mundane or technology mixed with magic

[Devronq]

Not sure if there is a RAW answer to this and I can't think of a way to ask this in a general way so here's a very specific question. Lets say I cast glib ness then make up a lie and write it down, or sent an email or record my voice saying the lie is the bonus transferred when some reads or listens to the lie at a later time or even after the spell is over? Could I theoretically get someone with an insane bluff check to say "he's innocent of whatever you think he did" record that voice and play it back whenever needed to get out of almost any situation?

[Xar Zarath]

I don't think the tape recorder would work. Glibness would affect the peoples hearing and reasoning ability.
Unless you create an item that can capture or utilize such magic at your command.

[limejuicepowder]

I'd say most certainly not. The glibness spell gives a boost to bluff; it doesn't infuse a certain phrase with believability. Bluff is not just about what to say, it's about body language, voice inflections, and a host of things the listener consciously or subconsciously picks up on, and decides if what they are hearing is legit. Thus, the caster must actually be the one directly conveying information to gain the spell's effect.

If glibness was "transferable," it would follow that, for example, a bard could cast the spell, say "All of these items are one of a kind, and thus are worth at least 10x market price for a comparable item," and then the entire party could head in to town independently and gain the +30 bluff bonus by using that phrase and fleece all the vendors.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah. While I like mixing technology and magic, this one just doesn't really cut the mustard, because, as mentioned, lying is so much more than words and tone of voice. You could have the most trusted man in the world, say, Morgan Freeman, say the most smooth, convincing tone of voice that he did not commit that murder, but if he was evading your gaze and otherwise being evasive, you probably wouldn't believe him.
Also, try reading things in his voice. It's really rather funny, my yes.

[Devronq]

Yeah. While I like mixing technology and magic, this one just doesn't really cut the mustard, because, as mentioned, lying is so much more than words and tone of voice. You could have the most trusted man in the world, say, Morgan Freeman, say the most smooth, convincing tone of voice that he did not commit that murder, but if he was evading your gaze and otherwise being evasive, you probably wouldn't believe him.
Also, try reading things in his voice. It's really rather funny, my yes.

First of all the second I heard Morgan Freeman's name I automatically read the rest of the paragraph in his voice haha and OK what if you video recorded a glib ness bluff?

[Mnemnosyne]

Glibness is transmutation; it makes your words and behavior more believable, so yes, I think a fully recorded bluff with glibness would function, since it doesn't depend on the magic affecting the listener, or the listeners immediate presence.

However, I think it would be fair to say that there is a circumstance penalty to any bluff told via recorded means; you cannot tailor the lie to what you are observing of the listener, you can't see that he reacts in a particular way to a mannerism or gesture or word, and adjust your behavior appropriately. You must tell a generic lie that will work on everyone, while the bluff skill is more intended for mimicking personal interactions. So as a DM, I would impose a circumstance penalty to all bluffs made over recorded media. Glibness would probably be higher than that penalty, however.

[Psyren]

Just wanted to note that there are ways to record your voice in D&D without technology, e.g. Magic Mouth.

Having said that I don't think this would work. Glibness as others have said is a transmutation - however it is personal range i.e. it affects you and only you. A recording of you (regardless of fidelity) is not actually you, it is some device or other proxy repeating the sounds you have made in the form of words, thus the magic would not transfer to that thing.

[Epsilon Rose]

I would also say it wouldn't work, but for a slightly different reason.

As others have already pointed out, glibness effects you, not your words or your listeners' minds. It helps you adopt speech patterns, mannerism, and intonations that are convincing. The thing is, these behaviors are dynamic. They change with who your audience is and how they react to what you say. Conversely, a recording is static. It can't change.

So, to extrapolate, I probably also wouldn't give a glibness bonus to a live one way transmission, because you can't gauge your audience and modify your behavior. However, I would give you the bonus for a live two way transmission.

[Mnemnosyne]

Just wanted to note that there are ways to record your voice in D&D without technology, e.g. Magic Mouth.

Having said that I don't think this would work. Glibness as others have said is a transmutation - however it is personal range i.e. it affects you and only you. A recording of you (regardless of fidelity) is not actually you, it is some device or other proxy repeating the sounds you have made in the form of words, thus the magic would not transfer to that thing.
Ah, but my point about the transmutation is that it doesn't affect the words themselves, it makes you able to say things more convincingly, but none of that ability to convince is in the magic. The magic only gives you the capacity to speak more convincingly. So, the recorded words would, I think, be more convincing.

If Glibness were an enchantment spell, then I would agree that the speaker must be in the personal presence of whoever she's speaking to, or at least speaking to them directly via magical or technological means, not leaving a recorded message.

However, I still think that while glibness would help, there would be a considerable circumstance penalty for successfully bluffing in a recorded message anyway; Epsilon Rose and I have a similar opinion, only he thinks the bonus would not help at all. I think it would, but would be somewhat counteracted by a circumstance penalty.

[TuggyNE]

I'm inclined to agree with Mnemosyne that, while glibness might not be fully effective, it would have at least some effect. Even just a +10 to the usual would be pretty handy.

[Psyren]

Ah, but my point about the transmutation is that it doesn't affect the words themselves, it makes you able to say things more convincingly, but none of that ability to convince is in the magic. The magic only gives you the capacity to speak more convincingly. So, the recorded words would, I think, be more convincing.

I never said the magic affects the words. I said the magic affects YOU. A recording of you is not you. If you are not communicating directly, in the moment, I would not let the spell provide any benefit.