Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AzraelNoir 11-02-07, 01:17 AM	So I figure that mind blank can override bluff checks made against you without you having to make a sense motive check. Theres nothing specifically in the rules stating how exactly such a thing would be handled. I assume that since bluff attempts to alter your perceptions it is considered a mind influencing effect for all intensive purposes. This becomes even more crucial as far as epic bluff is concerned. It just does not make sense that someone with epic bluff can use it as a suggestion to suggest something to somone protected by a mind blank power. Suggestion is normally considered a mind affecting spell/effect so I cant see why it would be any different with bluff. By rule of backwards compatability (or something) if an epic suggestion/bluff can be foiled by mind blank then how come a lower DC bluff also wouldnt. The reason I am making this post is because I got into an argument with my players over this tonight and I want an official ruleing on it.
Lokathor 11-02-07, 02:33 AM	Well there's no official ruling to be found here. However, I wouldn't think Mindblank can make you not have to use Sense Motive. You can't be Suggested perhaps, but you can still be lied to. Put another way, I consider Mindblank to be a defense (against enchanters). I also consider Bluff to be a defense (against inquisitors) when you're just using it to pull off a lie. I don't think that one defense should be able to foil another defense like this.
runestar 11-02-07, 03:05 AM	Mindblank lacks the mind-affecting factor. You can bluff undead, so no reason not to affect mages with said spell on.:)
Merestil Haye 11-02-07, 09:11 AM	Using Bluff is not in any way shape or form a magical spell or effect. It is entirely mundane. Mind Blank has exactly no effect on Bluff checks.
imakuni67 11-02-07, 09:22 AM	Mind blank won't help you directly with bluff checks, but will protect you against say zone of truth, detect thought and the like in case you are lying and they can't out-sense motive you. For good bluff checks, a scroll of glibness does the trick
Tordak 11-02-07, 09:24 AM	Mind Blank protects you against all mind-affecting spells and effects (magical or not), and all information gathering through divination spells and effects. Unless it is written otherwise somewhere in some book or reference I haven't read, bluff is not a mind-affecting spell or effect. There is no interation between the two. That epic use of the Bluff skill state it is identical to the suggestion spell, although not magical; suggestion is a mind-affecting spell, that particular use of the skill is a (non-magical) mind-affecting effect and should be stymie by mind-blank.
foxtail 11-02-07, 12:33 PM	If the bluff skill were mind-affecting, the skill description would say so, just like every "mind-affecting" spell or effect out there. Bluff no more affects an opponent's mind than a Hide check affects their vision. The epic usage, however, is nixed, because it is specifically stated as being identical to suggestion, which, per the words "mind-affecting" in the spell listing, is in fact mind-affecting.
Qube 11-02-07, 02:00 PM	Using Bluff is not in any way shape or form a magical spell or effect. It is entirely mundane. unless you use bluff for a non-magical suggestion (see epic use). This use of bluff, lets someone believe he thinks something, which is clearly mind affection. so this use of bluff does affect the mind; so mind blank protects against it.
imakuni67 11-02-07, 02:06 PM	If the bluff skill were mind-affecting, the skill description would say so, just like every "mind-affecting" spell or effect out there. Bluff no more affects an opponent's mind than a Hide check affects their vision. Well put!
AzraelNoir 11-03-07, 12:40 AM	Okayyyy, somehow it just does not make sense for the powerful wizard with mind blank ,who could kill the bard in an instant, to be talked into not attacking him by a simple bluff. The max modifier in the book is +20 for an "impossible to believe" bluff. Just about any character can make a + to skill item that gives them like +40 (or more) for like 160000. There has to be some other way around this skill or just about every one of my major enemies will have to have sense motive items to prevail. BTW on mind blank it says all mind influencing spells and effects There is no technical definition for effects so I would assume that bluff falls under that category since it influences your pattern of thought.
foxtail 11-03-07, 01:52 AM	That's what detect thoughts or zone of truth is for. And remember that modifiers for the believability of the Bluff apply; if an obviously weaker bard tells a high-level wizard that he should surrender or be destroyed, that's going to be a major bonus on the Sense Motive check. And "effects" might not be a technical term, but "mind-affecting" most certainly is.
StruckingFuggle 11-03-07, 02:07 AM	Okayyyy, somehow it just does not make sense for the powerful wizard with mind blank ,who could kill the bard in an instant, to be talked into not attacking him by a simple bluff. If you accept that, then you have to accept that Mind Blank keeps you from being deceived by anything, ever, when it's up. By your logic it's a perfect Zone of Truth, because you can't be lied to! Ever! (so long as it's up) About anything. That's all bluff does, in one capacity or another - allows you to tell a very convincing lie. The max modifier in the book is +20 for an "impossible to believe" bluff. Just about any character can make a + to skill item that gives them like +40 (or more) for like 160000. And Bards can cast glibness, which gives them +40. Also, what the guy above me said. "Mind-effecting" is a defined quality. If something is "mind-effecting", not in a literal sense of semantics that it 'effects your mind', but in the technical sense that it relates to the [mind effecting] descriptor, then it has that descriptor. Bluff doesn't, so while it effects your mind, it is not "mind effecting" in a rules-significant way.
runestar 11-03-07, 02:14 AM	Okayyyy, somehow it just does not make sense for the powerful wizard with mind blank ,who could kill the bard in an instant, to be talked into not attacking him by a simple bluff. Mindblank simply protects you from magical effects which might sway your judgement. It does not grant you the benefit of common sense you do not have. If a bard can muster say, a +100 bluff check, this means that he is able to craft a very elaborate lie which most people would be hard-pressed to ignore. The wizard is no exception.
Qube 11-03-07, 02:33 AM	Okayyyy, somehow it just does not make sense for the powerful wizard with mind blank ,who could kill the bard in an instant, to be talked into not attacking him by a simple bluff. bluff - "I am your actually friend": works ( impossible bluff) bluff - "you think that pool of acid is a pool of water and you to jump in it": doesn't work (epic use bluff: non-magical suggestion). IMO its a gray line, and rulings should be made for a case by case senario
Merestil Haye 11-03-07, 06:43 AM	Nitpick.The max modifier in the book is +20 for an "impossible to believe" bluff. Just about any character can make a + to skill item that gives them like +40 (or more) for like 160,000.(I've taken the liberty of adding the thousands spacer to the number to make it easier to read.) No, I don't think anybody can make that item for that price. Or anywhere near it. I leafed through the Epic skill usages. The Epic skill rules say that skill uses are considered extraordinary "except when noted otherwise." I didn't find a skill usage which explicitly stated "this is a magical effect," so I conclude that the way the non-extraordinary skills can be identified is when the skill use makes reference to duplicating the casting of a spell. On this basis I'm prepared to agree that Mind Blank protects against the Epic use of Bluff. The regular ones? Not a chance.
runestar 11-03-07, 07:12 AM	No, I don't think anybody can make that item for that price. Or anywhere near it. The non-epic cap is +30. Any higher and said item is subject to epic pricing rules. I didn't find a skill usage which explicitly stated "this is a magical effect," so I conclude that the way the non-extraordinary skills can be identified is when the skill use makes reference to duplicating the casting of a spell. Exactly, nowhere in the epic usage of bluff is it stated anywhere that it is magical in nature. I believe that clause was simply meant as a "catch-all" in case some future supplement introduced a magical use for a normal skill check. For example, the improved sr epic feat stated that it could improve the sr granted via a feat, even though no such feat yet existed at the time ELH was printed (though there were such feats in subsequent splatbooks). Likewise, I believe that the way the epic usage of bluff is phrased, it is meant to imply that only the effects of suggestion is replicated, but not its other areas such as casting time/components/descriptors etc, nor would the target be entitled to a will save or allow sr. Since bluff was meant to work like suggestion, the designers probably found it more convenient to just have it reference suggestion, rather than replicate the entire text again.:)
Tordak 11-03-07, 09:55 AM	The text for mind blank says 'all mind-affecting spells and effects', with no references to magical effect but for the first sentence who '...protects against spells...'. That does not imply it limited to magical effet however. The construct and undead immunity certainly applies to any kind of mind-affecting effects, magical or not. I think mind-blank is built in the same way. As for epic uses of bluff, the identical to suggestion part mean it's a language dependant, mind-affecting ability. The rest doesn't apply either because it not a spell (SR, components) or because it's covered in the bluff description already (target, area, duration, etc...).
runestar 11-03-07, 10:13 AM	To be honest, I have yet to see an extraordinary, mind-affecting ability. Perhaps this is supposed to be the first...?:confused: The reason why I feel it should lack the mind-affecting ability is exactly because there is no mind for it to affect. It simply represents your lying skills being so good that you are able to literally fake people into doing whatever you tell them to do. People fall for it the same way they fall for hoax emails telling them to send money overseas. It is just brought to a whole new level. It does not necessarily mean that people will jump into a pool of acid just because you tell them too. Rather, you will have created some elaborate story about how the pool of acid is actually some fountain of youth, and will cure them of all their ailments, while constantly reassuring them and dispelling any doubts they may have, until they trust you implicitly. We might gloss over this because face it, in real life, no one can logically muster a bluff check that high.:)
StruckingFuggle 11-03-07, 12:18 PM	The text for mind blank says 'all mind-affecting spells and effects', with no references to magical effect but for the first sentence who '...protects against spells...'. That does not imply it limited to magical effet however. The construct and undead immunity certainly applies to any kind of mind-affecting effects, magical or not. I think mind-blank is built in the same way. ...It might not be limited to magical effects, but it is limited to mind-affecting spells and effects. Mind-affecting is, in dnd, a defined descriptor that some effects have (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor). Therefore, mind blank is limited to working on things with the mind-affecting descriptor. Bluff does not have such a descriptor. QED, it does not work for bluff.
Tordak 11-03-07, 12:58 PM	...It might not be limited to magical effects, but it is limited to mind-affecting spells and effects. Mind-affecting is, in dnd, a defined descriptor that some effects have (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor). Therefore, mind blank is limited to working on things with the mind-affecting descriptor. Bluff does not have such a descriptor. QED, it does not work for bluff. Regular bluff doesn't, but the epic use is said to be identical to the effect of the sugestion spell. Not whether the word effect means same 'type' of effect (same 'descriptor', altough descriptor is usually a word reserved for spells) or only similar result is up to debate. I say that the first is why the wrote that in the epic bluff 'suggestion', but to think otherwise is not faulty. Of course anything esle you do with bluff is not mind-affecting, unless also related to a specific spell or ability that has the descriptor, and therefore not subject to mind-blank. They also add It can be sensed as if it were an enchantment effect so it might push the balance in favor of a 'same descriptor'. Bluff is, as is suggestion, a language-dependant skill most a the time. Even when used for feinting the creatures type is important even if no language is involved. Of course most epic user of bluff have mean to communicate with most sentient beings. And you can only use QED when demonstatring something with irrefutable arguments. To be honest, I have yet to see an extraordinary, mind-affecting ability. Perhaps this is supposed to be the first...? I can't think of one either(other than epic bluff).
StruckingFuggle 11-03-07, 01:03 PM	Regular bluff doesn't, but the epic use is said to be identical to the effect of the sugestion spell. Not whether the word effect means same 'type' of effect (same descriptor) or only similar result is up to debate. I say that's why the wrote that in the epic bluff 'suggestion', but to think otherwise is not faulty. Of course anything esle you do with bluff is not mind-affecting, unless also related to a specific spell or ability that has the descriptor. Alright. Agreed. Tentatively. I'm not sure that epic bluff is magical and a descriptor-ed effect, both because I think that'd be written and I think it's just a shorthand to save a lot of text, but I would find such a ruling acceptable and a valid reading of the rules. But it's just plain not the case at all for normal, non-epic bluff, is what I wanted to explain. :) They also add "It can be sensed as if it were an enchantment effect" so it might push the balance in favor of a 'same descriptor'. Bah, no, all that means is that you can use sense motive to tell if someone's been bluffed or not. I can't think of one either(other than epic bluff). They may just be covering their bases in case of future additions.
Tordak 11-03-07, 01:27 PM	Alright. Agreed. Tentatively. I'm not sure that epic bluff is magical and a descriptor-ed effect, both because I think that'd be written and I think it's just a shorthand to save a lot of text, but I would find such a ruling acceptable and a valid reading of the rules. It's not magical, you're correct on that. Bah, no, all that means is that you can use sense motive to tell if someone's been bluffed or not. ok, you're probably right.
AzraelNoir 11-05-07, 11:48 PM	Yeah I don't even know why people are making the non-magical vs. magical argument here. I think it is pretty clear that mind blank is not limited to only magical effects. It is all mind influencing spells and effects. Now, an idiot with no grasp on grammar might read this as something like "all spells and effects (being magical in nature; because spells precede effects) which are mind influencing," but this is not true. It is intended to read as "anything which may influence your mind." If it were limited only spells (meaning only magic) it wouldn't mention "effects" As far as bluff not having a descriptor; this is true. However, I think it is indisputable that bluff does influence one's cognitions (the way one thinks.) Now, even though it does lack the very specific mind affecting descriptor it makes perfect sense that bluff influences the mind in some way. As for the mind blank being a zone of truth...if I remember correctly, zone of truth is a 2nd level spell. Mind Blank is an 8th level spell...I think it wouldn't be terribly broken if mind blank does everything that a zone of truth does (not saying that it does.) Also, this is an 8th level spell. Its called mind blank...just by the name of it one could assume that you can't ever be "fooled" because your mind is blank. It basically shuts down parts of the brain, or blocks synaptic activitiy that would lead to the altering of brain waves by mundane or magical means. I know im being really technical but since there is no definitive answer to this question anyways it helps to be as technical as possible with the semantics. All I am asking is this (and this is what people should be doing when there is no ruling on a situation,) throw away everything you know about the rules of dnd because this issue is beyond the rules (since there is no ruleing.) Everyone should be using cold logic and reasoning to solve problems such as these because they will enevitably lead to the best conclusion; not mucking about in a circle. In laymans terms, stop reasoning within the rules when there are no rules for a situation. I know I said I wanted an "official ruling" but since it is apparent that there isn't one you can only speculate logically (or obtain an official ruling.) Also, thank you, I forgot about the epic rules for crafting items.
StruckingFuggle 11-06-07, 12:03 AM	Now, an idiot with no grasp on grammar might read this as something like "all spells and effects (being magical in nature; because spells precede effects) which are mind influencing," but this is not true. It is intended to read as "anything which may influence your mind." If it were limited only spells (meaning only magic) it wouldn't mention "effects" No, it's meant to mean things with the mind-affecting descriptor, that's why they use the term which has a specifically defined meaning in Dungeons And Dragons, which is not "anything which may influence your mind". As far as bluff not having a descriptor; this is true. However, I think it is indisputable that bluff does influence one's cognitions (the way one thinks.) Now, even though it does lack the very specific mind affecting descriptor it makes perfect sense that bluff influences the mind in some way. But not in a way that Mind Blank touches. I know im being really technical but since there is no definitive answer to this question anyways it helps to be as technical as possible with the semantics. There would be if you'd realize that when something is defined in dnd, going to semantic definitions over the operational definition of the rules won't deliver an accurate answer. All I am asking is this (and this is what people should be doing when there is no ruling on a situation,) throw away everything you know about the rules of dnd because this issue is beyond the rules (since there is no ruleing.) But ... there is. In laymans terms, stop reasoning within the rules when there are no rules for a situation. Instead of saying "there is", again, I will ask you rather to show why the established rules do not cover the situation.
Merestil Haye 11-06-07, 07:50 AM	Yeah I don't even know why people are making the non-magical vs. magical argument here. I think it is pretty clear that mind blank is not limited to only magical effects. It is all mind influencing spells and effects. Now, an idiot with no grasp on grammar might read this as something like "all spells and effects (being magical in nature; because spells precede effects) which are mind influencing," but this is not true. It is intended to read as "anything which may influence your mind." If it were limited only spells (meaning only magic) it wouldn't mention "effects"This last sentence? Is wrong. An "effect" is something produced by a special ability that is not a spell. If Mind Blank just said "spells" then it would not protect against this :-Dominate (Su) A vampire can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must use a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). The ability has a range of 30 feet. That is a magical effect that influences your mind. You'll notice that the ability says it works "as though" the subject were affected by Dominate Person. I read that to mean that it has the same properties as Dominate Person - including the [Mind-Affecting] descriptor. As I said above, I've come to the conclusion that the Instill Suggestion power is meant to work exactly like the Suggestion spell (except that, being nonmagical, it would work in an AMF or through Globes of Invulnerability). Mind Blank will protect against the Epic usage of the skill. Nowhere is there any support for claiming that it allows you to avoid being lied to though. Lying doesn't have the [Mind-affecting] descriptor. If it did, you couldn't lie to any Undead, ever.
runestar 11-06-07, 09:11 AM	I am still quite iffy over Merestil Haye's interpretation because it means that among other rammifications, I cannot use the suggestion version of epic bluff on undead. In a way, I am still convinced that it is nothing more than a very outlandish extension of the bluff skill (but an extension nonetheless), even as I cannot deny Merestil Haye's very convincing and logical argument.:(
Captain_Kobold 11-06-07, 10:35 AM	Okayyyy, somehow it just does not make sense for the powerful wizard with mind blank ,who could kill the bard in an instant, to be talked into not attacking him by a simple bluff. If the wizard believes initially that he is in a position of power, then that will give him a bonus to his sense motive check opposing the Bard's bluff check. If the wizard is still rather naive (Not a very high sense motive) then that will make him more likely to fail the roll and believe the bluff. The max modifier in the book is +20 for an "impossible to believe" bluff. Just about any character can make a + to skill item that gives them like +40 (or more) for like 160000. . . . and what is stopping the wizard from making an item that gives him a similar or greater bonus to his sense motive? There has to be some other way around this skill or just about every one of my major enemies will have to have sense motive items to prevail. Bluffing will not work in every situation, and often only lasts for 1 round. You might have the enemies looking the other way for a moment, or pausing to reconsider, but its not going to win an encounter on its own. BTW on mind blank it says all mind influencing spells and effects There is no technical definition for effects so I would assume that bluff falls under that category since it influences your pattern of thought. There is a technical definition for mind-affecting effects. In the same way as there is for for example language-dependent effects. It just so happens that many of them are magical in nature. Practically all of the Bardic music effects for example are magical, mind-affecting and language dependent, but not spells. A Dragon's frightful presence however is also mind-affecting, but in no way magical. It is still prevented by Mind Blank. Constructs and Undead are immune to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). You can still for example use bluff to feint against one that has an intelligence score though.
AzraelNoir 11-07-07, 12:22 AM	There would be if you'd realize that when something is defined in dnd, going to semantic definitions over the operational definition of the rules won't deliver an accurate answer. In the absence of operational details you are forced to use semantics. That was my point! There is no clear cut operational answer to this question so one can only use logic and attempt to accurately define the original intent. In other words (and SO MANY PEOPLE DO THIS AND I AM SOOO SICK OF IT) please stop making declarations as if they were the actual rules, rather than your own interpretations of them. Also please do not interpret my statement as being hypocritical in nature with my previous point. Instead, try to understand that there is a difference between stating your opinion as fact and saying it is merely an opinion. Since there is no official ruling But ... there is. No....no, there is not. If there is PLEASE site it rather than just posting "there is." Honestly, what does "there is" prove...nothing but your own opinion with no evidence. All I am looking for is the evidence so please for gods sake prove me wrong. However, if you are going to do so prove me wrong with infallible logic and evidence from the book rather than your own...sorry I don't even know what you are trying to say with "but...there is;" it proves nothing (if you are refering to a previous point you made please just assume I am too stupid or lazy to go back and read what you have posted prior. Also, its just bad form.) I am merely asking for a logical opinion. So far everyone has been speculating based on what the rules say. I am asking you all, what do you think? If you want to know the real reason I have brought this up it is this (do not read unless you are prepared for a bit of ego stroking)...I have created (without the use of infinites: any spell, ability, and or combination which results in an infinite damage, increase to ability scores, or (potentially) infinite anything; yes, pun pun, and omniscifer fall in this droll category) a character which is dare I say unbeatable (I don't want any lectures on how you should not throw unbeatable NPC's at players. First, this is my game; Second, the way they truely defeat this character is by foiling his plans and efforts.) However, this bluff ruling could potentially undermine him since he only has mind blank (which usually covers most bases) active. Now, I suppose the check could be near impossible because he knows how powerful he is. But, I would rather him "legitimately be that powerful. I just don't want some stupid bard char he could kill with a thought to foil him (also please don't start an argument about how hes not as invincible as I think he is and how so and so could beat him. No, he probabably can't; unlike this bluff issue (obviously) he is well researched and without being an "infinite" you CANNOT beat him. Point is, I am very proud of this char and I don't want him to be undermined "legitimately" by some stupid, ill conceived bard. An "effect" is something produced by a special ability that is not a spell. If Mind Blank just said "spells" then it would not protect against this I'm sorry you obviously missed my point....that was it. I was making the exact same point you just made preceding this quote. I know it is not limited to spells...thats why it mentions "effects." Also I don't have any opinion on the epic bluff at the moment. However, I think its safe to assume that you can use a bluff which has a check above epic without instilling the suggestion; because the suggestion is an option. It is also safe to assume that the bluff's suggestion works just as if it were a suggestion spell meaning it IS subject to mind blank. Yes, I know I just repeated your point merestil, I am just trying to clarify that it was indeed my original point despite the "potential" lack of communicating it properly. . . . and what is stopping the wizard from making an item that gives him a similar or greater bonus to his sense motive? Its that I don't want to have to make him create one. When you do something like that it just seems cheesy somehow. It's like, you have +40 to hit; ohhhhh, too bad I specifically crafted this fighter to have a 60 AC just to foil your bonus (the key word here is specifically; I don't like giving enemies things that are specific counters to things players have. If they are universal counters it makes sense though) Bluffing will not work in every situation, and often only lasts for 1 round. You might have the enemies looking the other way for a moment, or pausing to reconsider, but its not going to win an encounter on its own. Thank you! I actually didn't realize that; it does make a difference. I don't mind an enemy pondering for a round or two.
StruckingFuggle 11-07-07, 01:45 AM	No....no, there is not. If there is PLEASE site it rather than just posting "there is." Honestly, what does "there is" prove...nothing but your own opinion with no evidence. *facedesk* Okay, evidence. "Mind-affecting" is defined in the rules. The link proving this has been provided already. Therefore, when something in the game says references "mind-affecting" things, shouldn't you look at the definition of what is and is not mind-affecting? In this case, it would be "things with or without the mind-affecting descriptor" Mind blank uses mind-affecting, which is a defined term, therefore it only applies to to things with the mind-affecting descriptor. Bluff does not have the mind-affecting descriptor. QED, Mind Blank does not prevent you from being bluffed. Similarly ... if you use a spell in a particular way that you consider evil, and consider it to be an evil spell, but it does not possess the "evil" descriptor, then you won't get a +1 to the caster level from the Evil domain (+1 CL for Evil Spells), would you? (well, barring houserules) It's the exact. same. thing. How is that not proof? It's not explicitly spelled out because it doesn't have to be spelled out that "things without 'descriptor (X)' aren't 'descriptor X'"!
arjomanes 11-07-07, 02:16 AM	No. Mind Blank does not protect against bluff. Mind Blank protects against "all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects." Bluff is a non-magical skill "check opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check." Bluff is clearly neither a mind-affecting spell nor effect. See the link kindly provided above by StruckingFuggle. Also, I'm rather unhappy about the wording of epic bluff; it's a horrible way to phrase a rule.
Bahumut 11-07-07, 02:46 AM	I have created (without the use of infinites: any spell, ability, and or combination which results in an infinite damage, increase to ability scores, or (potentially) infinite anything; yes, pun pun, and omniscifer fall in this droll category) a character which is dare I say unbeatable (I don't want any lectures on how you should not throw unbeatable NPC's at players. First, this is my game; Second, the way they truely defeat this character is by foiling his plans and efforts.) However, this bluff ruling could potentially undermine him since he only has mind blank (which usually covers most bases) active. Now, I suppose the check could be near impossible because he knows how powerful he is. But, I would rather him "legitimately be that powerful. I just don't want some stupid bard char he could kill with a thought to foil him (also please don't start an argument about how hes not as invincible as I think he is and how so and so could beat him. No, he probabably can't; unlike this bluff issue (obviously) he is well researched and without being an "infinite" you CANNOT beat him. Point is, I am very proud of this char and I don't want him to be undermined "legitimately" by some stupid, ill conceived bard. "If it has stats, we can kill it" - T.G. Jackson, intro to 3rd Ed Hackmaster. if you, as a DM, are afraid of "legitimately" having one of your NPCs "taken out", then you have bigger problems than we can help you with. I'm willing to bet that you are a new DM and/or have some self-esteem issues. guess what. YOU ARE THE DM. if you dont want the player to be able to bluff your NPC, then you have the right to say that his bluff check fails, even on a nat 20. if you roll behind a screen, just say the wizard got a nat 20 too on his sense motive roll. say he can read their thoughts. say WHATEVER you want to, you DONT NEED TO JUSTIFY IT. the point is, if you need to stat out a super awesome "no one can stop my bestest character ever" DMPC, and have it taunt the party for whatever reason you need to advance your game, go right ahead. just remember that the DMs job is to make the game a fun and rewarding experience for the players, not to just have the most fun he can.
runestar 11-07-07, 03:57 AM	AzraelNoir, You have demonstrated a decent reason for why mindblank should ward against epic uses of bluff. However, you have not proven why it would not work. Which is what we are discussing. Anyone can implement any houserule they want in their games, it is meaningless to discuss about them in this context.:)
foxtail 11-07-07, 01:38 PM	For just one moment let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "mind-affecting" is not a clearly-defined, technical term in the game of D&D. (Because it is.) Let's say it's a purely subjective term, a creation that power-gamers drool over and meek DMs fear. Would Bluff be considered mind-affecting? I beleive the answer is still no. When you roll a Bluff check, your character is attempting to disguise his true motives - whether by telling a lie or feinting with his blade, he's presenting a facade for other people to see. As the Disguise skill masks a character's body, the Bluff skill masks his intent. Nothing your character does actually directly affects any other character; the changes all take place in his own body language, voice, or attitude. There's no external force or effect rearranging the synapses in an observer's brain. So the mighty mage relying on his mind blank to cast powerful enchantments aside can be fooled for a moment by a canny rogue with a practiced silver tongue. And you know what? That's awesome. That's the stuff fantasy stories are made of.
AzraelNoir 11-07-07, 02:16 PM	OK, I see the link now but that was in a previous post; if you are going to do something like that at least post something like (see link in previous post) rather than a general statement. You can't just assume that I remember there was a link in a post you made prior to the one containing "but there is." However, you have not proven why it would not work. Which is what we are discussing. Anyone can implement any houserule they want in their games, it is meaningless to discuss about them in this context. The point is I can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, neither can you all with this mind blank issue. However my argument of why it would work is pretty solid so you don't really have to argue why it wouldn't work. Anything trying to prove why it wouldn't work is mostly just houseruling; just like it is now fairly pointless to argue my original point since overwhelming evidence has been presented. In epic bluff it states identical to a suggestion/detect thoughts spell Now, even though it is non magical in nature suggestion/detect thoughts both contain the mind-affecting descriptors. Since we have already established that mind blank is not exclusive to magical effects and works against anything with the mind-affecting descriptor it should therefore work. Foxtail does make a good (and logical point.) I will concede that when bluff is thought about in that way it is not mind affecting. I will address a completely separate issue now since I believe it needs to be addressed Bahamut I don't appreciate the personal attack; I am not a new dm (10 years) nor do I have self esteem issues. If I remember correctly I specifically commented I don't want any lectures on how you should not throw unbeatable NPC's at players. First, this is my game; Second, the way they truely defeat this character is by foiling his plans and efforts. This means two things. First, I am aware that you "shouldn't do certian things as a DM (as mentioned in the dmg.) However, what people fail to realize is that these are ALSO guidelines (just like any rule in dnd) subject to change as I see fit. Second, I specifically asked people to NOT comment on this idea meaning you are probably not experienced enough as a dm to question my methods. I will explain this if I must. First, rules like not using deus ex machina are rubbish. How many times in a television show or anime, or something have you seen a powerful char come at the last minute to save someone else. Lets explore an episode of bleach for those of you who are familiar with it. There was an episode where the main character (ichigo) was fighting against two enemies (yami and ulquiorra) and was clearly overwhelmed. Ulquiorra (the more powerful of the two) was about to deal a lethal blow and two of the mentor type characters (urahara and yoroichi) came at the last moment and deflected the blow. Now, why was this done? Character development. It first allowed for new characters to be introduced and worked into the story. Second, it allowed for the main character to see what hes up against and strive to improve and overcome that obsticle. So therefore, if I feel like having actual character development within a hack and slash game type similar uses of deus ex machina are essential. This is a good example of how deus ex machina can be used to further the story line and introduce new characters. Is this wrong...maybe if you want to read the rules in the dmg as black and white. Now that I have prepped you with a clear example of why it is sometimes good to disregard the "abosolute" rules about dming in the dmg perhaps you can understand this... Yes he is virtually unbeatable, no you cannot beat him just because he has stats (that is a stupid quote.) There are two ways you can beat this character (as in killing him.) One, use an infinite char like pun pun or something which is stupid and im not even going to get into why infinites are stupid (the key word is theoretical.) Two, you need to craft a character so specific that uses a very specific combination of spells/abilities which could only be thought of/utilized if you were planning to take out this specific character. This is obviously stupid because it proves nothing. I play magic the gathering too. Sure I could craft a specific deck that would probably beat any world tournament winner. However, does that make me a better magic player than him....NO. Ok those are the reasons he is invincible, now for why he is in the campaign... Ever heard the saying theres more than one way to skin a cat, guess what....theres more to beating my character than defeating him in battle. The reason he IS invincible is because I want the characters to figure out some other way to beat him (foiling his plans time after time, conquering him emotionally by discovering his past, out smarting him somehow.) There are 1001 ways to "beat" someone other than killing them and I want to bring that kind of depth to my game. So please, bahamut, next time, before you speak, try not to think in black and white, and try not to insult me without considering all the possibilities. My experience in life and dming has given me a more eclectic view on how role playing games can be conducted. Oh yeah, and my players love every minute of my games. and I'm spent.
Bahumut 11-08-07, 12:43 AM	sorry if i got a little uppity last post, but it aggrivates me to no end when people need to stat out their NPCs that the party is not meant to beat in combat. if they are meant to beat him using some other means, such as foiling his plots and exposing him as a bad person, then you dont need to stat him. you just write the NPCs description, motives, personality, history, and role, then for the stat block write (unkillable), decide his social skill mods, and maybe list his archtype so you know what abilities to pull out of your hat. if the party is dumb enough to attack him, then there's your opportunity to Deus Ex Machina, just like you said; or, if the party REALLY screwed up, have the NPC kill them first, THEN introduce your DeM to revive them. just please. for gods sake. dont stat NPCs that you dont plan for the party to fight.
AzraelNoir 11-08-07, 09:51 AM	Again, please don't "think" you know whats going on without thinking of all the possibilities. I realize your detest for "stating out NPC's" and in most cases you are probably correct however my situation is different. The PC's are all 20th level (this is an epic level campaign) and some are very powerful "power gamer" types to boot. If I don't "stat out" an NPC they could all but use a spell like discern location, find him, teleport next to him, and kill him in a single round (while occasional use of deus ex is ok, I can't use it every time they try to kill him; which could be twice a day.) I can't just make this NPC some autocratic figure with political power because the PC's would be able to kill him if they wanted to and that's not how I wan't them to defeat him. Sure, I could technically just invent random things that "protect" him or even give him something like a non-detection cloak. These PC's are smart and will find some way around a "singular" defense. I needed to load this NPC up with so many protective spells and such that there is no possible way to kill him so they would be forced to foil him some other way. I could also just arbirarily say hes invincible for x reason but wheres the challenge in that; I would much rather use my own knowledge and thwart them legally (otherwise they could just bring up the argument that I had to break the rules to beat them or something.) Also, even though there is no possible way to kill him that does not mean that he can kill them. This NPC is high on defense, not offense (although it is decent.) So the PC's can fight him (if they choose to) without getting killed (they should easily be able to retreat.) Even if this NPC can kill the PC's it does not mean he will "try" to the first encounter. Remember one of the greatest folly of major villians is thier overconfidence. Why is this an epic level campaign if my aim isnt to necessarily power game? Because, honestly, I get bored at low levels (and so do they.) Higher levels allow for greater character customization and less boredom with your character (although some of the new books fixed lower level boredom to some extent.) Higher levels also allow for players to be more creative with their characters and give them more overall flavor. To fix the problem that the characters will be too powerful for well...everyone, I just re-adjusted the base level to 10 and the max "non-epic" (even though it still uses epic rules past 20) level to 30.