Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nightwyrm 04-03-07, 11:08 AM	I know that RAW uses sense motive to oppose bluff. But would it be unreasonable to either substitute knowledge checks or to give bonuses to the sense motive check base on knowledge skill ranks if the bluffer was trying to bluff about some factual thing? For example, if someone told a wizard with 20 ranks in knowledge(arcana), but no sense motive rank, that all red dragons breathe ice, the wizard should immediately know that the person was wrong while the same lie told to a country farmer with no knowledge of such things would stand a greater chance of working. The wizard may not know that the person was deliberately trying to lie to him, but there is no reason he should believe that a red dragons breathes ice and cast a protection from cold when about to face a red dragon. At the very least, the wizard would think the bluffer is wrong or completely BSing. I guess I'm trying to say that believing someone is not lying is different from believing what he said is true. This modification may solve some of the problem with the use of bluff to make people believe the sky is green or some other such ridiculous things.
Tichondrus 04-03-07, 11:14 AM	Simple: Roleplaying > powergaming. Then your state is true. Powergaming > roleplaying. Then a bard can make you really think you were wrong as much as the books you read from. I go by the first.
northern_bear 04-03-07, 11:51 AM	I would look at it like this: When the rogue sucesfully blufs the wizard, then the wizard believe that the rogue actually believes what he is saying. In your example, the wizard would believe that the other person actually thought red dragosn breath ice. But he would know they are wrong. He wouldn't detect that they were "lying", but he wouldn't believe that what they said was true either.
nightwyrm 04-03-07, 11:55 AM	I would look at it like this: When the rogue sucesfully blufs the wizard, then the wizard believe that the rogue actually believes what he is saying. In your example, the wizard would believe that the other person actually thought red dragosn breath ice. But he would know they are wrong. He wouldn't detect that they were "lying", but he wouldn't believe that what they said was true either. That's exactly what I'm talking about. But right now, the rules are unclear on how you are able to differentiate between the two and some people take advantage of that by making a successful bluff check and saying the bluffee believes everything the bluffer says.
northern_bear 04-03-07, 11:59 AM	That's exactly what I'm talking about. But right now, the rules are unclear on how you are able to differentiate between the two and some people take advantage of that by making a successful bluff check and saying the bluffee believes everything the bluffer says. Well those people are idiots. When in doubt about what the rules may allow, my advice is to always go with common sense. And common sense says that no matter how good a liar someone is, they aren't going to convince me that two plus two equals nine. I know that it is 4. The best that they can hope for, is to convince me that they aren't very good at math.
northern_bear 04-03-07, 12:00 PM	That's exactly what I'm talking about. But right now, the rules are unclear on how you are able to differentiate between the two and some people take advantage of that by making a successful bluff check and saying the bluffee believes everything the bluffer says. Well those people are idiots. When in doubt about what the rules may allow, my advice is to always go with common sense. And common sense says that no matter how good a liar someone is, they aren't going to convince me that two plus two equals nine. I know that it is 4. The best that they can hope for, is to convince me that they aren't very good at math.
Tichondrus 04-03-07, 12:34 PM	Double posted for double reason =p I agree with you on both posts >.<
BW0222 04-03-07, 02:12 PM	nightwyrm, northern_bear's take is pretty good. However, I think the current rules handle this. Bluff assumes some conversation back and forth. If you say something which your opponent knows if false, he would likely say why it can't be true, and then you would spend some time coming back with "more plausable" counter points. Given enough time, you could convince folks of some mighty strange things. The DMG permits circumstance bonuses on any skill check. There are no limits to how big can be. If you want to use bluff to convince someone of something that they know isn't true, nothing says you can't give them a +10, +20 or +50 modifier on their sense motive checks based on how much evidence they have that it can't be true. I generally consider the results of the bluff check include coming up with imaginative (and more believable) ways of countering those points. If someone tried that "all red dragons breath ice" on a peasant... the DM might rule that most peasants know they breath fire. He then them a +10 modifier. The bluffer would basically be trying to convince them that what they have been told in stories isn't true. For example, you can imagine him saying things like, "Well have you even seen a red dragon?" and "Well that's what the red dragons want you to think!" If you tried the same thing on a wizard with lots of knowledge, maybe a +25 bonus to the roll. You would need to convince him that every book, research paper, story, account, research, etc. which he had done was somehow wrong, phonied up, etc. "Well it is a secret dragon cult who first wrote most of these accounts." If you tried it against a PC who fought a red dragon +50. You'd be trying to convince him of all sorts of things which are really impossible to buy. "That fire was actually a spell, they only breath cold when mating.", "Well their scales protect against fire because they were forged in such cold temperatures.", etc. If you tried it against a red dragon.... I'd have to rule that just isn't going to work or maybe +100. You'd honestly have to convince him that he is somehow cursed to think hot is cold and cold is hot and that we was raised by disguised gold dragons or something. I also generally assume that if someone honestly knows better, that they don't have to continue talking (i.e. listening) any further. i.e. if you tell a wizard that red dragons breath ice and he isn't otherwise disposed to talking with lunatics... he could walk away or otherwise stop listening to any of your arguements and you wouldn't get a bluff check to begin with.