Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RavingDork 03-21-07, 12:28 PM	I witnessed an interesting game the other day in which a CE rogue PC (a conman who didn't invest in escaping skills) was arrested for his connections to the campaign's version of the mob. While in his cell the rogue used his Bluff skill to successfully to lead the guard into believing that the rogue had (or would soon have) personal knowledge of the guard's family members. He then used Intimidate to threaten the guard's loved ones (via mob contacts) if the guard didn't help him escape. The guard, fearing for his family, then unlocked the cell, released the prisoner, and got shanked for his troubles. The family, being relatively inconsequential to the rogue or the mob at this time, was left alone. Does this seem like a viable use of these skills to you? Or did the DM in question screw it up somehow?
gullas 03-21-07, 12:38 PM	well......the rouge was clearly thinking just for him self:rolleyes: I do think that is were bluff and intimidate comes on handy :)
Zherog 03-21-07, 12:48 PM	Seems to me that's exactly what those skills are meant to do...
Nephlite 03-21-07, 01:22 PM	I witnessed an interesting game the other day in which a CE rogue PC (a conman who didn't invest in escaping skills) was arrested for his connections to the campaign's version of the mob. While in his cell the rogue used his Bluff skill to successfully to lead the guard into believing that the rogue had (or would soon have) personal knowledge of the guard's family members. He then used Intimidate to threaten the guard's loved ones (via mob contacts) if the guard didn't help him escape. The guard, fearing for his family, then unlocked the cell, released the prisoner, and got shanked for his troubles. The family, being relatively inconsequential to the rogue or the mob at this time, was left alone. Does this seem like a viable use of these skills to you? Or did the DM in question screw it up somehow? Yes Intimidate makes them very helpful while in your presence (fearing you'll hurt his family/etc). You could have handed the guy your weapon and he wiould just hold it (not use it on you). Bluff makes him believe what you say is true. How they act on this knowledge is up to the individual.
Mystyc 03-21-07, 01:47 PM	If the guard was frightened of the rogue's threats -- and it's not just about the opposed checks, but also whether the guard even has a sister or kids or living parents -- and believed he was capable of following through on them, I would imagine that his actions were reasonable. Well done on the player for weaseling his way out of a tight spot. Of course, when the rest of the authorities find the guard killed and the rogue escaped, they will know to deal with him much more harshly if they lay hands on him again.
Bedevere 03-21-07, 02:14 PM	I'd absolutely LOVE it if one of my players was stupid enough to use that bluff, in one of my games. The guard would have been more likely to kill him on the spot, depending on his exact wording. 'He tried to escape, sir!' would be all the bluff he'd need in reply.
Mystyc 03-21-07, 02:38 PM	I'd absolutely LOVE it if one of my players was stupid enough to use that bluff, in one of my games. The guard would have been more likely to kill him on the spot, depending on his exact wording. 'He tried to escape, sir!' would be all the bluff he'd need in reply. Remember, the player didn't say, "I'll kill your family." He said, "My colleagues in the underworld will kill your family unless I tell them not to."
Zherog 03-21-07, 03:08 PM	I'd absolutely LOVE it if one of my players was stupid enough to use that bluff, in one of my games. The guard would have been more likely to kill him on the spot, depending on his exact wording. 'He tried to escape, sir!' would be all the bluff he'd need in reply. So, you wouldn't give the guard an opposed Sense Motive check? You'd just use DM fiat to declare he kills the rogue? Yay... :bored:
Goreg Skullcrusher 03-21-07, 03:11 PM	So, you wouldn't give the guard an opposed Sense Motive check? You'd just use DM fiat to declare he kills the rogue? Yay... :bored: Of course. How else are you going to go back to kicking in all those doors?
fatal error 03-21-07, 03:27 PM	So, you wouldn't give the guard an opposed Sense Motive check? You'd just use DM fiat to declare he kills the rogue? Yay... :bored: No, no. See, the guard has two choices: 1) help rogue escape, hope rogue won't still order his family killed. 2) Kill rogue, frame it as an escape, rogue now can't issue any order to kill guard's family. And really, who would believe that the rogue actually looked up every guard, told his contacts to kill their families in one week's time if he's not released, before being captured? If the rogue is dead he can't send any messages. And it is likely he didn't know the exact guard that would be guarding him before he was in prison. Thus, the guard would at least get a hefty bonus to Sense Motive, if the rogue even included this in his bluff. If the rogue just said, "Hey, I'll tell me friends to kill your family if you don't let me out." then the guard has every right to believe the best course of action would be to kill the rogue. Another way the guard could have acted would be to tell his commander to send some guards to protect his family, or ask for leave himself to keep them safe. Of course, this isn't strictly by the rules, since he isn't automatically acting in a "friendly" fashion, but I believe it is more reasonable than just saying he automatically helps the rogue, threat type notwithstanding.
Nom 03-21-07, 05:07 PM	Part of the point of Bluff skill is that you can finesse these things. A person skilled at "social engineering" can appear to know an enormous amount of information about a total stranger, just by being vague enough that the other party fills in the gaps. It's how most begging con-men work. Said PC did it correctly. He didn't go straight for Intimidate. Rather, he used Bluff to get the guy to believe that he knew the family, and then Intimidate to indirectly threaten them. One could apply circumstance modifiers as appropriate to the latter check (if the guard was particularly loyal and willing to risk his family), but in principle it's good play and the reason such skills exist. It's also hardly unreasonable to think this beyond the abilities of an elite confidence trickster.
CrazyMarv 03-21-07, 05:20 PM	I'd absolutely LOVE it if one of my players was stupid enough to use that bluff, in one of my games. The guard would have been more likely to kill him on the spot, depending on his exact wording. 'He tried to escape, sir!' would be all the bluff he'd need in reply. Great......in the games I play in the DM would at least fudge the guard's Sense Motive roll to make it look like he wasn't just out to hose me for using my skills. And really, who would believe that the rogue actually looked up every guard, told his contacts to kill their families in one week's time if he's not released, before being captured? Anyone in the world if the Rogue's Bluff beat their Sense Motive....that's how the skill works and what the skill does. Besides, all the Rogue needs is someone to cast Sending at the time he was scheduled to finish whatever job he was doing and he could relay that he was captured, and tell them to go to any predetermined plan. That's why there is at least a small reason to believe him, and why the guard has to make his Sense Motive, not just automatically see through the lie. And it is likely he didn't know the exact guard that would be guarding him before he was in prison. Depending on how much the Rogue knows, he might actually know who all the guards are, especially if he has mob-like connections. So his return Sending could be "I was captured. Go to the third plan. Lester Finnigan is the guard" The guard does not know everything, that's why he can be Bluffed. Another way the guard could have acted would be to tell his commander to send some guards to protect his family, or ask for leave himself to keep them safe. I'd say this is what he would do if the Bluff were successful and the Intimidate was not. If he's Intimidated he has to act in a way that is at least helpful to you, otherwise the skill would have no purpose whatsoever. These skills are meant to be used in this sort of way, why punish a skill user for using what he has? What's next, the Wizard charms a guard who then kills him for asking a favor? A person skilled at "social engineering" can appear to know an enormous amount of information about a total stranger, just by being vague enough that the other party fills in the gaps. It's how most begging con-men work. Quite right.
Bedevere 03-21-07, 06:05 PM	I'd absolutely LOVE it if one of my players was stupid enough to use that bluff, in one of my games. The guard would have been more likely to kill him on the spot, depending on his exact wording. 'He tried to escape, sir!' would be all the bluff he'd need in reply. Lots of people seem to have misunderstood what I meant by this. What I meant was that the Rogue was clearly threatening the guards family, so the guard is just as likely to react badly for the rogue, as well. Check the book, the Intimidate skill is not one to rely on in dangerous situations, such as when you are in jail, with the guards armed... Also, who said the guard even HAD a family? :rolleyes:
Zherog 03-21-07, 06:13 PM	Also, who said the guard even HAD a family? :rolleyes: If the guard didn't have a family, the Bluff check should've automatically failed.
fatal error 03-21-07, 07:23 PM	Anyone in the world if the Rogue's Bluff beat their Sense Motive....that's how the skill works and what the skill does. Besides, all the Rogue needs is someone to cast Sending at the time he was scheduled to finish whatever job he was doing and he could relay that he was captured, and tell them to go to any predetermined plan. That's why there is at least a small reason to believe him, and why the guard has to make his Sense Motive, not just automatically see through the lie. Well, note that I do say "at least give him a hefty bonus to Sense Motive" since it is improbable from the guard's point of view. I agree that it shouldn't just automatically fail.
Pandaemoni 03-21-07, 07:32 PM	Personally, I think it was fine. So long as the guard failed his Sense Motive on the Bluff and his level check against the Intimidate. As for "who said guards have families"...umm...I'd bet if you ask random people on the street "Do you have any family?" the overwhelming majority would say that they do. "Family" doesn't mean a wife and children necessarily, and we all at least had parents once upon a time.
Nom 03-21-07, 07:43 PM	Lots of people seem to have misunderstood what I meant by this. What I meant was that the Rogue was clearly threatening the guards family, so the guard is just as likely to react badly for the rogue, as well. Check the book, the Intimidate skill is not one to rely on in dangerous situations, such as when you are in jail, with the guards armed...I don't see any comment about "Intimidate won't work if you're in a vulnerable position". Heck, one example use of Intimidate is "making a bully back down". Likewise, you can use it to make an opponent shaken. If you plainly held the upper hand, you wouldn't need to Intimidate in such situations. Intimidate isn't about instilling rational fear; it's instilling irrational fear to achieve a specific goal. Intimidate isn't about making someone run away; it's about making them obey you when they should run instead. It's not about convincing someone to act because you have enough brute force to make them do it anyway; it's about convincing them to act in a certain way when you don't have enough brute force. As for a prisoner intimidating a guard, I'd certainly apply a -2 circumstance modifier on the Intimidate check, but don't forget that the prior Bluff check has "established" that the rogue does indeed have a way of hurting the guard despite his imprisonment.
SunTzuWarmaster 03-21-07, 07:46 PM	Reminds me of a Simpsons episode. "Johnny Tightlips, you're dying, what should we tell your mother?" "whoa whoa whoa, who said I had a mother?" Of course the gaurd has family, it is extremely unlikely that eeryone he cares about is dead. This is what Bluff and Intimidate are made for. Killing him is definately an evil act though. Any of the thieves I have played would have delivered 100gp to his coinpurse within the week.
kelvinaw273 03-21-07, 08:51 PM	Well first off, some valid points: 1) You cannot bluff somebody of something they know cannot be true. It may take an intelligence, wisdom or other check to realise this, but that's the way it works. You can only bluff in areas where the character's knowledge is not certain. In the case mentioned, the guard would need an intelligence check or wisdom check to realise that the rogue probably couldn't have things arranged as he described, but that he could perhaps arrange them in time. 2) Intimidate cannot make somebody do something they are more afraid of than you. What is more, convincing comebody of your hostile intent is not always a good idea - some people attack that which they fear. If the guard's superiors could do worse to him had he aided the rogues escape, the intimidate may have failed, without a check. Making the guard afraid of what might happen if the rogue continues to live, while he is also afraid of what happens if he tries to help the rogue will have one result - removal of the rogue from the equation. 3) In either case, you can't make people do the impossible, or what they believe to be impossible. If the guard knows he can't help the rogue escape, then he won't help. This is why in books and films guards are pursuaded to do 'little things' that are within their power: "Look, I know that you can't help me to escape, that's OK, all I need is a file - a file can't hurt can it? No one will know it was you ..." 4) Now if you have a suspect that you believe is involved in organised crime rings, and you have them in prison, what do you do? You lock them away from other prisoners, incomunicado, with only the most trusted guards to keep an eye on them, men who have ample reason not to help the 'mafia'.
CrazyMarv 03-22-07, 09:26 AM	You cannot bluff somebody of something they know cannot be true. It may take an intelligence, wisdom or other check to realise this, but that's the way it works. You can only bluff in areas where the character's knowledge is not certain. Where are you getting this from? The Bluff skill lets you tell the guy andything you bloody want and has modifyers for his Sense Motive check. Nowhere does it say that you automatically see through an outrageous lie. In the case mentioned, the guard would need an intelligence check or wisdom check to realise that the rogue probably couldn't have things arranged as he described, but that he could perhaps arrange them in time. Wrong. In the case mentioned the guard would need a Sense Motive check to realize the Rogue is lying. If he had no ranks in Sense Motive then it is basically a Wisdom check, but you don't get to make a Wisdom check to determine if you have to make a Sense Motive check or see through the lie outright. Intimidate cannot make somebody do something they are more afraid of than you. What is more, convincing comebody of your hostile intent is not always a good idea - some people attack that which they fear. Sure it can. It can make anyone do anything that that someone who is Friendly (as described under Diplomacy) would do. That is, take risks to help you. If the guard's superiors could do worse to him had he aided the rogues escape, the intimidate may have failed, without a check. Making the guard afraid of what might happen if the rogue continues to live, while he is also afraid of what happens if he tries to help the rogue will have one result - removal of the rogue from the equation. Uh, what? So basically what you are saying is that taking ranks in Intimidate is completely worthless because anyone would want to remove someone they are afraid of? There is nowhere it says that Intimidate automatically fails if the person being Intimidated doesn't want to do what you tell him for fear of what will happen as a result. The skill would have no use at all if things worked this way: PC: Tell me where the hostages are (makes successful Intimidate check) Bad Guy: No way! I don't wanna because my boss would be ******!
TygerTyger 03-22-07, 11:26 AM	In keeping with many of the arguments here, not only would I say that this was well within the limits of the rules, perhaps even an excellent application of them, but the player should be applauded for thinking on his feet, playing his character well and generally probably making it a lot of fun for the GM and other players. As for the realism of the situation, well, its not outside the pale for a guard to fear one of the prisoners in his custody, or even to fear the effect that said prisoner could have on his life and family. Hell, just watch an episode of Law & Order! :) If the guard was lead to believe that the rogue had intimate knowledge of his family (which he did, via the Bluff check) and had reason to believe that the rogue had the ability to cause suffering to said family (which he did via the Intimidate check) then he may very well have acted exactly as described here. As for the "But he should have just killed the rogue!" arguments... well, he's a guard. Not likely a murderous scumbag. Now, its possible that he is a CE guard. Not likely, but possible. Even then, he'd been lead to believe that the rogue's associates would kill his family if he didn't escape... and had no way of knowing if the rogue had already gotten the message out. As someone above mentioned, magic allows for all sorts of things. :)
Trevhippy 03-22-07, 11:58 AM	The player did an excellent job and the DM ruled fairly. As a matter of fact, the player should be rewarded for his quick thinking and perfectly reasonable use of his character. I'm not even sure I'd apply a -2 for the PC bluffing/intimidating the guard. Imagine you're in a one room jail with the head of the Al Capone and you've got a family at home. I'm pretty sure I'd be terrified, and cursing whatever ever career counselor had steered me in there. --Trev
Burdell 03-22-07, 02:45 PM	Well first off, some valid points: 1) You cannot bluff somebody of something they know cannot be true. It may take an intelligence, wisdom or other check to realise this, but that's the way it works. You can only bluff in areas where the character's knowledge is not certain. In the case mentioned, the guard would need an intelligence check or wisdom check to realise that the rogue probably couldn't have things arranged as he described, but that he could perhaps arrange them in time. 2) Intimidate cannot make somebody do something they are more afraid of than you. What is more, convincing comebody of your hostile intent is not always a good idea - some people attack that which they fear. If the guard's superiors could do worse to him had he aided the rogues escape, the intimidate may have failed, without a check. 3) In either case, you can't make people do the impossible, or what they believe to be impossible. If the guard knows he can't help the rogue escape, then he won't help. 4) Now if you have a suspect that you believe is involved in organised crime rings, and you have them in prison, what do you do? You lock them away from other prisoners, incomunicado, with only the most trusted guards to keep an eye on them, men who have ample reason not to help the 'mafia'. 1) Heh, the list of "things that can't be true" would be a pretty short one in a world with magic. See this link for an example of what people can be persuaded of by a con man (or woman) in our real world that *doesn't* have people throwing fireballs from their fingertips. http://www.randi.org/swift/current/psychic.html Now consider that the average guard stuck on the night shift is probably not even literate, let alone the kind of guy who reasons his way to well thought out conclusions about his ultimate future. How many people out there would be paying off credit cards at usurious rates if they considered future consequences? 2) Thats what modifiers are for. If the guys boss is standing behind him with a crossbow aimed at his head, he won't be letting the thief out. If half a dozen guys escape/bribe their way out every week and the boss is on vacation, its a cinch. Thats the job of the DM to adjudicate. 3) He DID actually help the thief escape. Ergo, it wasn't impossible for him, was it? 4) You have an optimistic view of the resources available to the average town constabulary. :) This guy wasn't presenting himself as a crime kingpin, just a "guy with connections", and he apparently only presented himself as such to the hapless guard. I'd say kudos to the person who pulled it off, why have a skill system outside combat if you are going to put such obstacles in the way of any non-fighting solution that everyone is forced into combat? If you want to prevent twinked combat monsters from dominating your game, throw some of these kinds of situations at them I say.
Vaelan 03-22-07, 04:52 PM	Does this seem like a viable use of these skills to you? Or did the DM in question screw it up somehow? The DM screwed up. What happened is well outside of the scope of Intimidate, as written in the rules. Intimidate, when used in this sense, temporarily makes the person act as though they are Friendly, a condition that is described within the rules. Friendly means that the person wishes you well. According to the SRD, they will chat, advise, offer limited help, and advocate. Another good tool to use when trying to determine what someone will do for you is to see what they will do to you when possessing other attitudes. Indifferent people will interact as they are expected to, from a social standpoint. For a prison guard, that isn't a whole lot. Helpful people "will take risks to help you". This is what the guard did. Since the guard is Friendly and not Helpful, any course of action that entails any risk cannot be compelled through the use of Intimidate. In this case the Rogue threatened to have his family hurt. Since the Rogue asked for something that would be a risk to the guard, the guard is not compelled by the Rogue's attempt to Intimidate, but instead must weigh the risks presented by each possible course of action and come to a decision about which risk he is more willing to take. Sure it can. It can make anyone do anything that that someone who is Friendly (as described under Diplomacy) would do. That is, take risks to help you. I will say it again: the Friendly attitude does not mean that the person will take risks to help you. That is the description and defining factor of the Helpful attitude, which is a step above Friendly.
RavingDork 03-22-07, 05:00 PM	...Interesting. Is simply opening the cell door that much of a "risk" though? As far as the guard knew, the prisoner was unarmed.
Pentagram 03-22-07, 06:08 PM	I will say it again: the Friendly attitude does not mean that the person will take risks to help you. That is the description and defining factor of the Helpful attitude, which is a step above Friendly. BUT, being Friendly means he at least no longer is Hostile (which probably would be the case from the Bluff alone), meaning he won't take risks to hurt you. And? you wonder. The guard didn't really let the rogue out because he was Helpful to him. The guard let him out because he was Helpful towards his family. Personally, I would probably have decided that the situation was an excellent use of Bluff and Intimidate in combination and let it through, exact wordings of the skills be damned, but should we take it by the rules it would work like this... 1) Guard starts out as unfriendly towards the rogue. 2) Rogue successfully uses Bluff on the guard. Guard believes there is a threat towards his family, to which he has a Helpful attitude. He also becomes Hostile towards the rogue (a rather reasonable assumption, don't you agree?) There is a risk in letting the rogue go, but the guard is willing to take risks to protect his family. There is a risk (to the guards family) by NOT letting the rogue go, but the guard is willing to take risks to hurt the rogue. Thorn between his options, the guard might seek help from others, or simply be in a state of indecisive nervousness. 3) Rogue successfully uses Intimidate on the guard. No longer being Hostile towards the rogue, the guard is no longer willing to take risks to hurt him but he is still willing to take risks to help his family by letting the rogue go. 4) The guard lets the rogue out. Certainly, there are other ways for the guard to protect his family but letting the rogue go is a reasonable choice under these circumstances. Of course, should the guard have less than a Helpful attitute towards his family he might still believe the Bluff, but consider it not worth the risk of letting the rogue go to help them.
fatal error 03-22-07, 06:09 PM	...Interesting. Is simply opening the cell door that much of a "risk" though? As far as the guard knew, the prisoner was unarmed. If the guard gets caught, he's fired, possibly much worse, depending on the regime. If the thief is caught and says how he got out, the guard is in the same boat as above. So yes, I'd say it's a significant risk. Now, whether it is significant enough or not to stop him from doing it under friendly, I'd say it depends on the security setup. If all the guard needs to do is open the door, open a window, and the thief is gone, he's not in that much risk of being caught. If, however, they're in the king's dungeon, with five iron doors, a single staircase, bridge over lava, and three checkpoints between the cell and freedom, then I'm not sure the guard would do it. Somewhere in between that is where the DM makes the judgment call.
CrazyMarv 03-22-07, 07:12 PM	I will say it again: the Friendly attitude does not mean that the person will take risks to help you. That is the description and defining factor of the Helpful attitude, which is a step above Friendly. Oops, That's what I get for posting before looking at the Player's Handbook for Friendly. I thought it was above Helpful. Anyway, even at only Friendly it is still possible for the Guard to help him..... The guard didn't really let the rogue out because he was Helpful to him. The guard let him out because he was Helpful towards his family. Personally, I would probably have decided that the situation was an excellent use of Bluff and Intimidate in combination and let it through, exact wordings of the skills be damned, but should we take it by the rules it would work like this... Pretty much.
TheRealOrion 03-22-07, 07:42 PM	One very important point: Bluff let's you lie about one thing for a few moments, like "Hey look! Elvis!" [runs away], or "Just charge my meal to that guy. He's my buddy. Hey buddy!" [waves to hapless victim]. For any on-going set of lies/negotiations/con-jobs, you should use Diplomacy. Other than that, I'd allow all the stuff that you describe. It's not quite the rules as written, but it's damned clever, and I like to reward cleverness.
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 07:50 PM	Where are you getting this from? The Bluff skill lets you tell the guy andything you bloody want and has modifyers for his Sense Motive check. Nowhere does it say that you automatically see through an outrageous lie. So you can convince somebody that they are a purple hippo? I don't think so ... However, as pointed out above, in a fantasy game, a slow-witted, illiterate guard doesn't know very much. They will know a bit about criminals and mafia, though, because they deal with them. Wrong. In the case mentioned the guard would need a Sense Motive check to realize the Rogue is lying. If he had no ranks in Sense Motive then it is basically a Wisdom check, but you don't get to make a Wisdom check to determine if you have to make a Sense Motive check or see through the lie outright. No, sorry, I don't need to sense motive to know I am not a purple hippo. It kind of comes with the territory. If you tell outragous whoppers, you just get lauighed at. Likewise you can't convince the guard that you know where his family are without some evidence. It can be done (look at how most stage mediums work) but it takes more than an intimidate check: Day #1: Step 1: use Gather Information to get the guard to reveal details about his family and friends without him realising it. Day #2: Step 2: use Diplomacy to make him understand that Mobsters are dangerous people it is best not to cross. Day #3: Step 3: use Bluff to convince him that you know all about him and his family, using the scraps of information gleaned above. You Bluff that this because his family have already been marked by the Mob. Step 4: use Intimidate to put your Mob connections together with his family being staked out, and point out it is in his best interests to help you escape by bringing in a few 'small items' you need. You can then fake overpowering him together so that he does not end up in trouble. If he balks at any moment, mention how lucrative it can be - bribe him (Diplomacy again). Sure it can. It can make anyone do anything that that someone who is Friendly (as described under Diplomacy) would do. That is, take risks to help you. Whether or not they will take risks to help you depends on their level of courage - and the braver they are the less likely they are to be intimidated. It does not make you friendly, it makes you act as if you were friendly while in the vicinity of the person intimidating them. As soon as they are out of reach of you, they generally call you nasty names and grumble at what you made them do. Just strong-arming somebody usually gets them to lie to you while you are in sight. Uh, what? So basically what you are saying is that taking ranks in Intimidate is completely worthless because anyone would want to remove someone they are afraid of? There is nowhere it says that Intimidate automatically fails if the person being Intimidated doesn't want to do what you tell him for fear of what will happen as a result. No, but it limits what you can get somebody to do. It isn't worthless, but it isn't a fiat to do anything or an answer to every situation. Intimidation is best used to stop somebody from taking a course of action. "You didn't see anything - and if you tell the watch you did, I know where you live!" is a very good example. When you try to intimidate a guard in prison, you are at a big disadvantage because you are already behind bars. In this case, Intimidate was not the appropriate skill to use - Diplomacy would be more appropriate to point out to the guiard where is best interests lay. Generally, prisoners have better luck bribing guards than they do intimidating them. I have given an example above that uses not just Intimidate but also Gather Information, Diplomacy and Bluff. Using all of these together is and always should be more effective than any of them alone would be. The skill would have no use at all if things worked this way: PC: Tell me where the hostages are (makes successful Intimidate check) Bad Guy: No way! I don't wanna because my boss would be ******! Well actually it would probably work like this: PC: Tell me where the hostages are (makes successful Intimidate check) Bad Guy (lies and attempts Bluff check): I don't know, I swear! PC (Sense Motive, wins opposed roll): You're lying! Bad Guy: Gods, if I tell you my boss will kill me - slowly! PC (makes Diplomacy roll): But if I know where he and the hostages are, he won't be around to kill you once I'm done. Bad Guy: You gotta point ... Ok ... they are ...etc. Social interaction is more complex than just using one skill. Intimidate alone is great for: "Scream and I'll bash your head in!" or "Don't make me search your corpse for the keys" but not so good for a more convoluted scheme.
FrostHammer 03-22-07, 10:43 PM	But what class has Bluff, Intimidate, AND Diplomacy as class skills? I think only Rogue does.
nightwyrm 03-23-07, 12:21 AM	But what class has Bluff, Intimidate, AND Diplomacy as class skills? I think only Rogue does. Dragonfire Adept too. Rich Burlew of OOTS has an interesting variant of the diplomacy skill that I find to be very reasonable and can probably be adapted to other social skills too. http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html
kelvinaw273 03-23-07, 12:29 AM	Not for nothing do the Good Cop (Diplomacy, Sense Motive) / Bad Cop (Bluff, Intimidate) pairings work so well in interrogation.
ArcTan 03-23-07, 12:33 AM	No, no. See, the guard has two choices: 1) help rogue escape, hope rogue won't still order his family killed. 2) Kill rogue, frame it as an escape, rogue now can't issue any order to kill guard's family. And really, who would believe that the rogue actually looked up every guard, told his contacts to kill their families in one week's time if he's not released, before being captured? If the rogue is dead he can't send any messages. And it is likely he didn't know the exact guard that would be guarding him before he was in prison. Thus, the guard would at least get a hefty bonus to Sense Motive, if the rogue even included this in his bluff. If the rogue just said, "Hey, I'll tell me friends to kill your family if you don't let me out." then the guard has every right to believe the best course of action would be to kill the rogue. Another way the guard could have acted would be to tell his commander to send some guards to protect his family, or ask for leave himself to keep them safe. Of course, this isn't strictly by the rules, since he isn't automatically acting in a "friendly" fashion, but I believe it is more reasonable than just saying he automatically helps the rogue, threat type notwithstanding. You don't watch enough crime movies. An easy way for this sort of threat to work would not be for the Rogue to have some kind of specific plan he had put in place for his capture, but just to inform the guard that he was important enough that word could easily leak back from the prison to the outside about who was keeping him locked up, and the mob would issue reprisals against the guard assigned to him unless the guard let him go. This could be standard operating procedure for high-ranking members of the mob. (The mob probably has moles all through the prison, since prisons are generally not that easy for COs to keep a lid on.) This is how I'd say it. Even if it wasn't true -- or I had no way of knowing if it was true -- this is what I'd try to convince the guard of. And in a world where the mob is powerful and feared, it'd probably work.
TheRealOrion 03-23-07, 03:01 AM	But what class has Bluff, Intimidate, AND Diplomacy as class skills? I think only Rogue does. And Swashbuckler, which is basically a custom Fighter/Rogue.
CrazyMarv 03-23-07, 11:18 AM	So you can convince somebody that they are a purple hippo? I don't think so ... A Bluff doesn't last forever. The example they give you in the PHB is someone tying their shoe. Even if the guy was talking to you and then said "oops, my shoes are untied" then bent down and tied them, you can still make a Bluff check to say they are untied. If he fails the Sense Motive he will look down at his shoes, even though he knows they are tied, he just tied them. If you're talking to a guy and you say "I don't need to listen to what you say, you're not even a human, you're a purple hippo!" you can still make a Bluff check. He's going to have a bonus to his Sense Motive check, and the most you're going to get out of him is that he looks down at himself to make sure he's still how he remembers. He's not going to look for the nearest body of water to live the rest of his life in. No, sorry, I don't need to sense motive to know I am not a purple hippo. It kind of comes with the territory. According to the rules, if someone Bluffs you, then you do. Bluff makes you believe something that is not true. The more proof you have, the better bonus you get on your Sense Motive check. Even if you fail, it is not a permanent effect. The "Purple Hippo" example will only last long enough for them to verify they are not (like 1 second), but if someone had cast an illusion on him to make him look that way at the same time you Bluffed him the DM might apply a penalty on his disbelief check since you were successful in the Bluff. If you tell outragous whoppers, you just get laughed at. Yeah. After they make a Sense Motive check, not before it. Likewise you can't convince the guard that you know where his family are without some evidence. Actually, I heard of a guy who did this in a game once. He used a Bluff check and the guard failed his Sense Motive check. Whether or not they will take risks to help you depends on their level of courage - and the braver they are the less likely they are to be intimidated. Yeah, their "level of courage" and the likelihood of being Intimidated are reflected in the game by their level check. If they fail that then they are Intimidated, they don't get to just snap out of it for no reason. It does not make you friendly, it makes you act as if you were friendly while in the vicinity of the person intimidating them. As soon as they are out of reach of you, they generally call you nasty names and grumble at what you made them do. Just strong-arming somebody usually gets them to lie to you while you are in sight. Great, that's all he needed, and I never said it was permanent anyway. So the guy's helps him out a bit and as soon as he's out of sight tells someone he escaped. Except the guard didn't get this chance, because he was dead before the Rogue left. No, but it limits what you can get somebody to do. It isn't worthless, but it isn't a fiat to do anything or an answer to every situation. Intimidation is best used to stop somebody from taking a course of action. "You didn't see anything - and if you tell the watch you did, I know where you live!" That threat you just listed is almost the exact sort of thing the Rogue in prison did. According to you the guy automatically passes his Sense Motive because he "knows" that the Intimidator doesn't know where he lives. You said yourself that he can't convince someone he knows something without evidence. At which point the DM rules that the guy being intimidated becomes more afraid of the prospect of you being at large in the streets than he is of you individually, pulls a knife and attacks you. Yeah, sounds like a useful skill to me..... When you try to intimidate a guard in prison, you are at a big disadvantage because you are already behind bars. That's right. So, the DM applies some kind of penalty to your roll for being in a crappy spot. That doesn't mean that a successful Intimidate check yields worse results. PC: Tell me where the hostages are (makes successful Intimidate check) Bad Guy (lies and attempts Bluff check): I don't know, I swear! PC (Sense Motive, wins opposed roll): You're lying! Bad Guy: Gods, if I tell you my boss will kill me - slowly! PC (makes Diplomacy roll): But if I know where he and the hostages are, he won't be around to kill you once I'm done. Bad Guy: You gotta point ... Ok ... they are ...etc. Not really. Someone who is Intimidated counts as Friendly. Which means they "wish you well" and will chat, advise, advocate, but not lie to you. So they'd give you the information they have rather than try to frustrate your efforts. Although, if you fail at Intimidating him he can act helpful and feed you wrong information, giving you a penalty to your Sense Motive since you think you've broken him down. An easy way for this sort of threat to work would not be for the Rogue to have some kind of specific plan he had put in place for his capture, but just to inform the guard that he was important enough that word could easily leak back from the prison to the outside about who was keeping him locked up, and the mob would issue reprisals against the guard assigned to him unless the guard let him go. This could be standard operating procedure for high-ranking members of the mob. (The mob probably has moles all through the prison, since prisons are generally not that easy for COs to keep a lid on.) Right. Things like this is what makes this scenario far from impossible.
FrostHammer 03-23-07, 02:59 PM	Actually, I heard of a guy who did this in a game once. He used a Bluff check and the guard failed his Sense Motive check. I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure that's a Bluff that Marv just tried to make.
Kintara 03-23-07, 03:28 PM	I think that it should be kept in mind that mid and high level characters should be treated as such. Think about the power scaling in combat from even level 1 to level 6. A level 6 Fighter can kill a score of (level 1 warrior) guards easily before going down. D&D is just like that. And as far as I'm concerned, Rogues who have high ranks in Bluff and Intimidate should be given a similar amount of leeway. There is a cinematic quality to the D&D rules once the characters gain some levels. The only difference between combat and interaction skill use is that the DM has a lot more interpretive capacity. My opinion is that that interpretive capacity should be used to highlight that a Rogue with some skill is actually quite impressive at what he does. In other words, don't crap on the Rogue's plan just because you find it unlikely. If he's got a +14 to his Bluff check and the guard has +0, then there's a good chance the guard is, comparatively speaking, a big sucker. Let the Rogue be cool with his skills, that's one of the major reasons to be a Rogue. I think the OP had things quite right. Even if he didn't convince the guard to actively help him escape, I think a good DM would come up with some sort of way for a successful Bluff/Intimidate to work to the Rogue's advantage. There are a lots of possible ways for an opportunity to develop for that Rogue to capitalize on his lies. Edit: Keep in mind that things like, "How could this guy know who was going to be guarding him?" doesn't sound to me like the sort of question of plausibility that is grounded in hard logic like, "How could this guy do something physically impossible without magic?" The former question is more a question of creativity. A successful Bluff/Intimidate, to me, is the equivalent of "I'm smarter and scarier than you, so do what I say." If they can't figure out the logistics of his bluff, I think it's just as likely that the guard would assume he's not canny enough to figure it out.
BW0222 03-23-07, 03:53 PM	RavingDork, Bluff only means that someone believes you. Intimidate only means someone if afraid of you. Neither forces a person to take any particular course of action. Now, well done bluffs or intimidates can make the choice of actions limited or logical. However, this isn't a particularly good case. The guard(s) and authorities have a really obvious way out. While in his cell the rogue used his Bluff skill to successfully to lead the guard into believing that the rogue had (or would soon have) personal knowledge of the guard's family members. Bluff never trumps common sense. How could you possible know about the guards family? How did you even know that this specific guard was going to be on duty, whether he has a family, etc. Well... it would be rather difficult to pretend you had knowledge of someone's family, without actually knowing if at least he had a family. In any case, assume the guard believes you. You (or some friends outside) know about his family and you could hurt them. Personally, I would immediately kill the PC in the cell, tell my supervisors, have the PC moved to somewhere no one would find him, have six guards without families watching over you, rotate guards on random pairings, wizard lock the door, put up protection on your family, etc., etc. If the PC is dead, your family would be safe -- no one to tell which guard's family to go after, and no point in going after them even if you did know. As the person in authority, I'd immediately question the PC under a detect throughts and/or discern lies and then have him killed and his body placed in the town square with a sign saying "Any associates of this criminal are next."
Kintara 03-23-07, 04:13 PM	BW, I think you're thinking a little narrowly. A good liar can manufacture knowledge that sounds relevant. It's called cold reading. BS artists do it all the time. Also, honestly, how many guards do you think work on rotation at the city jail? There's really no need for more than a small handful. Even very large towns in most D&D settings are rarely larger than small towns in modern times. It's not that hard to imagine that someone would know who guards the town jail are, especially someone familiar with the towns lawmen, which a wanted mobster would be a prime example of. Also, if he's successfully intimidated (which would be rolled in tandem with the Bluff), the point is that he is scared of the consequences the Rogue laid out. It's not simply a matter of thinking his family is in peril, but feeling it. Intimidation is an emotional manipulation. My point here isn't that it's 100% logic proof, but that I think it's close enough for the Rogue to be at least a little rewarded for his effort.
UnknownMourner 03-23-07, 04:28 PM	Well, there are always situational modifiers. You should have a penalty to intimidate someone while they are in an advantageous position. In addition, your DM can overrule this, but Intimidate generally only raises the NPC's attitude to friendly, not helpful. I would rule agaurd could be friendly to a known criminal without letting him out. He might pass notes for him, etc. Now if the rogue made the opposed by +20 it's reasonable to assume another bump in attitude for exceptional success. There is also the mook factor. If the guard's a level 1 pud then for the sake of cinematics, it should be allowable.
Mystyc 03-23-07, 11:38 PM	Bluff never trumps common sense. Actually, I think that's exactly what it does. It trumps the guard's common sense, convincing him, however briefly, that something that doesn't quite add up is actually the case.
BW0222 03-24-07, 08:32 AM	Mystyc, >Bluff never trumps common sense. Actually, I think that's exactly what it does. It trumps the guard's common sense, convincing him, however briefly, that something that doesn't quite add up is actually the case. If someone says the says that the sky is orange when you can see that it is blue, you don't have to believe them. They can't be telling the truth in that case. Now, if you said that they are suffering from a spell induced delusion that the sky is blue even through it is really orange, then maybe you could bluff them, but you can certainly add some heavy minuses to the bluff check. If a PC says to a guard "I know where your family is." and the guard is an orphan, his family was killed, left home a 15 and has never talked about his family, if his family live a long way away, etc. then what the PC is saying can't be true. If the guard just joined, transfered to this place, etc. then it is impossible than anyone could have found out this information in time. Now, if the PC said "I know you are an orphan, but we'd tracked two or your siblings down. We know where they are." then one might allow a bluff check, again possibly with some minuses.
Mystyc 03-24-07, 11:26 AM	Mystyc, If someone says the says that the sky is orange when you can see that it is blue, you don't have to believe them. They can't be telling the truth in that case. Now, if you said that they are suffering from a spell induced delusion that the sky is blue even through it is really orange, then maybe you could bluff them, but you can certainly add some heavy minuses to the bluff check. If a PC says to a guard "I know where your family is." and the guard is an orphan, his family was killed, left home a 15 and has never talked about his family, if his family live a long way away, etc. then what the PC is saying can't be true. If the guard just joined, transfered to this place, etc. then it is impossible than anyone could have found out this information in time. Now, if the PC said "I know you are an orphan, but we'd tracked two or your siblings down. We know where they are." then one might allow a bluff check, again possibly with some minuses. We appear to disagree on what "common sense" means. That the sky is blue and the grass is green is not common sense. These are self-evident facts. Common sense is the assumption that things outside one's field of knowledge are "normal" -- that my keys are right where I left them, that an incarcerated thief wouldn't have time to learn about my family, that my house didn't get up and walk away while I was at work. These are things I'm sure are true because they are simply logical, but I don't know for a fact. If someone with a good enough Bluff modifier wanted to work me over, I might find myself questioning those things since I'm not absolutely positive. And let's be totally honest here. If you say, "but the guard doesn't have any family, neener neener" you are crushing the player with DM fiat. That may be your style, but it's not mine.
Karzach 03-24-07, 05:44 PM	If I were the DM in this scenario, I'd probably break RP for a minute and ask the guy (rogue in this case) what he wants to do (I'm not a DM who's out to kill my players, and I generally try and make the clear. Doesn't mean you AREN'T going to die, just means you have to be stupid to make it happen). After laughing for a minute, I'd start doing some checks to see if it happens. First of all, how fleshed out is the guard? if he's generic_guard_01, then I'd roll d% to see if he has a family. call it 0-10 he doesn't 11-100 he does (I might go so far and say its 11-60 he has parents, and 40-100 he has wife+kids and yes the overlap is intentional). If no family, Mr. Guard gets a ridiculous bonus to his sense motive, and my rogue is still stuck in jail. If he does, then the rogue probably passes his check. Mr Guard gets a bonus on his sense motive/level check depending on how important/powerful the mob is in that city. If they don't do much, bonus. If they recently caught a mole, or a lot of unexplained (well, officially unexplained), penalty. Then I let the dice roll, and see where the rogue ends up. I personally don't see it as completely unreasonable for the rogue to get out of this scenario, as long as there's a certain amount of truth to back up his claims (namely, the existence and power of the mob, plus the existence of the guard's family).
wizarddog 03-24-07, 07:26 PM	I think it all depends on what the DM wants in this situation for the adventure. If the character was suppose to stay in that cell then you have a savvy hard ass guard that would be difficult to bluff and intimidate (maybe put 2 in there). Or the results are sympathy from the guard but no action. If, however, the cell is an obstacle and getting out is the point then that is a viable use of skills to get out. Maybe a different set of skills could be used like Diplomancy, Gather information, etc. but this is what the character used. wizarddog
Cartigan 03-24-07, 09:23 PM	Not that I really care about this debate, but I wanted to point out a couple things.. We appear to disagree on what "common sense" means. That the sky is blue and the grass is green is not common sense. These are self-evident facts. Common sense is the assumption that things outside one's field of knowledge are "normal" -- that my keys are right where I left them, that an incarcerated thief wouldn't have time to learn about my family, that my house didn't get up and walk away while I was at work. I agree to the point of your assessment of common sense. I only see one of those things is "common sense" and it is the latter because even in a land of magic the incredulity of your house getting up and moving is excessive unless you witnessed it or were told by a reliable source. However, unless you were wearing your keys, how could you be sure they are where you left them, unless they were plainly visible at the time of the Bluff or you put them there a very short time prior? I have lost pencils I was holding in my hand before, much less things I set down somewhere. There is no guarantee that the thief wouldn't know about your family beforehand, especially if his arrest was for a connection with the local mob. The lie would be fairly incredulous but not totally unbelievable. It would qualify as the highest DC for a Bluff check me thinks.
Kintara 03-25-07, 03:53 AM	There is no guarantee that the thief wouldn't know about your family beforehand, especially if his arrest was for a connection with the local mob. The lie would be fairly incredulous but not totally unbelievable. It would qualify as the highest DC for a Bluff check me thinks.I think that's pretty harsh. I mean re-read the examples in the PHB. The +20 modifier is basically one hair short of, "Are you going to believe me or your senses?" The +10 modifier is more like, "Are you going to believe me, or all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary?" I would say that +10 is plenty harsh enough. In any case, I think the real solution to this problem is in setting stakes before you roll. This is good general advice for practically any check. The DM and the player should come to an understanding of what it means for a check to succeed and (note this) what it means for it to fail, and there should be an understanding of what the chances are. It may sound like you're giving away some of the mystery by doing this, but it immeasurably improves the game. If you do this then whether you succeed or fail, you're on the same page. This doesn't work very well if the DM is setting down the rail tracks, but then I never understood why DMs even ask for rolls when they are doing that. If you think about it, then everyone is happy. The player can say, "If I succeed with my checks then I convince the guard his family is in danger and get him to let me out." And the DM says, "Yeah, but if you miss one or both of the rolls, then the guard flips out and calls 'the boys' down from upstairs to torture you until you confess to whatever they want you to confess to. Oh, and I think that the guard should get a +10 to his Sense Motive because that's quite a whopper." If the player agrees, then if the check fails he can't cry foul without looking like a jerk. And if he succeeds, then he gets precisely what he asked for.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 09:53 AM	I think that's pretty harsh. I mean re-read the examples in the PHB. The +20 modifier is basically one hair short of, "Are you going to believe me or your senses?" The +10 modifier is more like, "Are you going to believe me, or all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary?" I would say that +10 is plenty harsh enough. I guess it would depend on how much the guard actually knows or how green he is, which then depends on the DM. If you think about it, then everyone is happy. The player can say, "If I succeed with my checks then I convince the guard his family is in danger and get him to let me out." And the DM says, "Yeah, but if you miss one or both of the rolls, then the guard flips out and calls 'the boys' down from upstairs to torture you until you confess to whatever they want you to confess to. Oh, and I think that the guard should get a +10 to his Sense Motive because that's quite a whopper." If the player agrees, then if the check fails he can't cry foul without looking like a jerk. And if he succeeds, then he gets precisely what he asked for. All the crazy stuff is always up to the DM.
Kintara 03-25-07, 12:12 PM	All the crazy stuff is always up to the DM.What I said doesn't really have anything to do with the DM's power, as much as providing information up front (though I do think that people are sometimes too quick to promote the DM to the God position). The DM could also have said that if he succeeds then something else will happen. The point is that if you talk about it beforehand then the inevitable lapses in interpretation like this don't end with non-fun.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 12:14 PM	What I said doesn't really have anything to do with the DM's power, as much as providing information up front (though I do think that people are sometimes too quick to promote the DM to the God position). The DM could also have said that if he succeeds then something else will happen. The point is that if you talk about it beforehand then the inevitable lapses in interpretation like this don't end with non-fun. Good point then.
WayneTheGame 03-25-07, 02:05 PM	I don't get what the problem is. It seems to be a classic way that Bluff and Intimidate work hand in hand. The way I see things unfolding is as follows: Rogue successfully Bluffs the guard into thinking that he (the rogue) has Underworld contacts who will harm the guard's family. Now, if the guard has no family then he would have automatically succeeded on the Sense Motive check, as you cannot convince someone of something when they know it's not true ("Someone set fire to your Lime Green convertible." "What? I don't have a lime green convertible!") Guard now believes that the Rogue has contacts that could hurt his family. Rogue makes an Intimidate check, saying basically "Help me escape, or my mob friends will kill your family." Guard is intimidated and agrees out of fear for his family. Rogue escapes That's exactly how it should work. The "If I tell, they'll kill me" garbage some of you seem to be spouting is a staple in movies/tv/literature, but even then they usally crack ("If you don't tell me, I'LL kill you."). Now if the guard was ordered to keep eyes on the rogue because his family was already threatened by someone else if he DIDN'T, then I could see him refusing help (If he does, his family WILL die; if he doesn't then they MIGHT die). But most of the suggestions seem to be along the lines of "No, the DM should have screwed the Rogue over" which is rubbish.
Cartigan 03-25-07, 02:14 PM	I don't get what the problem is. It seems to be a classic way that Bluff and Intimidate work hand in hand. Yeah, the on-going discussion disregarded, this seems like it would be the exact kind of thing Bluff and Intimidate are meant for out of combat.
G_Mancer 03-25-07, 03:25 PM	I'd absolutely LOVE it if one of my players was stupid enough to use that bluff, in one of my games. The guard would have been more likely to kill him on the spot, depending on his exact wording. 'He tried to escape, sir!' would be all the bluff he'd need in reply. If the guard gets caught, he's fired, possibly much worse, depending on the regime. If the thief is caught and says how he got out, the guard is in the same boat as above. So yes, I'd say it's a significant risk. Now, whether it is significant enough or not to stop him from doing it under friendly, I'd say it depends on the security setup. If all the guard needs to do is open the door, open a window, and the thief is gone, he's not in that much risk of being caught. If, however, they're in the king's dungeon, with five iron doors, a single staircase, bridge over lava, and three checkpoints between the cell and freedom, then I'm not sure the guard would do it. Somewhere in between that is where the DM makes the judgment call. the bolded parts **** me off. why on earth would something "worse" happemn. just because peopel do bad things doesn't mean that DEATH is the answer. (i'm adreessin two things at once, i know i'm sorry) a rogue tries to bribe a guard and BAM he gets killed and it's cheeky-dorey? everythings normal? i dont think anything worse than the guard losing his job would result in this situation. which, while being a risk, is not the sort of risk to weigh into the attitude factor of being hostile vs. friendly.
G_Mancer 03-25-07, 03:32 PM	Mystyc, If someone says the says that the sky is orange when you can see that it is blue, you don't have to believe them. They can't be telling the truth in that case. Now, if you said that they are suffering from a spell induced delusion that the sky is blue even through it is really orange, then maybe you could bluff them, but you can certainly add some heavy minuses to the bluff check. If a PC says to a guard "I know where your family is." and the guard is an orphan, his family was killed, left home a 15 and has never talked about his family, if his family live a long way away, etc. then what the PC is saying can't be true. If the guard just joined, transfered to this place, etc. then it is impossible than anyone could have found out this information in time. Now, if the PC said "I know you are an orphan, but we'd tracked two or your siblings down. We know where they are." then one might allow a bluff check, again possibly with some minuses. accually the pereson being lied to gets a +30 to his sense motive. 20 for an outrageous lie, and maybe a 10 situational modifier if they're outside or in a room with windows. if the bluff-er still wins the check, the bluff-ee temporaraly thinks that, when dealing wtih sky, blue is orange. something to rebutt this with is that bluff only lasts for short periods of time (says so in PHB) with outrageous lies. but even with the whole not lasting long, it's entirely possible to convince someone of that. my rogue has to roll an 8 or higher if you dont have any ranks in sense motive (which oddly enough no one does in campaigns i'm in)
Cartigan 03-25-07, 05:15 PM	accually the pereson being lied to gets a +30 to his sense motive. 20 for an outrageous lie, and maybe a 10 situational modifier if they're outside or in a room with windows. if the bluff-er still wins the check, the bluff-ee temporaraly thinks that, when dealing wtih sky, blue is orange. something to rebutt this with is that bluff only lasts for short periods of time (says so in PHB) with outrageous lies. but even with the whole not lasting long, it's entirely possible to convince someone of that. my rogue has to roll an 8 or higher if you dont have any ranks in sense motive (which oddly enough no one does in campaigns i'm in) I don't think you should be allowed to bluff completely obvious things. Even if you knew the local wizard turned the sky orange and were trying to tell people who havn't been outside yet, who is going to believe that? Maybe if you put a nigh overcomeable DC on it. I think stuff like the sky is blue, grass is green, up is up, down is down would be a take 10 knowledge(duhhh) check.
DaidojiTaidoru 03-25-07, 05:49 PM	I don't think you should be allowed to bluff completely obvious things. Even if you knew the local wizard turned the sky orange and were trying to tell people who havn't been outside yet, who is going to believe that? Maybe if you put a nigh overcomeable DC on it. I think stuff like the sky is blue, grass is green, up is up, down is down would be a take 10 knowledge(duhhh) check. Utterly impossible bluffs have duration of one round. It's the "made you look" effect as I like to think of it. It's so believable that the target has to spend 6 seconds blinking while their brain initiates the BS override protocols.
Pentagram 03-25-07, 05:54 PM	Even if you knew the local wizard turned the sky orange and were trying to tell people who havn't been outside yet, who is going to believe that? ...but why would I lie about such a thing?... *innocent face* I don't want to start a debate about what absurd things people believe in here in our own world, but please consider that a person with, say, 15 ranks in Bluff is a true master in the art of making the false seem believable...and people in the D&D-universe KNOWS that magic exists and that gods intervene.
jjclackey 03-25-07, 06:26 PM	Wow, there are a lot of hard-ass DMs here. If I might put in my two cents: I agree that more than one or two Bluff and Intimidate checks would be necessary, and (depending on the wording) a Diplomacy check or two. Interestingly enough, there's an example in the PHB that may resemble the "purple hippo" argument. I quote: "You might find this hard to believe, but I'm actually a lammasu who's been polymorphed into halfling form by an evil sorcerer. You know we lammasus are trustworthy, so you can believe me" (p.68). Using similar wording, you might be able to convince someone that he is actually a member of a rare race of purple-hippo shapechangers and he simply never learned his "heritage" due to the "secrecy of the information" and the tight lips of his "adoptive" parents. Of course, this may carry a higher Sense Motive modifier than even the above example (which, as stated in the book, is +20 due to being "way out there, almost too incredible to consider"), but it's still possible to convince someone of ANYTHING as long as it's worded properly. As for the point at hand, I believe that more rolls were necessary but the outcome is still reasonably realistic. --JJCL
Cartigan 03-25-07, 06:35 PM	Utterly impossible bluffs have duration of one round. It's the "made you look" effect as I like to think of it. It's so believable that the target has to spend 6 seconds blinking while their brain initiates the BS override protocols. Which is why I said nigh overcomeable. Practically undoable, but, hey, if you get lucky enough, you could pull it off. But all of this aside, the original post was not a completely absurd scenario. A Rogue arrested for suspected mob ties bluffs his way out by saying said mob ties would help him do bad things to the guard's family if the Rogue wasn't let out? That is believable and, in the context of why he was arrested, I would say he should actually gets a bonus to his Bluff check (unless the guard has no family or for some other reason would dismiss the claim out of hand as an almost definite impossibility).
jjclackey 03-25-07, 06:54 PM	If they can't figure out the logistics of his bluff, I think it's just as likely that the guard would assume he's not canny enough to figure it out. From what i understand, falling for a lie is failure to do two things: 1) take into account lack of evidence and 2) notice logistical failures. That's why Sense Motive is based on Wisdom. Wisdom is what makes a character "canny enough to figure it out." If he failed his Sense Motive, then he wasn't thinking clearly enough to go over the logistics of the lie. If he succeeded, then the holes in the rogue's logic jumped out at him and it's over for the rogue. Hence, why it's harder to fall for a lie like "you're a purple hippo" than "I have connections that you know about and there's a protocol set up for just such an occasion as me getting caught." It might also be wise, however, to add "or if I disappear," "end up dead," etc., just in case the guard really is considering killing the rogue. --JJCL
jjclackey 03-25-07, 07:16 PM	But most of the suggestions seem to be along the lines of "No, the DM should have screwed the Rogue over" which is rubbish. I agree whole-heartedly. Furthermore, I would also like to address the bit about stringing up the criminal's body with a sign saying "Cohorts are next." The problem with this is assassination attempts on the King are inevitable as a result of this, not to mention every guard would be picked off one-by-one (as the highest level guard in most towns doesn't exceed 6 and a character usually has to be pretty high level to join the mob, Mafia, Yakuza, etc.) as per the mob's power (and standard technique). This tactic would fail miserably and lead to the deaths of thousands of people (as the mob does the intimidating and NEVER is intimidated -- there was this bit I saw on the History Channel about a mob-member slaughter by police that ended in a rather bloody massacre on the other end as well). --JJCL
Korentin_Black 03-26-07, 04:00 AM	It shouldn't be easy to break out of jail this way - and it may just not work no matter what you roll - after all, who puts all the weight on just one guard? But with that said, for a good example of what high-level bluff, intimidate and diplomacy can do from inside a cell, watch Silence of the Lambs and pay close attention to Lectors next-door neighbour. ^_^
ArcTan 03-26-07, 02:37 PM	It shouldn't be easy to break out of jail this way - and it may just not work no matter what you roll - after all, who puts all the weight on just one guard? Then he works his way up the chain with that one guard as his point of access to his superiors. Have you never watched a prison movie? There's nothing unrealistic about a high-level manipulator with strong mob ties -- in a place with strong mob influence -- being able to talk his way out of jail like this. It's happened a *lot* in real life.
Korentin_Black 03-26-07, 05:12 PM	Then he works his way up the chain with that one guard as his point of access to his superiors. Have you never watched a prison movie? There's nothing unrealistic about a high-level manipulator with strong mob ties -- in a place with strong mob influence -- being able to talk his way out of jail like this. It's happened a *lot* in real life. Curiously yes, I have - I don't recall a single one in which it was 'easy' to do this. Possible, yes - on rare occasions - but never 'easy'. A great deal depends on the sort of prison you're talking about for one thing (Dartmoor prison in the old days was a very, very different proposition to its modern incarnation for one example from the real world, and I should imagine you'd have had tons of fun trying to intimidate your way out of Alcatraz, whereas there are some prisons in the world right now quite literally run on the 'honour' system). You're making a number of assumptions about this scenario which I'm not - my sole statement on the matter is that it should never be *easy* to talk your way out of a prison cell once inside it. Then again, it also shouldn't be *easy* to fight your way into an orc stronghold, create a new range of magical spells or build a new following for your god either.