it is... outlandishness just changes the difficulty. By the rules, you CAN make someone believe, 'they changed the policy, the correct policy is this, do what I say, which is true, and you will be following the correct policy.' Bluff can freaking rewrite reality!

[Acanous]

The thing is, in bluff in D&D... you can, by the rules, change what someone believes. Regardless of how outlandish it is... outlandishness just changes the difficulty. By the rules, you CAN make someone believe, 'they changed the policy, the correct policy is this, do what I say, which is true, and you will be following the correct policy.' Bluff can freaking rewrite reality!

For a single round, if what you're doing is attempting to get the person to take an action. Which can be fluffed as "Emergency! You're needed to do X or people will die!"
Also, Sense Motive should be a class skill for anyone guarding anything. Higher level guards should have magic items- even ones that are shared by the entire barracks and switched between shifts, such as a ring of Sense Motive +30. Give one to the guy manning the door slot. He's got ranks, he's got the ring, and if you're not following proceedure, he's got a circumstance bonus. That's enough to cancel out your Glibness, your cha bonus, and your relevant feats.
If you're not following proceedure AND are saying something outlandish, that's a bigger penalty on the bluff, and the guy just isn't going to fail.

Less important posts will have lower level guards with worse equiptment, but I'd expect that sort of thing from say, a palace/noble/Vault guard.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, Sense Motive should be a class skill for anyone guarding anything. Higher level guards should have magic items- even ones that are shared by the entire barracks and switched between shifts, such as a ring of Sense Motive +30. Give one to the guy manning the door slot. He's got ranks, he's got the ring, and if you're not following proceedure, he's got a circumstance bonus. That's enough to cancel out your Glibness, your cha bonus, and your relevant feats.
If you're not following proceedure AND are saying something outlandish, that's a bigger penalty on the bluff, and the guy just isn't going to fail.


Guard: "Sorry to hear it, but I just can't let you through. Orders are orders."

[Acanous]

Guard: "Sorry to hear it, but I just can't let you through. Orders are orders."

Pretty much.
Now, if you're trying to bluff a lower-level guard, who isn't actually trained to guard things (And is instead hired muscle), yeah, you'll have an easier time of it. But you should. A professional con-man or "Sales associate" IRL can make you buy into something you don't want, or spend money you don't have.
There's courses, training seminars, and careers built on this IRL, your hero in D&D should be able to emulate this with a high skill check.

As for guards, detectives, and police, they are trained against this sort of thing and should have items to compensate for known magical bonuses a criminal could employ.
Heck, if you play smart, you could find out who the guards are, bluff them off-duty when they don't have the item, and use that to back up a future bluff when they DO, cancelling out their "Unbelievable lie" bonus. There's ways to do it without making the skill binary.

[Krobar]

In our games bluff works great. But it has its limits. The harder it will be, the more time you need to put into it. You don't con people out of millions of dollars by telling a simple lie. You have to really build it up. Bluff is the same way. The harder it is, the bigger the lie is, the more you need to do and the longer it takes to pull it off.


After going back and forth with the uncaring, heartless bureaucrat for a few minutes I would have YOU roll your own sense motive check, which you'll most likely do well enough on for me to tell you "he believes everything you say. But he apparently doesn't care. maybe you should try a different tactic."

and then

"It occurs to you that this kingdom is not known for being the most honest, forthright, upstanding group of people on Oerth" or "this guy looks meek and frightful", opening the door for diplomacy and bribery, or intimidate.

Bluff isn't always the best solution. When one doesn't work, try another.

I take it some of you guys have never had to deal with the bureaucracies in Baator. May all the gods help you if you ever need any sort of permit in Dis. That's some good times, right there.

[Story]

.

PCs using Glibness also poses a problem though, in that it can be a silver bullet that forces ridiculous scenario redesign to imagine a world where its common. In a world with Glibness and Bluff-convinces-the-target rules, all places of politics, all government offices, all military encampments would have to constantly be shrouded in antimagic fields, but even beyond that all negotiations would take place in text rather than by voice or face-to-face communication, because basically anyone who trains for it can exert un-defeatable mind-control over anyone around them by Lv7. Its a setting that may be interesting to think about, but all this design to create a stable world in the face of the rules of the game dilutes whatever the game was going to be about before hand. Bluff-as-"I believe that you believe" makes a lot more sense.


The rules are generally impossible to reconcile with the setting. People just gloss over it for convenience since not everyone wants to play Tippyverse.

[Slipperychicken]

As for guards, detectives, and police, they are trained against this sort of thing and should have items to compensate for known magical bonuses a criminal could employ.

D&D cops use Detect Thoughts during interrogation. You submit to the spell, or they keep casting it till you fail a save (they also charge you with obstruction of justice if you resist). Only takes a 3rd level Wizard. They also strip you of all magic auras and items prior to questioning.

[Scow2]

Any grunt guard working for a living wage wouldn't take that kind of risk.
Actually, if the bluff is good enough, he would. But he gets a +10 bonus.

The rules already account for trying to bluff a hard-to-bluff character quite well. YOU may have a hard time imagining a bureaucrat or uncorruptable guard being talked into letting someone else do a task - but you're not the one with a +50 to Bluff checks (In fact, it's highly unlikely you have more than a +3)

The problem isn't the bluff skill - Master bluffers can talk themselves out of anything. The problem is Glibness, which trivializes the otherwise-staggering penalties that stack up against the more outrageous bluffs.

[Gavinfoxx]

You do know that people can do the sorts of things you have been talking about as being impossible, in real life? It's called hypnosis... you can make someone believe they have nine fingers on their hand...

[Story]

You do know that people can do the sorts of things you have been talking about as being impossible, in real life? It's called hypnosis... you can make someone believe they have nine fingers on their hand...

Hypnosis doesn't quite work like that, and it requires a willing subject. But Social Engineering covers some pretty epic real life bluffs.

[SowZ]

You do know that people can do the sorts of things you have been talking about as being impossible, in real life? It's called hypnosis... you can make someone believe they have nine fingers on their hand...

If the person allows it and believes in it and stays still enough for long enough, sure.

[TypoNinja]

The problem is two fold.

1. They defined "complete and utter bull****' (I paraphrase) as a +20.

Second, everybody reads
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20 And forgets the "almost" part.

That almost saves you. That almost is the difference between "I am Princess Gumdrop of Candy Land, let me pass" being answered with "Your, Highness" and "Shall I call the cleric, Sir?"

[SowZ]

The problem is two fold.

1. They defined "complete and utter bull****' (I paraphrase) as a +20.

Second, everybody reads And forgets the "almost" part.

That almost saves you. That almost is the difference between "I am Princess Gumdrop of Candy Land, let me pass" being answered with "Your, Highness" and "Shall I call the cleric, Sir?"

Not a whole lot is too incredible to consider in the D&Dverse, though. Shoot, bluff can even act as a diplomacy-1 for purposes of getting followers. "I am a shapeshifted great wyrm dragon and if you don't serve me I will use my epic magic to shift you and your entire family into hell," will have some ludicrous modifiers to it. But it is still doable by the bluff rules. And by the bluff rules he believes it is true, not just that you believe it is true. You can bluff some equally stupid explanation for why you won't prove it to him with your magic.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Only if you fail. And the believability of the lie is reflected by modifiers as listed on the table in the Bluff entry.

Automatic failure on Bluff checks is a houserule you seem to have confused for RAW.

Bear in mind a modifier of +30 or more represents truly superhuman skill. It may be easier to digest this when you realize real people can't leap 30ft chasms, wrestle grizzly bears, or nuke whole countries with magic. It's quite in line with other feats which powerful D&D characters routinely achieve.

There are two ways to look at it.

1) super literal. The +20 mod says "almost too incredible to consider." Therefore anything that is outright too incredible to consider (which will vary depending on who you're bluffing) simply fails because it's not covered by the rules.

2) the circumstance modifier scales with believability and can exceed +20 by an arbitrary amount assigned by the DM. By saying something that's so far out there that you'd have to be nuts to believe it you're going up against a +X circumstance modifier to the target's sense motive, where X is large enough to counter most of your bonus to bluff.

Either way, bluff abuse is a result of a player-centric misreading of both RAW and RAI.

[Scow2]

There are two ways to look at it.

1) super literal. The +20 mod says "almost too incredible to consider." Therefore anything that is outright too incredible to consider (which will vary depending on who you're bluffing) simply fails because it's not covered by the rules.

2) the circumstance modifier scales with believability and can exceed +20 by an arbitrary amount assigned by the DM. By saying something that's so far out there that you'd have to be nuts to believe it you're going up against a +X circumstance modifier to the target's sense motive, where X is large enough to counter most of your bonus to bluff.

Either way, bluff abuse is a result of a player-centric misreading of both RAW and RAI.And the modifiers it gives there are guidelines to keep GMs from fiating away the bluff skill entirely by assigning an arbitrarily high bonus for small holes or "Because he's trained to do that".

Also - want to know something interesting? That "Almost Unbelievable" is only Almost because there's no such thing as something that isn't unbelievable.

The problem isn't bluff checks - the problem is Glibness offering an obscene bonus to an opposed social skillcheck.

[Pickford]

For a single round, if what you're doing is attempting to get the person to take an action. Which can be fluffed as "Emergency! You're needed to do X or people will die!"
Also, Sense Motive should be a class skill for anyone guarding anything. Higher level guards should have magic items- even ones that are shared by the entire barracks and switched between shifts, such as a ring of Sense Motive +30. Give one to the guy manning the door slot. He's got ranks, he's got the ring, and if you're not following proceedure, he's got a circumstance bonus. That's enough to cancel out your Glibness, your cha bonus, and your relevant feats.
If you're not following proceedure AND are saying something outlandish, that's a bigger penalty on the bluff, and the guy just isn't going to fail.

Less important posts will have lower level guards with worse equiptment, but I'd expect that sort of thing from say, a palace/noble/Vault guard.

The problem with bluff isn't that you can't get someone to believe that something is true, the problem is you can't get them to 'care'.

So you could bluff a guard into believing that there's a fire next door...and he might shrug and say 'so what?' or tell you to go alert the mayor, or tell some other bystander to do the same.

So yeah, you can convince someone that any number of things is true, but that doesn't mean they will act on it, or even act on it in a way that you want them to. Further, the duration and power of a bluff is likely to be extremely brief. You could convince someone their shoes are untied, but that just means they would glance down to see that is not the case, they wouldn't go and fiddle with them just because you said something that then is obviously not true.

Edit: And +30 to bluff for a level 3 bard spell slot isn't that bad. (a 7th level character, minimum)

Take a brief glance through the list of 4th level spells (what a 7th level cleric, druid or wiz/sor can cast) and I think you'll find things easily comparable or worse.

[Scow2]

The problem with bluff isn't that you can't get someone to believe that something is true, the problem is you can't get them to 'care'.

So you could bluff a guard into believing that there's a fire next door...and he might shrug and say 'so what?' or tell you to go alert the mayor, or tell some other bystander to do the same.
Not true, according to the rules. That would require you to fail to bluff them by less than 10 ranks.

Again, according to the SRD: "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."

Make the best use of those 6 seconds while you can.

[Pickford]

Not true, according to the rules. That would require you to fail to bluff them by less than 10 ranks.

The bluff rules state that the target will react as you wish (for 1 round or less) or believe something you want it to believe. (Assuming you succeed of course)

It goes on to say that Bluff is not a suggestion spell and does not compel them to do anything.

If the target is a lazy guard, and you succeed they would believe you. And then not care. You could figure out what the guard 'does' care about, but you would need to have the 'right' bluff, not just 'a' bluff.

[Slipperychicken]

There are two ways to look at it.

1) super literal. The +20 mod says "almost too incredible to consider." Therefore anything that is outright too incredible to consider (which will vary depending on who you're bluffing) simply fails because it's not covered by the rules.

2) the circumstance modifier scales with believability and can exceed +20 by an arbitrary amount assigned by the DM. By saying something that's so far out there that you'd have to be nuts to believe it you're going up against a +X circumstance modifier to the target's sense motive, where X is large enough to counter most of your bonus to bluff.

Either way, bluff abuse is a result of a player-centric misreading of both RAW and RAI.

Well, continuing the table makes sense, although how it should scale is speculation, I suggest continuing the table's trend.

In D&D 3.5, basically anything is possible. You really could be a Solar Polymorphed into your current form, or a Succubus with Alternate Form up. The guy who murdered the barkeep really could have been a Doppelganger, or a Changeling. Someone might have cast Programmed Amnesia to rewrite the guard's memory of those events. Anything can be an illusion, or a Shadowcraft Illusion. And so on.

[TypoNinja]

Not true, according to the rules. That would require you to fail to bluff them by less than 10 ranks.

Again, according to the SRD: "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."

Make the best use of those 6 seconds while you can.

Read the bit right after what you bolded. "OR" not 'and'. The target will react as you wish or believes something you want it to believe. One, not both.

So yes, I believe you, the building down the block is on fire. 'Fraid I just don't care however. Or my orders to stay put trump my desire to help put out a burning building.

[TuggyNE]

Read the bit right after what you bolded. "OR" not 'and'. The target will react as you wish or believes something you want it to believe. One, not both.

So yes, I believe you, the building down the block is on fire. 'Fraid I just don't care however. Or my orders to stay put trump my desire to help put out a burning building.

Intriguingly, there's a way around part of that: just start by bluffing what you want them to believe, and then bluff what you want them to do.

[Krobar]

Read the bit right after what you bolded. "OR" not 'and'. The target will react as you wish or believes something you want it to believe. One, not both.

So yes, I believe you, the building down the block is on fire. 'Fraid I just don't care however. Or my orders to stay put trump my desire to help put out a burning building.

Even better...

"THE BUILDING DOWN THE STREET IS ON FIRE!"

"Really? Which one?"

"The smithy."

"Good. I hate that guy."

[NichG]

Honestly, the answer is simply this: it doesn't matter what RAW says. Its a lot better to just say 'this is how I will run Bluff - it only does X' than to have NPCs randomly develop inconvenient hidden agendas or bits of detail that are specifically designed to quash a bluff you just don't want to work (like 'I hate the town smith so I don't care that the smithy is on fire'). Especially when those NPCs would not have had those agendas or bits of detail for a bluff that didn't rub the DM the wrong way.

Since this is a thread about 'how do I solve this in my campaign?' rather than an exercise in theory, I think its fair to advise 'just pitch RAW here'.

[Xenogears]

Read the bit right after what you bolded. "OR" not 'and'. The target will react as you wish or believes something you want it to believe. One, not both.

So yes, I believe you, the building down the block is on fire. 'Fraid I just don't care however. Or my orders to stay put trump my desire to help put out a burning building.

But that interpretation would lead to the absurdity of the Guard NOT believing that the building is on fire but still rushing to douse the building (for 6 seconds at least) by choosing the option that he reacts as they wish instead of believing what they say.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, continuing the table makes sense, although how it should scale is speculation, I suggest continuing the table's trend.

In D&D 3.5, basically anything is possible. You really could be a Solar Polymorphed into your current form, or a Succubus with Alternate Form up. The guy who murdered the barkeep really could have been a Doppelganger, or a Changeling. Someone might have cast Programmed Amnesia to rewrite the guard's memory of those events. Anything can be an illusion, or a Shadowcraft Illusion. And so on.
That's countered by the knowledge - meta-knowledge dynamic. You and I, the players, know that all these things are possible. Town guard B, who has no ranks in any knowledge skill, may never have heard of any of those things. He knows that there are monsters out there. He may even know that a few of them can change shape. He might, however, believe that such tales are nonsense; "Critters don transmogrify inta other critters. Tha's just bollocks some bard made up." As I said, what is believable to any given character is entirely subjective to that character's experiences and knowledge.

But that interpretation would lead to the absurdity of the Guard NOT believing that the building is on fire but still rushing to douse the building (for 6 seconds at least) by choosing the option that he reacts as they wish instead of believing what they say.

I've seen too many people react to a statement given to them without thinking to have a problem with that. I've even, on rare occasion, started to react to some statement before realizing that what was said couldn't be, though usually that realization comes far more quickly than 6 seconds. Experience has shown that I have a somewhat above average sense-motive mod, though.

[Xenogears]

I've seen too many people react to a statement given to them without thinking to have a problem with that. I've even, on rare occasion, started to react to some statement before realizing that what was said couldn't be, though usually that realization comes far more quickly than 6 seconds. Experience has shown that I have a somewhat above average sense-motive mod, though.

The other major problem with that definition of Bluff is that it basically makes the skill useless. How are you going to use it to sneak past the guards? Either he believes you are allowed to enter but doesn't let you anyway or he lets you enter but 6 seconds later he realizes you shouldn't have gone in and sounds the alarm anyway. So there is no possible way to sneak past a guard now? Taking an overly literal approach to the skill just makes the skill pointless which IMO is worse than having Bluff + Glibness shenanigans.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The other major problem with that definition of Bluff is that it basically makes the skill useless. How are you going to use it to sneak past the guards? Either he believes you are allowed to enter but doesn't let you anyway or he lets you enter but 6 seconds later he realizes you shouldn't have gone in and sounds the alarm anyway. So there is no possible way to sneak past a guard now? Taking an overly literal approach to the skill just makes the skill pointless which IMO is worse than having Bluff + Glibness shenanigans.

That presupposes that there are only two possible outcomes. Perhaps the guard lets you through, realizes he shouldn't have, but keeps his mouth shut because he's scared of the punishment he's sure to get for letting you through. Maybe he believes what you tell him and decides to bend the rules out of similar concerns.

The problem is not with this interpretation but with the supposition of a more limited range of possible outcomes than actually exists. Unless you beat the target's sense motive by 50 or more what he believes as a result of the bluff only informs what decision he -may- make. How he handles a blunder that he realizes he made as a result of the bluff is up to him, not the player or the result of the skill check.

The problem is treating D&D NPC's too much like computer RPG NPC's.

[Pickford]

The other major problem with that definition of Bluff is that it basically makes the skill useless. How are you going to use it to sneak past the guards? Either he believes you are allowed to enter but doesn't let you anyway or he lets you enter but 6 seconds later he realizes you shouldn't have gone in and sounds the alarm anyway. So there is no possible way to sneak past a guard now? Taking an overly literal approach to the skill just makes the skill pointless which IMO is worse than having Bluff + Glibness shenanigans.

Well, you could use the bluff to get the guard to look at something and slip past when he isn't looking (or perhaps you get him to look at something that 'is' interesting and he doesn't realize you've done that)

And yeah, if you can get him to go check something out for 6 seconds (1 round) he could move up to 40' away if he's armored and could easily slip past in that time. (Assuming there aren't two of course)

So no, bluff isn't terrible, but it's different then Diplomacy and Intimidate.

[Slipperychicken]

Even better...

"THE BUILDING DOWN THE STREET IS ON FIRE!"

"Really? Which one?"

"The smithy."

"Good. I hate that guy."

"It's spreading, If we don't do something, it could burn half the city down!"

"Good, I hate that half of the city."

[Felyndiira]

A lot of the suggestions listed in this thread sounds more like GM Fiat to me than anything reasonable, to be honest.

Glibness, the spell, is available on the lists two classes by default: the bard and the beguiler - both of those classes are built entirely around social interactions. The really powerful caster classes are not even supposed to get the spell without additional cheese of some sort (you can very easily just ban Glibness magic items), and really, don't need it as they can just 'suggestion' the guards for the same spell level to let them in, or whatever.

Frankly, I don't exactly see how making a guard non-receptive to a common fire or not even willing to let a player into an establishment is anything short of fiat. It's basically the GM saying 'I don't like bluff, so you can't even convince a common guard to do something reasonable with it. Ha ha, too bad. Come back when you get Dominate Person or something, silly bard.'

A ring of sense motive +30 (seriously, +30) is a REALLY bad idea, since that gives the players a magic item that's way beyond what they're supposed to get at non-epic levels once they realize what's going on. It's also basically saying 'stop bluffing, ever' to a player that has invested honest points into the skill.

Ultimately, Glibness is a third-level spell; on one of the two classes it's available to, character level 6th and 7th respectively for the two classes. To give a comparison, wizards get Dominate Person at seventh level if they so choose, which is FAR more powerful. Take out combat feinting, enforce the limits for outlandish lies, and bluff isn't really that huge of a deal in the end.

If you're really going to limit bluff, don't make npcs entirely non-receptive or give +30 bonuses to sense motive. Instead, make it so that guards realize 'hmm, that's weird' when told an entirely unbelievable lie, and allow reasonable things to fly when the circumstances call for it. Don't be like the DM that enforces auto-success on 20 rolls and makes the entire room of 45 guards roll listen+spot individually when the rogue with +38 hide tries to sneak by =p.

[SowZ]

A lot of the suggestions listed in this thread sounds more like GM Fiat to me than anything reasonable, to be honest.

Glibness, the spell, is available on the lists two classes by default: the bard and the beguiler - both of those classes are built entirely around social interactions. The really powerful caster classes are not even supposed to get the spell without additional cheese of some sort (you can very easily just ban Glibness magic items), and really, don't need it as they can just 'suggestion' the guards for the same spell level to let them in, or whatever.

Frankly, I don't exactly see how making a guard non-receptive to a common fire or not even willing to let a player into an establishment is anything short of fiat. It's basically the GM saying 'I don't like bluff, so you can't even convince a common guard to do something reasonable with it. Ha ha, too bad. Come back when you get Dominate Person or something, silly bard.'

A ring of sense motive +30 (seriously, +30) is a REALLY bad idea, since that gives the players a magic item that's way beyond what they're supposed to get at non-epic levels once they realize what's going on. It's also basically saying 'stop bluffing, ever' to a player that has invested honest points into the skill.

Ultimately, Glibness is a third-level spell; on one of the two classes it's available to, character level 6th and 7th respectively for the two classes. To give a comparison, wizards get Dominate Person at seventh level if they so choose, which is FAR more powerful. Take out combat feinting, enforce the limits for outlandish lies, and bluff isn't really that huge of a deal in the end.

If you're really going to limit bluff, don't make npcs entirely non-receptive or give +30 bonuses to sense motive. Instead, make it so that guards realize 'hmm, that's weird' when told an entirely unbelievable lie, and allow reasonable things to fly when the circumstances call for it. Don't be like the DM that enforces auto-success on 20 rolls and makes the entire room of 45 guards roll listen+spot individually when the rogue with +38 hide tries to sneak by =p.

But that's just the thing. Bluff can almost replicate a short term dominate person because you can bluff that you are a dragon who will kill his whole family if he doesn't serve and worship you. And, via RAW, it is just a plus to the DC.