Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheDanishCartoonist 12-11-06, 02:50 PM	I was wondering, are there any specific rules for the use of bluff between party members, or house rules that are useful? The reason I am asking is in our last session, the paladin and my bard were using perform (epic) to make some extra cash in a tavern in Shadowdale, and the party rogue swiped 50gp from me. Well , with 8 wis, I was completely oblivious to this fact, but the paladin spotted her, and informed me of this. I checked, and 50gp is missing. She tells the paladin that I said she could have it, and rolls 25ish for her bluff, and the paladin believes her. Then she told me that she didn't take it, rolling a 31. Even with +20, I still fail the sense motive roll, and what I'm wondering is, was I under any obligation to believe something as absurd as this?
Apupunchau 12-11-06, 02:57 PM	In my game the kobold uses bluff rolls all the time becuase he's a sneaky little lizard and I see no reason for Bluff roles not to work. But if the rogue tells to different lie to two different people and they have the time to compare notes then they should either A) get another roll or B) Be allowed to figure out the rogue is lying. By the way two differnt lies to people in the same party does not a smart rogue make. If it were me I would have used bluff to misdirect the palladin and convince him that he really didn't see me, that he wasn't sure who he saw. Then with the palladin saying he's not sure bluff to convince you that as your friend I would never do that to you and with the palladin admitting now he may or may not have seen me, I promise to hellp you find the culprit, as any real friend would do. In other words "If the gauntlet don't fit, you must aquit."
IdleAltruism 12-11-06, 03:00 PM	First off are you in an evil game? If the paladin and you talk again the bluffs are void. Rogues do not steal from party memebers! These characters are zapped with 600d20 lightning bolt from the sky and can't be raised or ressurected without the direct intervention from a greater diety. Players shouldn't lie to other players in and out of character. Roleplaying and stealing small things is all fine and good. If you're very high level I could see the 50 gold just a gag between 2 PCs. If its something that bothers you inform the dm and the offending player how you feel.
Chrono Nexus 12-11-06, 03:09 PM	What I do to pcs that steal from other party members: If a player, me and the other party members knock out the traitor and strip them completely down. Then we tie them to a tree in the wilderness, with no clear way back to civilization in site. We leave them there. We currently play in the frostfell, so this is much harsher for the region. If a DM: The rogue steals something unpleasant instead of a money pouch. This could be a lint collection, stuffed cat, a jar of phlegm, it just depends. The object taken is totally worthless and the pc that was robbed had forgotten he owned it.
Cael 12-11-06, 03:15 PM	My personal take on it as DM: 1st time: Warning. 2nd time: Roll up a new character. This one is roadkill. 3rd time: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. * these all have the caveat that even *one* of the party members don't like it. If all of them is OK with it, then I will let it slide. I'd rather preserve the integrety of my player-party than accede to your whims and "rights". Your "rights" is afforded you by a de facto contract with the rest of the group that you will behave in a manner suitable to the whole group. If you violate that contract, you have no "rights".
Grand Theft Otto 12-11-06, 03:17 PM	I was wondering, are there any specific rules for the use of bluff between party members, or house rules that are useful? The reason I am asking is in our last session, the paladin and my bard were using perform (epic) to make some extra cash in a tavern in Shadowdale, and the party rogue swiped 50gp from me. Well , with 8 wis, I was completely oblivious to this fact, but the paladin spotted her, and informed me of this. I checked, and 50gp is missing. She tells the paladin that I said she could have it, and rolls 25ish for her bluff, and the paladin believes her. Then she told me that she didn't take it, rolling a 31. Even with +20, I still fail the sense motive roll, and what I'm wondering is, was I under any obligation to believe something as absurd as this? No, as the stories are conflicting and it should be really easy to figure out the truth. Bluff doesnt really allow for a "try again" either, so once you are exposed as a liar, its harder to convince people.
Shadowmind64 12-11-06, 03:21 PM	in my experience there can be times when one has to lie to a party member. It is rare but it happens. This is when roleplaying really kicks in. If youre party is not strong in the roleplaying aspect it is generally best to avoid it, but if your party is heavy into RPing it is definetly playable.
ornitholestes 12-11-06, 03:34 PM	As DM, I don't let PCs use social skills (bluff, diplomacy, sense motive) on each other unless both characters consent. While I realize there are times it can work out, I have had too many problems with charismatic characters controlling the party in the past. While this may actually be semi-realistic, I think the game only works when (barring the occasional charm spell) players are in control of their own actions, no one wants to play a spectator. I was once in a game where the diplomatic character rolled to convince my character to give him all of my equipment. The DM let him do this and succeed on a pretty poor roll. Granted, the character eventually gave me most of my gear back, but I felt cheated afterwards and it kind of ruined the fun of the game. (The lie was stupid anyways and my intelligent and semi-wise character looked like an idiot for believing it). Now, I have had some really great groups in the past who consent to bluff and sense motive on each other. The charismatic character never abused this ability, and generally it was used in light-hearted and humerus situations. However, this is the exception, not the rule.
Pyke_Moonshadow 12-11-06, 03:38 PM	We don't allow the use of bluff pc vs pc in our games. We feel it doesn't foster group unity when you can bluff/diplomacy the other party members.
Apupunchau 12-11-06, 04:25 PM	I htink bluffing party memebers fits under the description of people who aren't to bright playing characters with a high INT score. If your chaarcter has a high CHA score and a high Bluff but you personally couldn't lie your way out of a paper bag I don't see why you couldn't allow a bluff role. And this goes for not just silly things like stealing 50gp, what happens if the only way to get another player to do something that is actually in his best interest except he's to stubborn is to trick him into doing it. The player knows you are lying to him but that's the player the chaarcter may not and I see no reason to have a bluff and sense motive roll made. As for players staling from other players why would you not allow it, the world isn't always a nice place and not everyone you travel with is going to have more than his own best inerestes at heart. The only thing is that the player has to realize the consequence of his action. There's a palladin in the group so I don't think the rogue would be killled out right but he could at the very elast be cast out of the party or maybe even given over to a local magistrate. As an example from our group the Kobold has dragon blood and he's chaotic neutral trying to build his own horde so he'll consistantly try to steal an item from the fallen enemies before we can gather all the loot. It's in character he's not evil and he's almost been caught twice but he's bluffed his way out of it, I htink the bluff roll and the sens motive roll just enforce the player not being allowed to use knoowledge that the character doesn't have. It's like pretending not to know everything you do about the creatures in the monsters manual even though you've read it a thousand times you can't awlays do it and you'll switch to the spells or weapons that work better agains the creature even though your character has never seen one ebfore and you know we are all guilty of it.
Cael 12-11-06, 04:31 PM	I htink bluffing party memebers fits under the description of people who aren't to bright playing characters with a high INT score. If your chaarcter has a high CHA score and a high Bluff but you personally couldn't lie your way out of a paper bag I don't see why you couldn't allow a bluff role. And this goes for not just silly things like stealing 50gp, what happens if the only way to get another player to do something that is actually in his best interest except he's to stubborn is to trick him into doing it. The player knows you are lying to him but that's the player the chaarcter may not and I see no reason to have a bluff and sense motive roll made. As for players staling from other players why would you not allow it, the world isn't always a nice place and not everyone you travel with is going to have more than his own best inerestes at heart. The only thing is that the player has to realize the consequence of his action. There's a palladin in the group so I don't think the rogue would be killled out right but he could at the very elast be cast out of the party or maybe even given over to a local magistrate. As an example from our group the Kobold has dragon blood and he's chaotic neutral trying to build his own horde so he'll consistantly try to steal an item from the fallen enemies before we can gather all the loot. It's in character he's not evil and he's almost been caught twice but he's bluffed his way out of it, I htink the bluff roll and the sens motive roll just enforce the player not being allowed to use knoowledge that the character doesn't have. It's like pretending not to know everything you do about the creatures in the monsters manual even though you've read it a thousand times you can't awlays do it and you'll switch to the spells or weapons that work better agains the creature even though your character has never seen one ebfore and you know we are all guilty of it. Nevermind the characters. I am more worried about the *players*. They would know and it would cause friction, particularly if the player keep doing it time after time in game after game using different characters. I have seen it happening, and it isn't fun for everyone else. I'd rather not have players walking away because of the antics of 1 idiot.
Puca 12-11-06, 04:37 PM	There seem to be three separate issues here: 1) Should this type of behavior be allowed? It takes a pretty mature group to handle players stealing from players. I mean, like older than 12. It is 50 fictional gp. Seriously. But if it hurts the group, it is better to have such a policy in place. 2) Can social skills be used against other PCs? Regardless of what rules you have in place, there will be situations where one character lies to another. Im playing in a game now where against the partys wishes, I gave my rations to some starving villagers. If someone finds out, I’m going to lie, and it would be metagaming for the other PCs to not accept the results of opposed Bluff/Sense Motive checks. The way Ive handled it as a DM is I compare the checks on secret rolls and, my response is that based on the interaction a) “You feel like he is being dishonest.” b) “You have no reason to doubt him.” Or c) “You really cant tell anything. Note, based on the interaction. There might be a number of other reasons not to believe me, like your eyes, but as far as the conversation goes, that is the only information you are given, and I expect you to act in-character the same way I expect you to act in-character in any other situation where player knowledge is greater than character knowledge. 3) Was this handled correctly? The thief told the paladin that “the bard said I could have it” which isnt really that unbelievable, but he also told the bard he didnt do it when the bard has some contrary information. So it comes down to then a question of the history of the characters, the nature of the bard, and the bards memory as to what he is going to believe and how he will react in spite of the fact that, based solely on the character interaction, he has no reason to disbelieve the thief.
Apupunchau 12-11-06, 04:37 PM	Nevermind the characters. I am more worried about the *players*. They would know and it would cause friction, particularly if the player keep doing it time after time in game after game using different characters. I have seen it happening, and it isn't fun for everyone else. I'd rather not have players walking away because of the antics of 1 idiot. I agree if a player cannot be trusted to not keep doing the same thing over and over again with a new chaarcter that could be a problem. There are too solutions to this problem the first and easiest is kick the player, Why lose a whole group to one idiot just lose the idiot. The second and more fun (and one we've used before when our DM wouldn't kick a player) is the rest of the party plays a game to see in what new and creative ways they can kill the problem player every time he makes a new character, after awhile he takes the hint and leaves. My comments about bluff are made with the assumtion that you have an adult enough group not to throw a fit when one player does what's best for himself in character, and that player doesn't overly abuse the trust of the plaeyrs, not matter how much his character abuses the trust of the other characters.
Cael 12-11-06, 04:58 PM	I agree if a player cannot be trusted to not keep doing the same thing over and over again with a new chaarcter that could be a problem. There are too solutions to this problem the first and easiest is kick the player, Why lose a whole group to one idiot just lose the idiot. The second and more fun (and one we've used before when our DM wouldn't kick a player) is the rest of the party plays a game to see in what new and creative ways they can kill the problem player every time he makes a new character, after awhile he takes the hint and leaves. My comments about bluff are made with the assumtion that you have an adult enough group not to throw a fit when one player does what's best for himself in character, and that player doesn't overly abuse the trust of the plaeyrs, not matter how much his character abuses the trust of the other characters. It is not an act of maturity to allow the idiot to do as he likes. After all, he could be a Thuggee, and then where would you be? In fact, I would say that being fair and seeing the value in cooperation as more mature actions then being a selfish little git, even if it is in character. Also, human being humans, particularly if you are brought up in a liberal culture that idolises fairness, it would be impossible for most not to feel at least a bit of annoyance over the antics of a PC stealer...
Nikku 12-11-06, 06:28 PM	Well.. I figured I'd C&P the response I got from Customer Service. We have this happen quite often to us, so I figured I'd ask. 1. You cannot use Diplomacy or Intimidate to change a Player Character's attitude. Players always make their own decisions (DMG v.3.5, pg 128). A successful Bluff against a failed Sense Motive means that the PC who failed has no real evidence to think the bluffer may be bluffing, but he can believe the bluffer is lying if he wants to.
TheDanishCartoonist 12-11-06, 06:53 PM	Well.. I figured I'd C&P the response I got from Customer Service. We have this happen quite often to us, so I figured I'd ask. 1. You cannot use Diplomacy or Intimidate to change a Player Character's attitude. Players always make their own decisions (DMG v.3.5, pg 128). A successful Bluff against a failed Sense Motive means that the PC who failed has no real evidence to think the bluffer may be bluffing, but he can believe the bluffer is lying if he wants to. Thanks, I knew I'd remembered reading something like that before, but I wasn't sure where.
MobiusKlein 12-12-06, 02:32 AM	I would let a PC Rogue use Bluff when performing a 'bad' deed in order to justify it to the Paladin. The Rogue knows the Paladin will bail if he knew what really happened. (and yes, Sense Motive is a Paladin class skill.) Players still get to choose what happens, but skill rolls can provide a justification for the actions. Diplomacy rolls to get the two squabling party members back on speaking terms. Intimidate to assert leadership. But those cases only occur when the players actually consent to let the others use skills on them. (And even the best Diplomacy roll won't make the target give up all their loot, PC or NPC.)
Spec_Specter 12-12-06, 03:36 AM	I run into this more then I care to admit... lucky my DMs know about the above rule and enforce it or things would probually get out of hand pretty fast... however, any other form of subterfuge, like stealing loot while the rest of the party is finishing off the fight, is alowed (sometimes practiclly encuraged!) when the player is playing a "sneaky character" because the DM just asumes he's 'trying to stay in character' :ahem:
TarlSS 12-12-06, 05:56 AM	Social skills don't work on players. If you want to kibosh your fellows, then you will do so without the DM or the D20 System's help.
Sphyre 12-12-06, 10:20 AM	Let me put it this way: Have you ever been in a situation where someone told you something and you later found out it was a lie? You beleived it didn't you? Yeah, but you won't believe that person anymore regardless of how convincing they are, depending on who they are. Why? I treat bluff and sense motive as the ability to pass off a lie without showing signs that you're lying. It doesn't mean that logical deduction or lack of trust can't also be a factor. Whenever an NPC lies to a party member, they roll their sense motive. If they fail, "he seems truthful, not trying to hide anything," when they don't "the way in which he said it made you wonder whether he's hiding something, or whether he's telling the truth." I had an NPC in my last session lie to the entire party (None of the party members have enough ranks in sense motive to beat the bluff check i made) I didn't tell them anything (nor did I ask for rolls because they couldn't beat it) yet they still distrust him based on his behavior of just popping out of nowhere claiming he can help them. If you just compare the story of the paladin and you, you'll see an obvious lie even if it was convincing (and seemingly consistent) at first. In that case, you'd probably be a bit ticked that you were lied to, and believed it at first rather than caught on that he was misleading you. If your character has an int score of at least 10, if someone says he was at a party at 10 pm, and then tells your friend he was asleep at home at 10, and there was no party at his house, you can logically deduce that at least one, or both are lies. Just because you can't tell when someone is lying based off how convincing they are, doesn't mean you trust them, or that you can't know someone's lying off the logical inconsistences. For example, I notice that when my friend lies, she studders and if i interupt her she gets flustered. She's not confident in being able to tell the lie. I have more ranks in sense motive than she has in bluff. Yet, when I lie, I simply say the lie as if it were truth, because without facts that prove otherwise, it's how I would say it if it were truth. I have a higher bluff check than she has sense motive, because i have less signs of deviation from when I tell the truth, when I tell a lie. Bluff, in my opinion, is simply how well you can act like you're telling the truth. Sense motive is how well you pay attention to people, and pick up the subtle clues people have when they lie. Like they say, people have habits when they lie, like not being able to look you straight in the eye, blinking a lot, getting red, studdering, not taking a long time to say something, spitting it out quick and nervously. People better at lying don't have as many signs of that. It's picking up on body language, rather than actually believing them.
angryman 12-12-06, 09:53 PM	We had an in-party thief. The DM just let it play out. So my wizard found out (eventually) that the rogue had been stealing gold from me. (don't steal money from my wizards, they are anally retentive and like to count things) Then the DM allowed my character to deal with the rogue as I saw fit. It wasn't too bad, I just forced him to pay it back and said if he ever stepped within 10' of me, I'd castrate him.