The triple digit skill check.

[Calthropstu]

I had a char throw a triple digit diplomacy check. Thinking on it, I have to wonder... given the DC's listed in the core rulebook (PF) or PHB, what CAN'T such a roll do?
And not just diplomacy, but other checks too. What would you as a gm allow such a roll to accomplish in your game?

[nyjastul69]

I had a char throw a triple digit diplomacy check. Thinking on it, I have to wonder... given the DC's listed in the core rulebook (PF) or PHB, what CAN'T such a roll do?
And not just diplomacy, but other checks too. What would you as a gm allow such a roll to accomplish in your game?

What was the DC? Was your character successful on the check?

[Sian]

If including all books, the Balance check for standing on a cloud is 120 and it takes a Diplo 120 to change someones opinion of you from Unfriendly to Fanatic (150 for changing someone from Hostile to fanatic) (Both in Epic Handbook)

[flappeercraft]

Well counting ELH to make someone go from Hostile to Fanatic it takes a 150 Diplomacy check. Also making a disable device check as a free action adds +100 to the check. Passing through a Wall of force with an Escape artist check is DC 120. making a Handle animal check in 1 minute adds 100 to the check. All of these can be failed with triple digits if they are just slightly over 100.

[Calthropstu]

What was the DC? Was your character successful on the check?

I don't think my gm thought of a dc beforehand. What I was trying was pretty absurd. I was playing a mythic oracle at the time, with 2x + 20 abilities, a + 46 baseline and got a high die roll.

My gm put his head down when I announced "104" as my total. See, we were playing an adventure previous to an earlier one some members of the group had played in his campaign world. What I was trying to do significantly altered the opening to that campaign (which I had not participated in)

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't think my gm thought of a dc beforehand.

This is a serious DMing mistake that everyone should strive to avoid making.

If the player tries something unexpected and you need to take a moment to think what the DC should be, take that moment BEFORE they roll. Letting the player roll and then deciding the DC will frequently mean that you're actually deciding based on whether or not you want them to succeed, because it's very difficult to avoid being biased. It's for this same reason that you shouldn't assign a DC based on your knowledge of the character's skill level, because what you're really doing is saying that regardless of how skilled they are they only have an X% chance at success.

[WhamBamSam]

A Concentration check of a little over 100 is what you need to kill an average CR 20 creature in two rounds with Greater Insightful Strike (assuming you can refresh the maneuver somehow). I made a build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20864711&postcount=91) based around reliably making high Concentration checks for Insightful Strikes a few rounds back in Iron Chef.

[nyjastul69]

I don't think my gm thought of a dc beforehand. What I was trying was pretty absurd. I was playing a mythic oracle at the time, with 2x + 20 abilities, a + 46 baseline and got a high die roll.

My gm put his head down when I announced "104" as my total. See, we were playing an adventure previous to an earlier one some members of the group had played in his campaign world. What I was trying to do significantly altered the opening to that campaign (which I had not participated in)

That is nothing more than a whole lotta bad DMing.

[digiman619]

Well, a DC 100 Tumble check will let you fall from any distance without hurting one's self. So you could fall from orbit in a superhero stance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThreePointLanding) and be absolutely fine.

[martixy]

Most implausible tricks were covered, since they're straight up from the skill desciptions themselves.

However there are some highly amusing opportunities for abuse hiding in plain sight. For example Sleight of Hand (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?142080-3-5-The-Lightning-Thief-Epic-Sleight-of-Hand-Abuse).

There is also the fact that some epic skills can emulate certain powerful spell effects completely non-magically, allowing them to pierce defences one would normally have against such effects - the escape artist, sense motive to read minds. Ride is pretty nifty. High perception grants immunity to an entire school of magic.

[Psyren]

I had a char throw a triple digit diplomacy check. Thinking on it, I have to wonder... given the DC's listed in the core rulebook (PF) or PHB, what CAN'T such a roll do?
And not just diplomacy, but other checks too. What would you as a gm allow such a roll to accomplish in your game?

In Pathfinder it won't do much. No matter how big your check is, you cannot move any NPC 2 ranks above starting disposition without GM fiat - and even if you could, there is no category above "Helpful" at any rate.

In 3.5 you of course use a check that size to recruit all the gods into your cult and take over.

[Zombimode]

I had a char throw a triple digit diplomacy check. Thinking on it, I have to wonder... given the DC's listed in the core rulebook (PF) or PHB, what CAN'T such a roll do?
And not just diplomacy, but other checks too. What would you as a gm allow such a roll to accomplish in your game?

Most of the time, a triple Digit skill check will result in "Yes, that beats the DC of 15. You succeed at doing what you wanted."
For the vast majority of skill checks you can't "oversucceed". You try to accomplish one specific thing, like balancing on a ledge, which has a set DC Independent from who is trying it. If you check beats the DC you succeed at the Task, it is simple as that.
Rolling high on a check is not inherently useful in D&D.
Very high skill modifiers are useful for trying incredible difficult Tasks. The ELH lists some of those.

And I second KillianHawkeye Point that the DM should ALWAYS set the DC BEFORE the roll is made.

[Gusmo]

Epic bluff checks allow you to disguise your surface thoughts. So when someone is using detect thoughts or similar on you, you can fool them into believing you're thinking about what it would be like to cover them in mayonnaise, or whatever lunacy you desire.

[Telonius]

That part of the Bluff check never really made sense to me. If you're actively trying to disguise your surface thoughts, aren't you already thinking of the surface thought you're trying to display?

[Mordaedil]

That part of the Bluff check never really made sense to me. If you're actively trying to disguise your surface thoughts, aren't you already thinking of the surface thought you're trying to display?

Did you ever play KotOR2? In it, you eventually get trained by your Jedi master to read other peoples thoughts, but the scoundrel in your party only seems to think about Pazaak and Pazaak rules and if you ask him about it, he first gets very defensive like "you were probing around in my head against my will?" and then he teaches you it was a trick he learned to throw off mind-readers from calling his bluffs.

That's what it is.

[Schattenbach]

In Pathfinder it won't do much. No matter how big your check is, you cannot move any NPC 2 ranks above starting disposition without GM fiat - and even if you could, there is no category above "Helpful" at any rate.

In 3.5 you of course use a check that size to recruit all the gods into your cult and take over.

Deities come with build-in immunity to mind-affecting effects (though that doesn't apply towards deities of equal or higher rank), so that doesn't work that well even if someone still manages to somehow penetrate most of their defenses.


That part of the Bluff check never really made sense to me. If you're actively trying to disguise your surface thoughts, aren't you already thinking of the surface thought you're trying to display?

Masking them with trivial things or disorting one's thoughts so much - through a twisted web of bluffs - that someone who's too lacking has no way to see through that? While likely incredibly hard, not exactly impossible.

[Stealth Marmot]

A DC 50 diplomacy check will talk all four legs off a dog.

A DC 100 diplomacy check will convince it to take a walk afterwards.

You get into epic level skill checks, stuff gets crazy.

[Psyren]

This is a serious DMing mistake that everyone should strive to avoid making.

If the player tries something unexpected and you need to take a moment to think what the DC should be, take that moment BEFORE they roll. Letting the player roll and then deciding the DC will frequently mean that you're actually deciding based on whether or not you want them to succeed, because it's very difficult to avoid being biased. It's for this same reason that you shouldn't assign a DC based on your knowledge of the character's skill level, because what you're really doing is saying that regardless of how skilled they are they only have an X% chance at success.

You should, however, know how skilled your PCs are at all times as a general rule. A player should not be pulling a +100 modifier out of their posterior and plopping it on the table totally sight-unseen.

[Telonius]

Did you ever play KotOR2? In it, you eventually get trained by your Jedi master to read other peoples thoughts, but the scoundrel in your party only seems to think about Pazaak and Pazaak rules and if you ask him about it, he first gets very defensive like "you were probing around in my head against my will?" and then he teaches you it was a trick he learned to throw off mind-readers from calling his bluffs.

That's what it is.

Never played it ... but it still doesn't make any sense. Most skills are responses to something, not passive defenses. So you'd notice someone might be poking around in your mind, and the thought comes in: what should I make him think of? As soon as you figure out that answer, it's what you're thinking of. Like that old joke: don't think about elephants. Even understanding the phrase means you've thought of elephants.

[Segev]

With insufficient Bluffing, you might be thinking, "Okay, I'm going to hum Baa Baa Black Sheep mentally so she can't hear that I really want to stare at her low-cut dress--DARN IT, I mean BAA BAA BLACK SHEEP man she's so hot HAVE YOU ANY WOOL!"

And when she asks you what your intentions are, you'll still get that "to get you in bed" thought running around as you grope (hur hur) for a plausible fib or secondary true goal. Your thoughts monitoring your thoughts will be something the mind-reader can catch.


With sufficient Bluffing, you're essentially convincing your overtly conscious mind that you're really thinking about something, and your monitoring-thoughts are not busy trying to shepherd them because they, too, are convinced, even as you're double-thinking about other things on a deeper level. It lets you subordinate your real thoughts to almost a background process.

Edit: TL;DR, you can make yourself buy your own B.S. (Bachelor of Science) sufficiently in that moment that you're not thinking about any contrary truths.

[Âmesang]

I think the idea is to think of two things at once with the "fake" thought being the more prominent of the two… or perhaps your true thought not even be a "thought" at all but basic instinct; like while walking you don't consciously think about putting one foot in front of the other… you just do it.

So, conscious thought versus subconscious thought? I suppose that's what makes it "epic," huh? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Never played it ... but it still doesn't make any sense. Most skills are responses to something, not passive defenses. So you'd notice someone might be poking around in your mind, and the thought comes in: what should I make him think of? As soon as you figure out that answer, it's what you're thinking of. Like that old joke: don't think about elephants. Even understanding the phrase means you've thought of elephants.

I'd say that's where feats come in; a feat can turn an active skill into a passive defense like that. The whole point of feats is breaking the rules after all, and they more accurately represent that kind of special training (e.g. fooling a mind-reader via purely mundane means.)

[Fouredged Sword]

I'd say that's where feats come in; a feat can turn an active skill into a passive defense like that. The whole point of feats is breaking the rules after all, and they more accurately represent that kind of special training (e.g. fooling a mind-reader via purely mundane means.)

It's not a passive defense. It's an active defense that is used to proactively defend VS an active threat. You do not get a warning "So and so is attempting to read your mind." You know ahead of time "I'm going to need to bluff this high level caster. Better hide my surface thoughts." and roll bluff ahead of the mind reading attempt. The best bet you have reactivately is "You just passed a willsave." while using bluff or "Your spellcraft check was successful, the wizard just intoned the words to 'Detect thoughts'" to which you respond "BLUFF BLUFF BLUFF!!!"

It's like hide. You cannot reflexively hide when you come into view of a creature. You are ether already hiding or you are not.

[Segev]

Frankly, if you're able to Bluff in that ballpark, I'd just make it part of your SOP. If you can't make the DC reliably enough to take 10, just tell the DM that you're always doing it, and that you'll roll for the most recent effort when something comes up. If your DM is a stickler and won't let you make it semi-reactive that way, then just declare and roll it every time interval it needs renewal.

[Psyren]

It's not a passive defense. It's an active defense that is used to proactively defend VS an active threat. You do not get a warning "So and so is attempting to read your mind." You know ahead of time "I'm going to need to bluff this high level caster. Better hide my surface thoughts." and roll bluff ahead of the mind reading attempt. The best bet you have reactivately is "You just passed a willsave." while using bluff or "Your spellcraft check was successful, the wizard just intoned the words to 'Detect thoughts'" to which you respond "BLUFF BLUFF BLUFF!!!"

It's like hide. You cannot reflexively hide when you come into view of a creature. You are ether already hiding or you are not.

We're getting hung up on semantics here, but I'd say whether it's active or passive depends on the wording of the ability. I seem to recall 3.5 or PF has something similar to this Star Wars technique, but the name escapes me.

[Deophaun]

Like that old joke: don't think about elephants. Even understanding the phrase means you've thought of elephants.
Unless you've trained yourself to associate "elephants" with giraffes. Then you think of a giraffe.

It's difficult to say how you'd do that successfully, simply because we have no way of testing. But, in a world where mind-reading exists and could even be somewhat common, it's not beyond the bounds of logic to think that they would figure out methods that do work.

[Fouredged Sword]

Frankly, if you're able to Bluff in that ballpark, I'd just make it part of your SOP. If you can't make the DC reliably enough to take 10, just tell the DM that you're always doing it, and that you'll roll for the most recent effort when something comes up. If your DM is a stickler and won't let you make it semi-reactive that way, then just declare and roll it every time interval it needs renewal.

Yeah, but some of the more easy ways to hit a DC 100+ DC involve temporary modifiers like guidance of the Avatar and/or divine insight. A lot of times you can make such a check when it REALLY counts, but not casually.

And if you CAN make a 100+ check casually, is it really unreasonable for nobody to be able to call you on your bluffs?

[Mendicant]

In any event, the DC for disguising your thoughts is waaaaay too high.