PDA

View Full Version : Bluffing in 4e (or 3.5 for that matter)



DizzyD
2008-08-15, 11:57 AM
I got into an argument with a friend of mine about the bluff skill. We are playing brothers in a 4e campaign. My character is a tiefling rouge drug addict (the campaign has allot to do with drugs) and he is a tiefling pali devoted to riding the city of drugs. We are going on a trip, not sure where yet but he asked to check my bags, he knows that I’m and addict (this is all out of character discussion at this point). So I said I would use a thievery check to hide the drugs I had on me, which happen to be so new he probably wouldn’t know what they were anyways other than a drug. I suggested to him that even if he found them I could use my bluff and say it was something for a back ache that my nanny (who happens to be a nurse at a nearby hospital) gave me. He responded with something like “that wouldn’t work,” and we went back and forth arguing over whether it would work or not… now I pass it on to you guys.
My argument: he has never seen this drug in his life. If you found a pill on the floor would you automatically know it was an illegal drug?
His argument: I’m his brother and he knows I’m an addict. (If anything it would give him a plus to his check against my bluff but it would not make it impossible for me to lie to him)

I also asked whether there were any penalties involved for bluffing to someone that knows you well and they said there was none.

fractic
2008-08-15, 12:01 PM
This is how bluff is supposed to work. If you can beat his insight/sense motive check he is convinced you're telling the truth. Of course he should probably get some circumstance modifiers to his insight check.

Saph
2008-08-15, 12:02 PM
Short answer: DM's call.

Long answer: It depends on the situation, the edition, exactly how you're choosing to run Bluff, whether you're even allowing Bluff to work against PCs in the first place . . . and it's still the DM's call.

Personally I'd just say roll Bluff v Insight and be done with it rather than have the argument go back and forth as to which side would get a bonus.

- Saph

Mewtarthio
2008-08-15, 12:03 PM
There would most definately be a "hard to believe" bonus attatched to the Sense Motive, anywhere from +5 to +10 depending on the DM's ruling. However, you do get to make a Bluff check.

Crow
2008-08-15, 12:13 PM
I don't think a die roll should be able to tell a person what their character is thinking. Bluff is different from tricking a character with an illusion or something. I think he's justified in saying that it wouldn't work.

Otherwise he could easily roll an Intimidate check or something to get you to fess up.

As always, the "social" skills are best suited for use on NPC's, not the players.

TwystidMynd
2008-08-15, 12:20 PM
I don't think a die roll should be able to tell a person what their character is thinking. Bluff is different from tricking a character with an illusion or something. I think he's justified in saying that it wouldn't work.

Otherwise he could easily roll an Intimidate check or something to get you to fess up.

As always, the "social" skills are best suited for use on NPC's, not the players.

As a rule, I agree with this. Skills are meant to be used when interacting with the DM. PC interaction is usually carried out by RPing.

In my games, when someone is trying to RP with my characters, and a relevant skill-check can be made, we will attempt it, and the following RPing will be made keeping the results of the check in mind. If the actual results of the RP match up with the results on the die, then great; if they don't, then oh well. That's just me, my friends, and how we play... YMMV.

fractic
2008-08-15, 12:22 PM
I agree that diplomacy shouldn't be used on PC but bluff is a different story. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to lie to your party members at all.

Riffington
2008-08-15, 12:27 PM
If he's your brother, you should get the circumstance bonus rather than him.
People are always eager to delude themselves about their family's drug habits.

/doctor

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 12:27 PM
I agree that diplomacy shouldn't be used on PC but bluff is a different story. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to lie to your party members at all.

I aggree. I think lying to Players should be very possible. Removing that would suck for the rollplaying of my character.

Crow
2008-08-15, 12:30 PM
You can still lie to your fellow party members, but just like in real life, they don't have to believe you. It requires some cooperation as a group (as would just using the bluff skill). In this situation, I think the character's brother is justified. If I were in that situation I wouldn't care what my drug addict brother said, I still wouldn't believe him.

fractic
2008-08-15, 12:32 PM
You can still lie to your fellow party members, but just like in real life, they don't have to believe you.

Except that unlike in real life there is OoC knowledge that makes lying impossible


If I were in that situation I wouldn't care what my drug addict brother said, I still wouldn't believe him.

What if you've misplaced some money and your brother claims he didn't take it? This is what circumstance modifiers are for.

Crow
2008-08-15, 12:43 PM
Except that unlike in real life there is OoC knowledge that makes lying impossible

Like I said, it requires some cooperation among the group, but no more so than using the bluff skill on them. They'll still have the ooc knowledge one way or the other.


What if you've misplaced some money and your brother claims he didn't take it?

That'd have to be a big circumstance modifier...and until I found it, I'd probably still suspect him. (It doesn't help that I work in law enforcement :smallwink:)

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 12:54 PM
It seems like this is getting no were. how bout this.

How would it work mechanically?

and in a seperate statement how do you think it should work if you don't like the mechanics of it?

fractic
2008-08-15, 12:55 PM
That'd have to be a big circumstance modifier...and until I found it, I'd probably still suspect him. (It doesn't help that I work in law enforcement :smallwink:)

Just because I said you misplaced money and your brother claims he didn't take it, you immediatly jumped to suspecting him. I never said your money was stolen let alone by your brother. Your reaction is perfectly understandable because I posted that in this topic. But it shows the advantage of an objective mechanism for lying.

[edit]:


How would it work mechanically?


Drug addict roles bluff and his brother roles insight. Brother gets a good circumstance modifier (lets say +10) because the lie is rather obvious. If the bluff check is still the highest then he is believed.

Crow
2008-08-15, 01:12 PM
Just because I said you misplaced money and your brother claims he didn't take it, you immediatly jumped to suspecting him. I never said your money was stolen let alone by your brother. Your reaction is perfectly understandable because I posted that in this topic. But it shows the advantage of an objective mechanism for lying.

You asked a loaded question: By telling me outright that my drug-addict brother says he didn't take it, it implies that I've already asked him about it, and by extension implies pre-existing suspicion. If he saw me looking around the house and asked me what I was looking for, and then volunteers that he didn't take it (without me asking if he did), then that certainly looks suspicious as well.

fractic
2008-08-15, 01:15 PM
You asked a loaded question
Of course I did that was the point.


By telling me outright that my drug-addict brother says he didn't take it, it implies that I've already asked him about it, and by extension implies pre-existing suspicion. If he saw me looking around the house and asked me what I was looking for, and then volunteers that he didn't take it (without me asking if he did), then that certainly looks suspicious as well.

Wow those sound so much like good reasons for circumstance modifiers.

Also, just because you didn't make your insight and believe him this time it doesn't mean your character immediately stops being suspicious.

Telonius
2008-08-15, 01:24 PM
In 3.5 rules, this would have been a Bluff vs. Sense Motive. I would give a +5 to the brother's Sense Motive check, for the bluff being a little hard to believe. (Because if it's really just a painkiller, why would you be hiding it?)

I'd also give him some situational modifiers. These are totally DM's call, but I think it would be reasonable for them to apply. +2 for being your brother (most people can usually tell when family is BSing them), and another +2 for knowing about your previous addiction (anything pill-related is going to immediately raise suspicion). So, a total of +9 to his sense motive.

If you beat his roll, he believes you. If you don't, he doesn't.

Crow
2008-08-15, 01:26 PM
Wow those sound so much like good reasons for circumstance modifiers.

Yes, and a good enough reason to flat out not believe him either.


Also, just because you didn't make your insight and believe him this time it doesn't mean your character immediately stops being suspicious.

The bottom line is that unless you have the player's cooperation, it's not going to make a difference whether you roll the dice or not. Using game mechanics to enforce a character's thoughts is not ok with all groups. Obviously it's not ok with the OP's friend. My advice is to talk to the friend and work something out of character so that everyone is cooperating, rather than running the game in an adversarial manner.

Burley
2008-08-15, 01:28 PM
Hi, I'm playing the part of the Brother in this campaign. Tiefling Paladin who has commited his life to not only cleansing the streets of his city, but to cleansing his brother's body of these horrid drugs. (Also, adopted daughter who was born with a drug addiction, but not relevant now.)
The reason I'm on this trip is that my church asked me to act as bodyguard, and I asked my brother to come along on the pilgrimage as a chance for me to reach out and clean him up. I'm not sure (in character and out of character) if he's coming with alterior motives, but we both know full-well why I invited him.
If I see a drug and it belongs to him, I don't see how, even with the most ungodly rolls in his favor, I could think that he wasn't using them to get high, when I'm trying to run him through a sort of rehab session.

Telonius
2008-08-15, 01:29 PM
If he's your brother, you should get the circumstance bonus rather than him.
People are always eager to delude themselves about their family's drug habits.

/doctor

Generally, I'd agree with this, but we're talking about a Paladin who (as the OP said) already knows that he's an addict. And it's a sibling, not a mother, father, or spouse. I'm picturing the cop who busts his own brother for possession. He might have a hard time believing him afterwards.

EDIT ... and confirmed.


I'm not sure (in character and out of character) if he's coming with alterior motives, but we both know full-well why I invited him.
If I see a drug and it belongs to him, I don't see how, even with the most ungodly rolls in his favor, I could think that he wasn't using them to get high, when I'm trying to run him through a sort of rehab session.

Possible bluff... "My nanny prescribed this to me. She said that it's a new kind of painkiller. Sometimes it hurts ... really bad ... and I know I want to just make that pain go away. I know you want me to be strong, and tough it out without it, but I'm just not as strong as you are. I'm sorry, I just didn't want you to think less of me for needing some extra help. I'm afraid if I don't use this, I might be tempted to go back to the other stuff. Really, bro, I'm trying."

That is the sort of bluff that could conceivably work in the short term. But for your own character, I would assume you'd be on a "trust but verify" setting. If he beats your check, believe him in the short term, and don't confiscate it. But then verify with the nanny.

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 01:30 PM
I'd also give him some situational modifiers. These are totally DM's call, but I think it would be reasonable for them to apply. +2 for being your brother (most people can usually tell when family is BSing them), and another +2 for knowing about your previous addiction (anything pill-related is going to immediately raise suspicion). So, a total of +9 to his sense motive.

If you beat his roll, he believes you. If you don't, he doesn't.

I like this.... and I've agreed with most of you on a situational mod. I understand he know I have a problem there for it would be harder to convince him otherwise.

It seems like there is a clear cut solution to this now. There is a roll, DM's choice on mods, but there is defenatly a roll...

EDIT:
And yet I'm shut down again. I undersatnd your point of hard to believe... but there has to be a mechanic for it. Thats why there is a big book of rules, changable only by the GM. I guess we could just ask the GM, but I'm interested in futher opinions...

fractic
2008-08-15, 01:33 PM
The bottom line is that unless you have the player's cooperation, it's not going to make a difference whether you roll the dice or not. Using game mechanics to enforce a character's thoughts is not ok with all groups. Obviously it's not ok with the OP's friend. My advice is to talk to the friend and work something out of character so that everyone is cooperating, rather than running the game in an adversarial manner.

I'll admid that if everybody can agree to not need bluff then it's fine not to use it. But if both parties have vastly different opinions (such as is the case in the OP's story) going OoC and talk it out is just going to drag out the game while there is a perfectly good resolution mechanism. And when it comes to lying I think that such conflicts hardly rare.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-15, 01:37 PM
I am all to familiar with this situation. Only whereas you're playing D&D, my brother actually IS a drug addict.
When your relatives are drug addicts you never fully trust them, ever. You always keep an eye on them, and you always suspect them of a misdeed.

Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate were not meant to be used against each other. So what you do, is you make it into a skill challenge. The addict needs to perform 6 successfull Bluff checks (accomidated by convincing roleplaying) before receiving two failures, against the paly's Will defense+half your bluff modifier.
The paly gets the bonus because well, he's your brother. He knows your lies, thus he will be able to see through them better

Dervag
2008-08-15, 01:41 PM
In 3.5 rules, this would have been a Bluff vs. Sense Motive. I would give a +5 to the brother's Sense Motive check, for the bluff being a little hard to believe. (Because if it's really just a painkiller, why would you be hiding it?)

I'd also give him some situational modifiers. These are totally DM's call, but I think it would be reasonable for them to apply. +2 for being your brother (most people can usually tell when family is BSing them), and another +2 for knowing about your previous addiction (anything pill-related is going to immediately raise suspicion). So, a total of +9 to his sense motive.

If you beat his roll, he believes you. If you don't, he doesn't.Sounds about right. I might quibble about the precise value of the modifiers, but those are DM's choice anyway.


I am all to familiar with this situation. Only whereas you're playing D&D, my brother actually IS a drug addict.
When your relatives are drug addicts you never fully trust them, ever. You always keep an eye on them, and you always suspect them of a misdeed.Depends on the person. Some people are enablers. You, apparently, are not. This paladin apparently isn't, either.


Diplomacy, and Intimidate were not meant to be used against each other. So what you do, is you make it into a skill challenge. The addict needs to perform 6 successfull Bluff checks (accomidated by convincing roleplaying) before receiving two failures, against the paly's Will defense+half your bluff modifier.
The paly gets the bonus because well, he's your brother. He knows your lies, thus he will be able to see through them betterHmm.

Interesting. On the other hand, Sense Motive and Bluff were meant to be used against each other. So that's probably the best bet in this situation.

Burley
2008-08-15, 01:49 PM
I'll admid that if everybody can agree to not need bluff then it's fine not to use it. But if both parties have vastly different opinions (such as is the case in the OP's story) going OoC and talk it out is just going to drag out the game while there is a perfectly good resolution mechanism.
I don't agree with this. Going out of character and talking is usually the best way to resolve a conflict, especially when the conflict is about the rules. Using a rule/mechanic to justify that same rule/mechanic isn't a valid justification.

I think the example given below could work, but... We'll have to see how it is played out. I know our DM doesn't care for PC vs. PC fights, so, he may not want to do skill checks against other PCs.
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

AstralFire
2008-08-15, 01:52 PM
I don't agree with this. Going out of character and talking is usually the best way to resolve a conflict, especially when the conflict is about the rules. Using a rule/mechanic to justify that same rule/mechanic isn't a valid justification.

I think the example given below could work, but... We'll have to see how it is played out. I know our DM doesn't care for PC vs. PC fights, so, he may not want to do skill checks against other PCs.
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

What makes doing it magically any better? 'sides, tricking the character isn't the same as going "YOU NOW BELIEVE YOUR HAND IS A GIANT JUICY BURGER. MAKE WITH THE HONEY MUSTARD AND THE EATING."

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 01:52 PM
The paly gets the bonus because well, he's your brother. He knows your lies, thus he will be able to see through them better

I dont like that Idea.... half my modseems kinda steep. I'm a rouge, I'm good at lying for a reason, trained even. whether your aquainted to me or not shouldnt matter that much. The fact that I'm an addict throws it off a bit but not half my mod.

and wouldn't making it a skill check include dishing out xp?

chiasaur11
2008-08-15, 01:54 PM
I don't agree with this. Going out of character and talking is usually the best way to resolve a conflict, especially when the conflict is about the rules. Using a rule/mechanic to justify that same rule/mechanic isn't a valid justification.

I think the example given below could work, but... We'll have to see how it is played out. I know our DM doesn't care for PC vs. PC fights, so, he may not want to do skill checks against other PCs.
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

So, you're against bluffing about the results of your Bluff check to justify a bluff check?

And, more on topic, agreed.

fractic
2008-08-15, 01:55 PM
and wouldn't making it a skill check include dishing out xp?

I assume you mean skill challenge. Skill challenges normally aren't rewareded with xp. However some good roleplaying could lead to roleplaying xp.

Gralamin
2008-08-15, 02:05 PM
I assume you mean skill challenge. Skill challenges normally aren't rewareded with xp. However some good roleplaying could lead to roleplaying xp.

You mean Skill checks aren't rewarded with xp. Skill Challenges tend to be.

fractic
2008-08-15, 02:07 PM
You mean Skill checks aren't rewarded with xp. Skill Challenges tend to be.

Oops you're right, I missed that when I read it the first time.

Telonius
2008-08-15, 02:14 PM
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

It can be. To take an example from my own gaming experience, I once played a Shifter Rogue/Master of Masks. (Mechanically awful, I know). My characterization of him was that one uncle that everybody who seems to have, that's always in on some shady, quasi-legal thing going on. He had a Charisma of about 22, but a Wisdom of 8. Full ranks in Bluff, none in Sense Motive. Basically, he was a conman who believed his own BS. I think every character in that campaign eventually played some sort of a prank on both him and the Warforged (WIS 10, no sense motives) because they were so gullible.

But in general, yes, if the players aren't all willing to play by those rules and accept the consequences, it's not fun and should be handled OOC first.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-15, 02:15 PM
I dont like that Idea.... half my modseems kinda steep. I'm a rouge, I'm good at lying for a reason, trained even. whether your aquainted to me or not shouldnt matter that much. The fact that I'm an addict throws it off a bit but not half my mod.

and wouldn't making it a skill check include dishing out xp?

He does not get the bonus because he's aquainted to you. He gets the bonus because;
1: He's your brother,
2: Predisposed to beleive you're lying,
3: Knows you're a rogue,
4:Knows rogues are predisposed to lying,
5:HE'S YOUR BROTHER.
6:Knows you're a drug addict,
7: He probably knows that you know he's a palidan bent onr emoving drugs.

Basically the entire situation reeks of, "He knows who/what you are, he knows you're going to lie, he knows you probably better than you know yourself."
As a technicality he should get higher than half you Bluff bonus, but you need to remember, at this point, there's almost no way you could get away with lying to him in chacaracter. He know's you're going to lie, there is almost no way to convince someone who expects you to lie to them.

Also, skill challenges don't always garner exp. They only do so when the skill challenge is used to overcome and obstacle, or the DM grants it.

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 02:22 PM
I assume you mean skill challenge. Skill challenges normally aren't rewareded with xp. However some good roleplaying could lead to roleplaying xp.

yes i ment skill chanllange...


You mean Skill checks aren't rewarded with xp. Skill Challenges tend to be.

Thats what i thought

obliged_salmon
2008-08-15, 02:30 PM
so...let's say your character successfully lies to her about the drugs. that just means she doesn't necessarily think your character lied, it doesn't mean she can't take the drugs anyway, and require proof of your statement before giving them back, or something like that. it's the player's choice what the character ultimately does, whether or not you lie. if the player uses out of character knowledge to direct the character's actions, then that's not fair, but a few successful bluff checks won't mean she CAN'T take the drugs from your character.

fractic
2008-08-15, 02:31 PM
so...let's say your character successfully lies to her about the drugs. that just means she doesn't necessarily think your character lied, it doesn't mean she can't take the drugs anyway, and require proof of your statement before giving them back, or something like that. it's the player's choice what the character ultimately does, whether or not you lie. if the player uses out of character knowledge to direct the character's actions, then that's not fair, but a few successful bluff checks won't mean she CAN'T take the drugs from your character.

I completely agree with this.

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 02:34 PM
He does not get the bonus because he's aquainted to you. He gets the bonus because;
1: He's your brother,
2: Predisposed to beleive you're lying,
3: Knows you're a rogue,
4:Knows rogues are predisposed to lying,
5:HE'S YOUR BROTHER.
6:Knows you're a drug addict,
7: He probably knows that you know he's a palidan bent onr emoving drugs.



And like i said, I aggree with knows what i do but not the brother part. Just cause he is my brother doesnt mean he knows when i lie. And honestly the knowing I'm a rouge doesn't make much since to me either. You can tell when someone is sneaky, thats what since motive was based on in 3.5, but they can still lie to you. but even if that wasn't the case, in no way should he be immune to my bluff. Mods for a better chance yes, immune no.

and futher more, a role deciding what your character thinks compared to a immunity to something my character has worked on and spent time learning. That isn't fun...

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 02:36 PM
so...let's say your character successfully lies to her about the drugs. that just means she doesn't necessarily think your character lied, it doesn't mean she can't take the drugs anyway, and require proof of your statement before giving them back, or something like that. it's the player's choice what the character ultimately does, whether or not you lie. if the player uses out of character knowledge to direct the character's actions, then that's not fair, but a few successful bluff checks won't mean she CAN'T take the drugs from your character.

I can se that, I'm not really argueing that. I'm arguing that I have the chance to make the bluf in the first place.

If he took the drugs, I would just use my thievery to get them back...

fractic
2008-08-15, 02:39 PM
If he took the drugs, I would just use my thievery to get them back...

That would make lying a lot harder the next time though.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-15, 02:46 PM
That's all true, but you need to udnerstand, you're in over your head.
His character has no reason to beleive you, and every reason to beleive you're lying. Unless you go with a skill challenge wherein your brother gets a huge bonus, there is almost no way mechanically to solve this.

He's not going to beleive you don't have drugs, so you can't lie to him about it. You have to take a different route. Screw lying, and appeal to his sense of brotherhood. "Come on brother, just trust me, just this once. I promise I won't let you down."

Because either way, a simple check vs perception screws the entire characterization. If your brother is predisposed to beleive you're lying, and he rolls a 1 on his perception whilst you roll a 20, the entirety of role playing becomes broken between your characters forever. This is a problem that needs to be solved out of character, and roleplayed. No amount of dice will solve this issue without creating ten more problems.

DizzyD
2008-08-15, 02:52 PM
That would make lying a lot harder the next time though.

well at that point I wouldn't try lying to him.

fractic
2008-08-15, 02:57 PM
Because either way, a simple check vs perception screws the entire characterization. If your brother is predisposed to beleive you're lying, and he rolls a 1 on his perception whilst you roll a 20, the entirety of role playing becomes broken between your characters forever. This is a problem that needs to be solved out of character, and roleplayed. No amount of dice will solve this issue without creating ten more problems.

Why would it end the roleplaying? If he manages to pull it off it's because his character is a really sweet talker. Why couldn't you roleplay that?

Everytime he fails to lie and everytime he succeeds and gets found out it'll become harder next time anyway. After 2 or 3 times it'll be impossible for him to lie his way out of it even with a nat 1 vs a nat 20

AstralFire
2008-08-15, 03:00 PM
Why would it end the roleplaying? If he manages to pull it off it's because his character is a really sweet talker. Why couldn't you roleplay that?

Everytime he fails to lie and everytime he succeeds and gets found out it'll become harder next time anyway. After 2 or 3 times it'll be impossible for him to lie his way out of it even with a nat 1 vs a nat 20

What he said.

Dice and roleplaying go hand in hand. One does not trump the other. And the point of the dice is to resolve things like this. There is a possibility that an amazing liar could pull this off, and his character happens to be specialized in lying. I am not sure what the issue here is. Is someone excessively losing control of their character because they were tripped when they wanted to stand up and make a monologue? No?

So what's the hard part about accepting that a trained and talented liar might, if things go his way, fool his brother? Enabler or not, unless his brother is just out to get him - his frustration having become outright rage at his own brother - there should be a part of him that wants to believe his brother is better than this. And if he doesn't have overwhelming prior evidence of it...

Burley
2008-08-15, 03:16 PM
I've already resolved not to dig through his bags without just provocation. I resolve this because I don't want to have to deal with this kind of check.
If his character is able to bluff me into believing that the drugs aren't drugs, or that they are for a innocent cause, then, okay. But, I'm not going to actively pursue this sort of prediciment in game.
That said:
I'd already made up my character to be a D.A.R.E. Cop type, anyways. My skills are focused on Insight, Diplomacy and Intimidation. What would the checks be to use my Intimidate to scare him straight before the Bluffing ever takes place?
Would that be unfair? To decide what his character does because I roll better than he does?

fractic
2008-08-15, 03:24 PM
I've already resolved not to dig through his bags without just provocation. I resolve this because I don't want to have to deal with this kind of check.
If his character is able to bluff me into believing that the drugs aren't drugs, or that they are for a innocent cause, then, okay. But, I'm not going to actively pursue this sort of prediciment in game.
That said:
I'd already made up my character to be a D.A.R.E. Cop type, anyways. My skills are focused on Insight, Diplomacy and Intimidation. What would the checks be to use my Intimidate to scare him straight before the Bluffing ever takes place?
Would that be unfair? To decide what his character does because I roll better than he does?

I'd say using intimidate could work but it's a lot more dangerous ground than bluff is. Intimidate actually changes behaviour while bluff just indicates that the character is damn good at sweet talking. NPCs also use bluff against PCs all the time but rarely intimidate and never diplomacy.

Intimidate would also really alienate your brother.

AstralFire
2008-08-15, 03:26 PM
What would the checks be to use my Intimidate to scare him straight before the Bluffing ever takes place?
Would that be unfair? To decide what his character does because I roll better than he does?

Wouldn't be unfair. Just like he'd have a penalty to his Bluff, though, so will you - and just like you'd have your choice of actions to take after a theoretical Bluff left you believing his sincerity (such as to take the drugs anyway, just in case), he would have the choice of straying away from whatever path you scared him down if your presence as a scare factor becomes muted for whatever reason. You would also almost certainly alienate him unless at some level what you said got to him sincerely, and attempting Diplomacy after Intimidate is hard to work.

Burley
2008-08-15, 03:38 PM
I think it would be equally alienating for him to lie to me.
I wouldn't physically threaten him. I would show him drawings of people who did drugs, and then were eaten by Barghests, or something similar. Y'know...the way D.A.R.E. Cops intimitate children.

Would I have a better chance to Intimidate him than for him to bluff me? Intimidate vs. Will would be stronger than Bluff vs. Insight. Right? And, if he bluffs me, couldn't I just Intimidate him right back? "Are you sure you're not lying? I'm not angry, but drugs attract things that molest you when you sleep."

fractic
2008-08-15, 03:42 PM
I think it would be equally alienating for him to lie to me.

To a degree yes. But you are trying to help him.



I wouldn't physically threaten him. I would show him drawings of people who did drugs, and then were eaten by Barghests, or something similar. Y'know...the way D.A.R.E. Cops intimitate children.

I don't think that's really what the intimidate skill represents. Sounds like something better handled by roleplaying



Would I have a better chance to Intimidate him than for him to bluff me? Intimidate vs. Will would be stronger than Bluff vs. Insight. Right? And, if he bluffs me, couldn't I just Intimidate him right back? "Are you sure you're not lying? I'm not angry, but drugs attract things that molest you when you sleep."

Remember DnD isn't a competitive game, it's not a fight between your characters.

AstralFire
2008-08-15, 03:42 PM
I think it would be equally alienating for him to lie to me.

Perhaps. But it's a different kind. Playing with intimidate is risky because you basically have told the person you are willing to use physical force (or blackmail, etc) which will tell them that that is now on the table. When he lies to you, he has put emotional distance and hurt in the relationship. When you intimidate him (via the actual definition of the skill), you have sent a signal that you care more about your morals than his actual well-being, to the point of threatening violence upon him. This also opens up his options to try and lose you, then, if he is offended enough.


I wouldn't physically threaten him. I would show him drawings of people who did drugs, and then were eaten by Barghests, or something similar. Y'know...the way D.A.R.E. Cops intimitate children.

That's Persuasion. Not Intimidation, via RAW. it's clever, but:
"Target Becomes Hostile: Using Intimidate usually makes a target hostile toward you, even if you don't succeed on the check."
(4E)

"The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile)."
(3E)

Now, last I checked, I didn't go all Rabid Chihuahua on a DARE officer within an hour of him speaking to us. So.

hamishspence
2008-08-15, 03:43 PM
I remember the classic joke about two people putting people off drugs, both by drawing two circles. First put off 100, second put off 1000. First did so by saying "this is your brain before drugs, and this is your brain after drugs"

Second....those who have read joke will know what I mean. Good use of Bluff. Or possibly Intimidate. Diplomacy.

DizzyD
2008-08-16, 08:19 AM
The dm ruled in my favor but with a +2 to his insight(i think he saw it as i did with the whole brother thing because me and my brother are not as close). But I'm still quite concerned... it seems even the group is torn on this matter. Is there any rule (meaning can anyone give me a book and page number) that says you can't bluff a PC?

Also our DM said "You can't intimidate other PCs cause they are freely controlled by their player. That's an RP matter. Otherwise, it would essentially be charm or dominate person."

AstralFire
2008-08-16, 08:28 AM
The dm ruled in my favor but with a +2 to his insight(i think he saw it as i did with the whole brother thing because me and my brother are not as close). But I'm still quite concerned... it seems even the group is torn on this matter. Is there any rule (meaning can anyone give me a book and page number) that says you can't bluff a PC?

Also our DM said "You can't intimidate other PCs cause they are freely controlled by their player. That's an RP matter. Otherwise, it would essentially be charm or dominate person."

I see where he's coming from because Intimidate uses the "disposition category" thing. But still, I'd allow it. Via 4E rules I'd honestly think about allowing Diplomacy, use Will as the opposed +circumstance modifier.

As far as I know, there is no such rule ever for Bluff in 3E - even diplomacy was technically PC usable since you were supposed to make opposed rolls instead of categories in some situations. Scanning the DMG and PHB I again see no such restriction in 4E.

ericgrau
2008-08-16, 11:42 AM
Kudos to him for not just automatically rolling dice and thinking about whether or not this is plausible.

But this might be plausible so, if you can make up a plausible story, you can try to convince him of it. In 3.5e there are circumstance penalties of -5 (minor), -10 (significant), or -20 (far-fetched, but still kinda plausible) depending on situation. They apply both to the level of risk and believability. In this situation I'd say -10 for significant mistrust and -5 for minor risk to your health (assuming he's worried about your health). Or if the addiction poses a significant risk to your health, that'd be -10. So if you were playing 3.5e then you'd get a -15 or -20 to your bluff check, but you still might trick him.

If you fail by less than 5 (or 10, if significant drug addiction), it means he kinda believes you but doesn't want to take the chance, so he just takes the pill anyway to be safe. Same goes for any bluff check that involves a level of risk. If he doesn't care about your well being, he may not bother and the above -5 or -10 penalty for risk doesn't apply.

Depending on your story, the penalties might be higher. Usually you can't get a bonus nor lessen the penalties, not even for a good story. But if a situation involes no real risk of harm to you and/or it's something he wants to believe ("I'm going to a doc in town for rehabilitation" when he already thinks you're on the road to recovery), you might get a +5.

If you succeed he believes your claim, at least for a little while. He may still become suspicious about it later.

DizzyD
2008-08-16, 12:57 PM
That makes plenty of since and i Don't mind taking the huge penaltys... i just wanted that chance...