How to stop player from bluffing through your campaign.

[paladinofshojo]

The jerkass bard in my party decides to use abuse the spell Glibness for his own benefit. Such as, convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute..... Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight, despite the fact that when they enter said warlord's tower they find gold upon gold littering the floors..... Oh and my personal favorite....convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!

Seriously, how does it end?! I have to find some way to not have my campaigns being broken by some level 2 spell over and over again..... All I got was to convince the paladin in the party that what his companion is doing is wrong.....but I don't see that as effective.

[Rhynn]

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."

Basically, don't be a pushover and don't let them do stupid things, and remember that bluffs usually last 1 round or less.

Also, if you're willing to use common sense as well as RAW, Bluff only convinces the target that you believe you're speaking the truth. You can't bluff someone into agreeing that the sky is purple rather than blue, but you sure can convince them that you think that.

[Frozen_Feet]

Why, exactly, do you want to stop this player? His hijinks sound amusing. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

First, what Rhynn said.

Second, Glibness is a horrible spell.

[Ozreth]

Rhynn said it all.

However, if it weren't as easy as those suggestions to solve I would just ASK the player to stop. If he/she didn't I would ask them to not play.

Luckily you can take all of the above advice :)

[Fibinachi]

Imagine someone came running towards you and shouted "The building down the street is on fire! Get help!"

You'd probably believe them.

Imagine someone came running towards you and shouted "You're a frog and everything you see are marshmellows!"

You'd probably not believe them.

A successful bluff check indicates that someone believes you, and yes, might act as you want them to for a short period of time (maybe a round, maybe an hour). But it does not dominate their minds into a reset state.

I mean, if the jerkass bard can pull this off, how long until this conversation plays out:

"You don't remember anything about your entire life"
[Bluff Check]
"What? Who am I?"
"You are my devoted servant Augistin, and you have served me loyally for three decades now. You would die if I asked you to, because you are just that dedicated to my cause!"
[Bluff Check]
"Yes M'Lord! I stand at your service, as always!"

Bluff is being convincing. Bluff is not mentally dominating anyone and making them take absolutely leave of their sense. The dragon might be caused to wonder if she ever had a lover, and might have forgotten - possible. The king might, in fact, briefly reconsider who his parents were... But then in both case, they'll quickly realize, that no, wait, I am a Dragon Queen and I did not have a bard lover and or wait, no, I am the King, because my father was the King before me, and my mother, the former Queen, was not a prostitute since I grew up with her and never saw any treasure beneficial activities performed in her bed chambers.

If the bard went:
"You can't see!"
[Bluff Check]

How are the guards supposed to respond?
(Crossbow bolts. To the face)

[Mr Beer]

"What can I do? I'm only one man! Oh wait, I'm the GM and can decide how everything works...what am I complaining about...."

^^^

This should be your thought process with players pushing you around. You can stop them doing that whenever you like. The tough thing about GM-ing is not getting what you want, it's arranging to get what you want by making people want to give you what you want.

[BWR]

The most important thing to know about Bluff is that the target doesn't automatically believe everything you're saying on a successful check. The target just cannot tell by any means that you are lying or being less than forthright. They are inclined to believe you are telling the truth but are not obligated to do so or to act in the way you want even if they do believe.

"These aren't the droids you're looking for" would be a good bluff. Droids are ubiquitous in SW, and you're a grunt who's been told to find two specific ones without any decription of them. Yay. Chances are, most droids you come across aren't the ones you're looking for.

"I'm the real king and you're a son of a whore" is a bit harder to get away with. There will probably lots of evidence to the contrary, there is the insult aspect and the self-interest aspect. A successful Bluff check would likely prevent the bard from being thrown out on his ear (if he's lucky) or arrested and tortured/executed (for insulting the king, his parents etc.), and maybe even convince the king to listen to any explanation as to why this is the case.

Over time, enough good bluff checks should be able to convince people of just about anything.
IRL, convincing people of enormous lies is rarely done in one exchange. Any sort of big religious, political or activist group that relies on indoctrination never tells everybody the entire 'truth' right at the beginning. You start by building some sort of confidence in you and gradually feed them more and more 'info' until the targets stop questioning it and accept the 'truth'.

[Baroncognito]

convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute That seems like it would end badly for the bard. "Oh god, I need to kill this man who is the only person who knows the horrible truth! It's what I must do to remain king."


Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight This one doesn't sound entirely unreasonable. Of course, there are probably penalties to attempting this mid-combat.


DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!
The one that went out one day for a pack of cigarettes and never came back? She'll kill him! (Or you could go with the "Funny, you don't look like a woman.")

[endoperez]

The jerkass bard in my party decides to use abuse the spell Glibness for his own benefit. Such as, convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute..... Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight, despite the fact that when they enter said warlord's tower they find gold upon gold littering the floors..... Oh and my personal favorite....convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!

He can make someone think what he likes, for a few moments, but not ACT like he wants them to.


If I was a king and found out I was switched child, I'd take the original and kill him, and claim he was an usurper.

For the orc mooks to leave, there's so many assumptions that have to fall in place just right...
1) Their only ties of loyalty towards their boss is their greed. If they've got any shred of loyalty towards him, they'll still do their duty, if perhaps less enthusiastically.
2) They don't want to fight the players, who are hauling money and loot, after they've been told they won't have much money and loot going around.
3) Even if they do get past, what happens when the Glibness wears off and the guards arrive to the boss fight?


As for the Dragon...

Glibness makes her believe the bard was her lover. It won't make her love the bard. It won't make her care about the bard. She might honestly believe she knew the bard, once, but she won't be able to remember anything about him. She'll just go .... "oh. I got over you, I guess. Here, have a taste of your 'old flame' *whooosh!*"

[EccentricCircle]

Further to what others have said the best way to deal with this sort of situation isn't neccersarily to crack down on this player using glibness, but rather to ensure that when they do there will be consequences. Maybe a lie in the right place can help them now. But suppose they've convinced the orc guards that they are the orc messiah. build on that and have the band of orcs follow the players around even after their usefulness has come to an end, have them recruit other orcs to the cause, until the local authorities get concerned about this new demogogue who is massing an orcish army. Have factions within the orc movement be less convinced so that a schism emerges and the bard's followers are on the brink of civil war.

Having something go horribly right is frequently far more enjoyable all around than having it go horribly wrong. If you just stop the glibness from working as well then your players may get fed up with having one of their powers taken away. Have the consequences spiral out of control and they might be talking about the mess they got themselves into for years to come.

[Rhynn]

This one doesn't sound entirely unreasonable. Of course, there are probably penalties to attempting this mid-combat.

In fact, it'd be perfectly reasonable not to allow Bluffs to tell lies during combat, only Bluffs to feint, create a distraction, and send secret messages. The orcs would have to be paying attention to what you're saying in order for you to have a chance to lie to them.

There's no actual penalties for Bluffs in combat, but note, too, that the action required to Bluff varies:


Action: Varies. 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. A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action. A Bluff check made to deliver a secret message doesn’t take an action; it is part of normal communication.

Of course, it's perfectly possible the orcs got Bluffed out of combat, in which case I'd go back to the 1 round duration.

Basically, I think it's perfectly reasonable to make a Bluff check going "your boss is out of gold to pay you with!" and then dash through the orcs' guardpost, leaving them behind, while they spend a round arguing over this. Then they come to their senses, and you've gotten past them without a fight and have a head start when they raise the alarm or start chasing you. It's a reasonable and often useful way to use Bluff, but not overpowered.

The Bluff about the king's parentage obviously wouldn't fly with the king - it is not suggestion and does not magically alter the contents of the king's mind. The King's guards might get pretty confused for a round, and you'd probably start a really nasty and persistent rumor about the king's "true parentage," but that's about it.

As a further example, maybe the king's guards have just captured you. You go, "you fools, let me go, I'm the king in disguise!" They let you go, you book it, and next round they start after you, having come to their senses. Of course, if magic is common and you go, "you fools, let me go, I'm the king in magical disguise!" the guards might actually be convinced in a general sense, at least until the king shows up... then you might Bluff "he's an impostor magically made to look like me!" and they might move to seize him, but that'd probably only last a round, again, before the real king's wrath convinces them they've made a mistake.

[Emmerask]

The jerkass bard in my party decides to use abuse the spell Glibness for his own benefit. Such as, convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute..... Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight, despite the fact that when they enter said warlord's tower they find gold upon gold littering the floors..... Oh and my personal favorite....convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!

Seriously, how does it end?! I have to find some way to not have my campaigns being broken by some level 2 spell over and over again..... All I got was to convince the paladin in the party that what his companion is doing is wrong.....but I don't see that as effective.

If you don´t enjoy the campaign anymore because of this (and you have every right to have as much enjoyment as the players, don´t let anyone tell you otherwise).
Then talk to the player to not destroy the campaign with the use of this spell...
if the player does not comply with your wish to tone it down then either ban/houserule the spell or ban the player.

It really is quite simple ^^

[Scow2]

Also, if you're willing to use common sense as well as RAW, Bluff only convinces the target that you believe you're speaking the truth. You can't bluff someone into agreeing that the sky is purple rather than blue, but you sure can convince them that you think that.This is not true: RAW says you convince the person that what you're telling them is true - at least for one round.

An example to demonstrate this: A thief steals a particularly valuable and famous gem. It's incredibly obvious what the gem is. However, when he goes to pawn it, he can make a ridiculously hard Bluff check (Or at least ridiculously hard check by any rational measure. Glibness is horrible, by being possibly +30 (Too impossible to believe AND puts the victim at risk), that it actually is not the same gem, but one found and cut in a similar manner.

If he passes the check, the target doesn't believe "This guy is deluded/was mislead into believing that the gem is what he says it is, instead of the Crown Jewel" and thus refuse to buy the gem on the grounds that "This is actually the Crown Jewel" or "The chance this is the crown jewel is too high" - Those would be the results of failing the bluff vs. Sense Motive check by 10 or less. Instead, the guy buys your unlikely story - hook, line, and sinker. To do otherwise is to seriously undersell and shaft the bluffer.

However - the solution to Glibness/high bluff abuse is to have the characters react to the new 'information' with concern. The king would probably want the pretender challenging the legitimacy to his throne 'taken care of', not be happy to just switch places. If the guy tries to convince EVERYONE of his claim, then he needs to keep Glibness up at all times - otherwise, his house of cards of lies comes crashing down.

The Dragon queen? If she doesn't have enough Sense Motive (What Dragon Queen wouldn't?!) to beat his Bluff+Glibness, she believes that he was indeed a lost lover - but how many lovers does a dragon go through in its lifetime? If the bard further convinces her that she must have forgotten about him (Maybe even magically), She's more likely to start singing "Somebody that I used to Know" while eating him, unless you're feeling generous (Or increase the DC further) and have her have a chance of taking him back - at which point he needs to keep his glibness up for as long as he's around her, or else again his deck of lies comes crashing down.

[Rhynn]

This is not true: RAW says you convince the person that what you're telling them is true - at least for one round.

Yes, hence why I said if you're willing to use common sense.

Seriously?

[Scow2]

Yes, hence why I said if you're willing to use common sense.

Seriously?You also said RAW. And, you're heavily underestimating and shortselling the power of fantastic bluffs. Try thinking with Hollywood/Broadway logic. The very existence of the +20 Sense Motive bonus against bluffs is not just RAW but also RAI acknowledgement that absurd and crazy bluffs can and are intended to work. And because of the shenanigans possible by magic, there's not such thing as actually 'impossible to believe' bluffs.

Saying "Your glibness-boosted bluff doesn't work because common sense says nobody would believe that" is as valid as saying "Your wizard with Overland Flight cast can't fly because Common Sense - people can't fly without an airplane/helicopter/glider or absurdly large wingspan!"

[Rhynn]

You also said RAW.

Yes, in reference to the previous paragraph, which dealt with RAW. "Here is the RAW, and here is the common sense."

The rest is just nonsense, and you know it. "The sky is green" (or "your entire life is a lie" or "I'm not actually here") is not something you can convince people of with Bluff, and even if you could, it'd last one round. Fly spells have nothing to do with it.

The game isn't some kind of third-order simulacrum where the rules of the simulation are the reality, the rules are an attempt to simulate a reality (that includes magic), and the GM is supposed to adjudicate the rules so that the reality makes sense.

[prufock]

People should still react reasonably. For example, the king could stay in power and order a full investigation (if he's good), order his deaf assassins to kill the bard (if he's neutral/evil), have his inquisitor question the bard in an AMF or just simply with a dispel, etc. Kings aren't generally dopes, and they protect their power.

The orc scenario sounded fairly reasonable, actually, up to the point where the orcs are presented with incontrovertible evidence. At that point they should realize that the PC was lying and attack him for duping them.

The dragon queen is actually my favourite as well. Of course, there's no telling how she feels about that lover now. But seriously, this is so good and clever and rife with plot hooks it's worth letting it happen. What does he do when she asks him to take his true form? What about when she polymorphs into his favourite form - a troglodyte or something equally repulsive - so they can "be together?" Dragon sex might get pretty rough. How about when she now suggests they take revenge on a powerful mage that wronged them in the past?

[Emmerask]

People should still react reasonably. For example, the king could stay in power and order a full investigation (if he's good), order his deaf assassins to kill the bard (if he's neutral/evil), have his inquisitor question the bard in an AMF or just simply with a dispel, etc. Kings aren't generally dopes, and they protect their power.

The orc scenario sounded fairly reasonable, actually, up to the point where the orcs are presented with incontrovertible evidence. At that point they should realize that the PC was lying and attack him for duping them.

The dragon queen is actually my favourite as well. Of course, there's no telling how she feels about that lover now. But seriously, this is so good and clever and rife with plot hooks it's worth letting it happen. What does he do when she asks him to take his true form? What about when she polymorphs into his favourite form - a troglodyte or something equally repulsive - so they can "be together?" Dragon sex might get pretty rough. How about when she now suggests they take revenge on a powerful mage that wronged them in the past?

These are certainly possibilities, however I would first consult the rest of the players if they are okay with this guy being in the spotlight all the time (it sounds to me that way at least).

And if they are not okay with it you shouldn´t do anything support his/her current ways.

[prufock]

These are certainly possibilities, however I would first consult the rest of the players if they are okay with this guy being in the spotlight all the time (it sounds to me that way at least).

Agreed, but it's up to the DM to make sure no one character hogs the stage. I don't think that means his bluff tricks can't work, it just means the other characters have to be engaged in things as well.

[snoopy13a]

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.

Here's how you stop game-breaking bluffs:

1) A game-breaking bluff will require a significantly long period of time
2) Target NPCs refuse to listen to the PC for this long period of time

NPCs are not bound to listen to the PC so that the PC can make a bluff check. Hostile enemies will attack before you can finish "sweet-talking" them. A king may not even listen to someone he does not even consider a trusted advisor.

[Scow2]

Here's how you stop game-breaking bluffs:

1) A game-breaking bluff will require a significantly long period of time
2) Target NPCs refuse to listen to the PC for this long period of time

NPCs are not bound to listen to the PC so that the PC can make a bluff check. Hostile enemies will attack before you can finish "sweet-talking" them. A king may not even listen to someone he does not even consider a trusted advisor.If you try doing that, they can start a Bluff Check filibuster, by using the "React as you want" instead of "Believe something you say" clause. (Full round to make the king hear him out for another round, on repeat.)

Most Game-breaking bluffs aren't elaborate. Elaboration can reduce the bonus, but a simple line "Your life is a lie" (Which, with a sufficiently high bluff check, CAN confuse them for at least a round) but one round is enough to get the guy's interest. First thing you do when saying something is get their attention. And a high enough bluff check, even for one line, can get their attention and make them open to believing you - it's not necessarily what you say. It's how you say it.

Completely hard-countering Bluff by saying "He doesn't listen, die roll be damned" is pretty high on the "Bull**** GMing" trick list for cheating people out of their abilities and class features.

[The Glyphstone]

This sounds like the GM is succumbing to OOC player charisma (or an Intimidate check) to let these impossible shenanigans to forth. Everyone else has said useful stuff about how Bluff and Glibness actually work.

[snoopy13a]

If you try doing that, they can start a Bluff Check filibuster, by using the "React as you want" instead of "Believe something you say" clause. (Full round to make the king hear him out for another round, on repeat.)

Most Game-breaking bluffs aren't elaborate. Elaboration can reduce the bonus, but a simple line "Your life is a lie" (Which, with a sufficiently high bluff check, CAN confuse them for at least a round) but one round is enough to get the guy's interest. First thing you do when saying something is get their attention. And a high enough bluff check, even for one line, can get their attention and make them open to believing you - it's not necessarily what you say. It's how you say it.

Completely hard-countering Bluff by saying "He doesn't listen, die roll be damned" is pretty high on the "Bull**** GMing" trick list for cheating people out of their abilities and class features.

By definition, a "game-breaking bluff" cheats other players out of their abilities and class features. Not to mention that it ruins the GM's fun.

[tensai_oni]

RAW solution:
If the bluff puts the target at risk, that's +10 to their sense motive. If it's incredibly hard to believe, +20. If the bluff is supposed to instill a suggestion in the target, +50. Nobody says these do not stack, so they do.

Let's see how Glibness' +30 bluff handles that +80 to sense motive.

Also, good luck Bluffing in combat. It takes "at least" a full round action, but nowhere does it say how much time is it supposed to take exactly.

RAI:
"There are limits to how much people can believe, especially if what you're saying are obvious lies. Quit trying to break the game."

[Frozen_Feet]

They explicitly do stack. That's why there's a + sign there. :smallwink:

[Scow2]

RAW solution:
If the bluff puts the target at risk, that's +10 to their sense motive. If it's incredibly hard to believe, +20. If the bluff is supposed to instill a suggestion in the target, +50. Nobody says these do not stack, so they do.

Let's see how Glibness' +30 bluff handles that +80 to sense motive.

Also, good luck Bluffing in combat. It takes "at least" a full round action, but nowhere does it say how much time is it supposed to take exactly.

RAI:
"There are limits to how much people can believe, especially if what you're saying are obvious lies. Quit trying to break the game."Actually, the +20 is clearly RAI saying "You can get away with absurd bluffs, but it's much harder - supposed to be impossible, but 3rd edition's developers can't quite math right."


They explicitly do stack. That's why there's a + sign there. :smallwink:There's a + sign there because it's not a fixed DC. It's a modifier to a skill check (Sense Motive). In fact, the +10 only stacks with the +20 because it puts the user at risk, instead of merely being ludicrous (Which is +20. You don't get a +35 because a Near-impossible bluff is by definition also at least a little hard to believe and at least hard to believe)

[Lorsa]

I am not sure where this Glibness spell is listed but there are clearly some things that are too unbelievable to even warrant a bluff check. You may manage to distract a person for one round (as stated) with these unbelievable lies but making them believe them? No I don't think so.

Of all these lies though, only the one to the orcs seem to be clever. Trying to fool a king you're the real heir is like to a) get your head chopped off (if he's evil-inclined) or b) require proof (if he's good). Fooling a dragon that you're her long lost lover (in case she actually had one) would probably get to her ask you to switch to your dragon form so you can... uhmm... [censored].

If you're going to play strictly by RAW then Diplomacy is the REAL trouble skill...

[Scow2]

I am not sure where this Glibness spell is listed but there are clearly some things that are too unbelievable to even warrant a bluff check. You may manage to distract a person for one round (as stated) with these unbelievable lies but making them believe them? No I don't think so. You think wrong, then. Don't underestimate the power of a convincing argument or the gullibility of fools. +20 to the Sense Motive DC, which SHOULD knock it out of range. The only way to surpass it is to possess a silver tongue of heroic (If not legendary) reputation, or use Magic.


Of all these lies though, only the one to the orcs seem to be clever. Trying to fool a king you're the real heir is like to a) get your head chopped off (if he's evil-inclined) or b) require proof (if he's good). Fooling a dragon that you're her long lost lover (in case she actually had one) would probably get to her ask you to switch to your dragon form so you can... uhmm... [censored].

Dragons are notorious for interspecies romance.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Dragon sex might get pretty rough. How about when she now suggests they take revenge on a powerful mage that wronged them in the past?

Heh heh. What's the crush damage caused by a Colossal Dragon's -ahem- "hug"? :smallamused:

[ReaderAt2046]

Also, if I were a king in a setting with Glibness, I'd have a few Counterspell traps set up in my courtroom and probably carry one on me.

[Lord Torath]

While, yes, and Evil king is very likely to imprison/assassinate/charm the bard, even a Good king is unlikely to just hand over the crown.

His (or her, in the case of a ruling queen) first consideration would be for the good of his subjects. Would giving up the kingship be in the best interests of his people? Who would be a better king? How would the neighboring kingdoms react? Even if the real king is convinced that he himself is a pretender, if he decides it's in the kingdom's best interests, he will not step aside for the "true king."

[ellindsey]

Also, if I were a king in a setting with Glibness, I'd have a few Counterspell traps set up in my courtroom and probably carry one on me.

Indeed, if Glibness is anything under than an ultra-rare ability, we can assume that the King either already has protection against it in place, or is already under the control of some NPC with Glibness who got there first. In either case, attempting to use Glibness on the King will probably get the PC executed.

[Barsoom]

A bluff check means the target believes you, but they aren't dominated by you. Their reactions may still surprise the Bard sometimes.
convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute.....
"The king believes you. He now knows you are the true king. Which is why he must eliminate you, and also eliminate all your friends, who witnessed this exchange. He commands his guards to kill you. Roll initiative"


Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's "Boss-man no can pay? We rearrange your face for free! Roll initiative"


Oh and my personal favorite....convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!"You left me, you bastard! Why did you leave me? Do you know what I have been going through without you? I hate you, hate you, hate you so much! Uh oh, she seems to be getting ready to breathe fire, roll initiative"

Don't do that every time, though. Once in a while is fun enough.

[Jay R]

The jerkass bard in my party decides to use abuse the spell Glibness for his own benefit. Such as, convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute.....

So the king, who currently commands all the warriors in the kingdom, is standing next to the one person who could conceivably take away his power? One dead bard - maybe commuted to permanent banishment if the king realizes it isn't true, but instantly dead if the king believes it.


Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight, despite the fact that when they enter said warlord's tower they find gold upon gold littering the floors.....

"Hey, guys, grab the gold. Our boss can't stop us; he doesn't have any money any more. Oh - and kill the bard; he's the only witness."


convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!

Dragon love seems like an extremely physical activity; a human could suffer broken bones, or worse.


Seriously, how does it end?!

It ends when the DM becomes as imaginative as the player. Which is to say, when the NPCs start acting like people, not merely encounters.

Like any other rules abuse, the players will not stop working it until it stops working.

[Fiery Diamond]

Most Game-breaking bluffs aren't elaborate. Elaboration can reduce the bonus, but a simple line "Your life is a lie"

That depends on how you define "elaborate bluff." Just because you can reduce the bluff's gist down to a simple line doesn't mean that all it requires to adequately convey the bluff convincingly is just that simple line. I would rule that "elaborate" is in reference to how much elaboration is necessary to make it convincing, not how convoluted the basic gist of the bluff is.

[Omegonthesane]

The Bluff about the king's parentage obviously wouldn't fly with the king - it is not suggestion
It is if you roll high enough (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#bluff) as people have already pointed out.


That depends on how you define "elaborate bluff." Just because you can reduce the bluff's gist down to a simple line doesn't mean that all it requires to adequately convey the bluff convincingly is just that simple line. I would rule that "elaborate" is in reference to how much elaboration is necessary to make it convincing, not how convoluted the basic gist of the bluff is.
Simple bluff: "Your life is a lie" without any detail as to why, with the effect of making the person listen to the following elaborate bluff explaining why their life is a lie.


"Boss-man no can pay? We rearrange your face for free! Roll initiative"
Out of your three examples I feel that one's really quite objectionable unless the party has antagonised these orcs previously or is displaying lots of their own gold to replace all the gold the orc warlord doesn't have.

Of course, this assumes that strangers are allowed to see the normal King as opposed to his high-level wizard master, who lets him run the tedious details of the kingdom rather than leave his library and harem of summoned creatures unless a high level activity is called for. (Because if the king isn't a high level caster he's controlled by a high level caster, magically or otherwise, in any world where D&D RAW is even given a passing mention - and the archetype of a dodgy vizier who is the real power in the kingdom is a well known trope, be it Jafar or Melisandre.)

[Mastikator]

The jerkass bard in my party decides to use abuse the spell Glibness for his own benefit. Such as, convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute.....
The king has the bard arrested for "high treason" to keep the secret safe and remain king.



Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight, despite the fact that when they enter said warlord's tower they find gold upon gold littering the floors.....
Roll if any of the mooks has seen the gold. Bluff doesn't let you plant or erase memories. If they haven't, fine, unless they're loyal.



Oh and my personal favorite....convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!
Like I said, bluff doesn't let you plant memories. If the dragon has no memory then it either a) doesn't work no matter what or b) the dragon figures that since she doesn't remember it probably wasn't important.

[Barsoom]

Out of your three examples I feel that one's really quite objectionable unless the party has antagonised these orcs previously or is displaying lots of their own gold to replace all the gold the orc warlord doesn't have.Those are Orcs. What does not antagonize them? Honestly, if the DM thinks he actually need a reason for a bunch of Orc brutes to attack the party, he's Doing It Wrong(TM) :smallamused:

[Omegonthesane]

Roll if any of the mooks has seen the gold. Bluff doesn't let you plant or erase memories. If they haven't, fine, unless they're loyal.
Then it doesn't work on that particular mook, thus causing potential infighting as the others might well think he's the liar with his rubbish untrained bluff check with Orc charisma penalty made worse because fighters probably dumped Charisma.


Those are Orcs. What does not antagonize them? Honestly, if the DM thinks he actually need a reason for a bunch of Orc brutes to attack the party, he's Doing It Wrong(TM) :smallamused:

I thought we were talking about D&D, not Warhammer. D&D orcs are not insanely belligerent like that, and if they were no warlord would choose them as soldiers. Especially not another orc warlord who knew exactly what he was like and wanted forces that unlike him would actually do the job.

[Gabe the Bard]

You have the power to put the players back on the railroad track if their trying to bluff their way off them. I would be more concerned if the bard is hogging the spotlight or making the game less fun for the other players. If everyone else is expecting to have a combat encounter that gets thrown out because the bard bluffed his way past it, then that's a problem. But there's always a way to get back to an encounter without flat-out rejecting what the player is trying to do.

I don't think you necessarily have to ban the player or nerf the spell, just run with it and present new problems to the group that arise as a result. Maybe the bard switches places with the king, but then the party has to participate in an ancient tradition that involves dueling with the local cloud giant chieftain as part of the coronation. Or perhaps the Dragon Queen decides to imprison the bard when she finds out he was her long lost lover, so she'll never lose him again.

[Barsoom]

I thought we were talking about D&D, not Warhammer. D&D orcs are not insanely belligerent like that, and if they were no warlord would choose them as soldiers. Especially not another orc warlord who knew exactly what he was like and wanted forces that unlike him would actually do the job.I think you mean "I would not choose them as soldiers". As for our hypothetical fictional warlord, I think fictional warlords have history of choosing quite the uncivilized rabble as soldiers. Watch Game of Thrones (Locke? Clegane? They're a lot worse than my hypothetical Orc marauders)

[Omegonthesane]

I think you mean "I would not choose them as soldiers". As for our hypothetical fictional warlord, I think fictional warlords have history of choosing quite the uncivilized rabble as soldiers. Watch Game of Thrones (Locke? Clegane? They're a lot worse than my hypothetical Orc marauders)

That's your example? Locke's not nearly that much of a moron - he just followed orders until Jaime accused him of being buyable one time too many. Gregor Clegane meanwhile is vicious and angry but he's not stupid; he'd only actively pick a fight if he knew beyond a doubt he'd win it. In short - they're depraved, not undisciplined.

[Zeful]

The jerkass bard in my party decides to use abuse the spell Glibness for his own benefit. Such as, convincing the ruling King that they were switched at birth and that the bard is of royal blood whereas the King is the son of a prostitute.....Your response should have been to have the King ask for proof. If he believes the Bard which a successful Bluff Check will do, then if he has no proof, then he can be treated as a usurper to the throne and jailed indefinitely, and if he does have proof he can be murdered to prevent this news from forcing the kingdom into a succession crisis that would be costly to the nation.

Just letting the player "win" at outlandish Bluffs is like letting him use diplomacy to make the King abdicate the throne- a problem of backbone on your part.


Convincing all the Orc mooks who work for a warlord they where up against that their boss can't pay them anymore because he doesn't have any money so it's better off for them to just leave without putting up a fight, despite the fact that when they enter said warlord's tower they find gold upon gold littering the floors.....The result of this Bluff is the Orc band believing the Bard until they realize they actually saw the money they were going to be payed with. This is fine, but not followed through with on your part.


Oh and my personal favorite....convince a DRAGON QUEEN that he's her long lost lover!!!Have the dragon decide to keep her old lover around. They can settle right back into their routine with nothing amiss. This was a perfect opportunity to look at the player go "really?" and then take his character sheet away from him due to forcing himself into a Bad End.


Seriously, how does it end?! I have to find some way to not have my campaigns being broken by some level 2 spell over and over again..... All I got was to convince the paladin in the party that what his companion is doing is wrong.....but I don't see that as effective.

Bluff is not a magic thing that blows open all of your plots because it's overpowered (Glibness is just a boost to bluff). It's entirely because you are not holding to your characters and letting this happen. Two of the scenarios you provided should have resulted in that character either dead, in prison, or the slave of a dragon and thus unable to adventure.

The Bluff skill is great for inconsequential lies to get the party into or out of trouble. But the more you try to gain with it, the more risk succeeding has, and the more the player needs to rely on it. Work this to your advantage. In the scenario with the King, the only way the player isn't dead or in prison is if he says he has proof, but that he has it hidden with orders to reveal it should he die or "go missing". This means the King will be sending out agents of the crown to hunt down this evidence, which means the player now has to be generating a trail that indicates to these watchers that he actually can prove it, which in turns means that he has to actually work to generate this evidence wholesale after all of this occurs.

Essentially the larger the buff to sense motive the lie gives, the more work the player has to do after succeeding at the check in order to prevent the lie from being found out. Otherwise, they get the one turn the skill actually allows.

[VanIsleKnight]

With certain types of deception, misdirection and the like, I think Bluff and glibness if perfectly fine. A lot of the examples you mentioned I believe are totally fine, as long as the player actually puts a modicum of effort into the deception.

If they want to deliberately make someone think that they were switched at birth or were born a frog or something like that, I'd impose circumstance modifiers that the player -really- doesn't need to know about based on the severity of the lie, the relationship between the two parties, and various other factors. It'd be difficult to determine what those modifiers would be, but that's part of being a DM.

I'd also probably require that the player(s) in question also make use of the Diplomacy skill, and honestly roleplay out the exchange. Have them come up with the story, provide evidence, whatever. It'll encourage them to use other illusions, to get physical materials or witnesses or be creative in general to try and sell the lie.

That way, you can reward experience for good roleplaying, overcoming a difficult challenge (because convincing a King that he's really a frog named Mellissa is -not- an easy feat, nor should it be) and you can freely punish players that try to pull a fast one without anything to back it up besides one spell.


Plus, magic works both ways, as do skill points, and you as the GM have more resources (infinite) than the players do (whatever you give them). Let them try to lie to the wrong person a couple of times, and see what happens when the webs they weave end up strangling them by putting them into a lose-lose scenario that ends up with them owing somebody else a favor or something.

[Eric Tolle]

I would simply run with it. Let him get away with whatever he wants...then have him meet another bard with Glibness, and a higher Bluff score. " You're not actually a bard- you're my henchmen, and you've been holding my stuff for me. I need it now." Leave the bard standing in the road in his underwear. And then whenever the bard gets something good, the other bard is there to take it away.

[Scow2]

I would simply run with it. Let him get away with whatever he wants...then have him meet another bard with Glibness, and a higher Bluff score. " You're not actually a bard- you're my henchmen, and you've been holding my stuff for me. I need it now." Leave the bard standing in the road in his underwear. And then whenever the bard gets something good, the other bard is there to take it away.If the bard has a high enough Sense Motive to avoid the Suggestion effect, then this flat doesn't work - Bluff is not a compulsion.

[ThirdEmperor]

A lot of the important stuff has already been said, but-

How the heck is this bard still breathing? He managed to convince the king that he was the true heir to the throne, okay... So why didn't the king kill or imprison him to stop Bluffy the Bard from stealing the throne? Just a thought. :smalltongue:

[Eric Tolle]

If the bard has a high enough Sense Motive to avoid the Suggestion effect, then this flat doesn't work - Bluff is not a compulsion.

If Sense Motive worked, then the bard wouldn't be such a problem in the first place. The point is to use the same tactic on the bard, and then when the player complains, shrug and say "Hey, it worked for you."

[TheThan]

Bluffing shouldn’t work against the blatantly obvious, at least not a single “stupid” bluff. It would need to be much more elaborate and at that point, not fall under the rules for bluff. Or as someone else said, buff can be a catalyst to force the player to create trail of evidence proving what he says.

In the above example with the dragon, I’m sure the dragon is familiar with everyone she’s been with. I mean, I know everyone I’ve been with. She should know that he’s not her long lost lover, and immediately breath weapon the bard for lying to her.

As for the king, no ruler is going to give up power. Even with proof that proves what he’s saying. Even if the king believes him, he should now have him murdered that night. Not to mention everything you say or do has consequences. When he takes the thrown, have the archduke or whomever try to assassinate him. Or force him to roll up a new character now that his bard is the king and too busy to go on adventures.

Oh the (immoral) dragon queen found her long lost lover, now she won’t let him out of her sight, which means no leaving the dragon’s lair, time to roll up a new character. Oh did I mention that the males are responsible for raising dragon babies (ok so I’m making this up).

As for the orcs. They’d check up on the status of the warlord’s coffers before abandoning the fight.

Or here’s a situation, the king discovers his newly reunited brother is also the lover of his arch enemy, the dragon queen.