Glibness.... Errata?

[Psyren]

Easiest option.

If one of your players found a 1st level spell that gives him +30 to melee attack rolls, would you find easier to ban the spell, or put some restrictions on what somebody can hit with a melee attack?

That's a terrible analogy.

1) An attack roll is clearly defined in terms of what it can do - Bluff is not, making DM involvement necessary anyway.

2) Skill checks are supposed to be easy to boost (certainly easier than attack rolls.)

3) Glibness is 3rd level, not 1st.

[Telonius]

Having said all that, I love it when my players creatively use Bluff, and I let them get away with it if they're clever about it. But the more they push, the more the world pushes back...

This is approximately how I handle it as well.

[LordBlades]

Looks like we agree to disagree on this matter.

All of my gaming group agreed that getting rid of Glibness (and a few other spells for that matter, like Wraithstrike or the dragon killer aka Shivering Touch) was for the better of the game.

It also freed the DM of the need to think of ways to purposely screw over the PC when attempting something out of his/her comfort zone with the tools he allowed in the game.

[absolmorph]

Yeah bluff abuse requires a very generous interpretation. If you're a rules stickler and have trouble deciding what is reasonable and what is silly, then Saph's explanation works well. This leaves glibness at something weaker than suggestion per attempt but it more than makes up for it by lasting a lot longer.

If you can take a penalty of 50 on your check, then it's a nonmagical Suggestion.

[Toliudar]

I second the sheer entertainment value of bluff. I DM'ed a group whose bard only used the skill twice in an entire campaign, but the second time (augmented by Glibness), he managed to convince the entire group of mercenary guards/labourers that the BBEG had fired them - leaving a half-empty dungeon. Perhaps not strictly RAW, but much, much more entertaining (in retrospect) than mowing through dozens more mooks before getting to the final encounters.

[Killer Angel]

Looks like we agree to disagree on this matter.

All of my gaming group agreed that getting rid of Glibness (and a few other spells for that matter, like Wraithstrike or the dragon killer aka Shivering Touch) was for the better of the game.

It's your prerogative, but IMO you cannot pretend that you were "forced" to do so, 'cause with glibness there was the risk of a "coup d'etat".
By RAW, you can make someone act as you will only for a round or less, and if you want someone believes you for more time, he'll do it, but you have no control over his actions, and he will believe you only 'til some evidence of the contrary appears.
A DM that feels obligated or forced to follow a certain course of action for a glibness, playing it like a magical suggestion, IMO is making some mistake.

[HunterOfJello]

If one of your players found a 1st level spell that gives him +30 to melee attack rolls, would you find easier to ban the spell, or put some restrictions on what somebody can hit with a melee attack?

*Cough* *Cough* True Strike *Cough*

[Ravens_cry]

*Cough* *Cough* True Strike *Cough*

Unless you follow the Item Creation guidelines, and guidelines they are, as rules, it's not broken.

[tcrudisi]

By RAW, you can make someone act as you will only for a round or less, and if you want someone believes you for more time, he'll do it, but you have no control over his actions, and he will believe you only 'til some evidence of the contrary appears.

A DM that feels obligated or forced to follow a certain course of action for a glibness, playing it like a magical suggestion, IMO is making some mistake.

I am very confused by your argument, KA. There are two applications of Bluff, one which you can make someone act as you wish (for 1 round or less) and the other which causes them to believe something that you want them to believe (no duration).

In the previous examples used, if you were to tell someone that their king is an impostor, you are not making them act as you wish. They have many options available to them. Instead, you are causing them to believe something that you want them to believe, which has no duration. They still get to choose how to react to this information. Some will choose to attack their king, others will try to find the general to arrest him, others will flee, others will not care. The DM is not forced or obligated to follow a certain course of action that you give him, he is forced to have the character react to new information, much as though they have to react if you draw a crossbow and point it at them.

Can you please explain to me why using Bluff to convince someone of something is "making them act as you wish"?

[ericgrau]

It basically boils down to "No I'm not making them do X, I'm making them believe that X is the right thing to do which RAW allows. Unlike making them do X, which it only allows for a round or less". This is RAI nonsense behind a thin veneer of overly literal RAW.

What makes matters worse is that wording such as "a round or less" is incredibly vague (how do you decide how long?), which makes it seem like the DM is supposed to decide how to handle it and the only RAW on the matter is that there is no clear RAW, only some loose guidelines.

[Tvtyrant]

It basically boils down to "No I'm not making them do X, I'm making them believe that X is the right thing to do which RAW allows. Unlike making them do X". This is RAI nonsense behind a thin veneer of overly literal RAW.

Except that people are more complicated then that.

Take someone believing that the King is a doppelganger, and your the real one. If the person was against the king they might just kill you, so they can prove the king is a doppelganger later when it would help them. They could simply panic and run away, since everything they know is a lie.

[Jothki]

You could just have the enemies start using glibness against the PCs.

[ericgrau]

Except that people are more complicated then that.

Take someone believing that the King is a doppelganger, and your the real one. If the person was against the king they might just kill you, so they can prove the king is a doppelganger later when it would help them. They could simply panic and run away, since everything they know is a lie.

Yeah, but you might not even get that far. Even if people "know" the king is a doppelganger the laws usually require proof. Heck, even personally they'll be a bit suspicious if you refuse to deliver proof (though they'll give you the benefit of the doubt until then).

[Boci]

(though they'll give you the benefit of the doubt until then).

Not neccissarily. If someone told me my flatmate was CIA agent I wouldn't give them the benefit, no matter how convinced and sane they seemed.

[tcrudisi]

Not neccissarily. If someone told me my flatmate was CIA agent I wouldn't give them the benefit, no matter how convinced and sane they seemed.

True, but that just means they failed their bluff check due to the -20 penalty.

Now, if they had cast Glibness beforehand....

/edit - What I'm really saying is that they failed their Bluff check. Sure, you believe that they believe what they are saying, but that just means you didn't think he was trying to Bluff you. With a successful check, you would believe him. How would you react to it? Well, that's entirely up to you.

[ericgrau]

Yeah that term was a bit loose. It's more like you wouldn't immediately brush them off before they even have a chance to get proof.

[LordBlades]

Except that people are more complicated then that.

Take someone believing that the King is a doppelganger, and your the real one. If the person was against the king they might just kill you, so they can prove the king is a doppelganger later when it would help them. They could simply panic and run away, since everything they know is a lie.

However, if the person in cause is a loyal (and not very bright) palace guard, that has sworn to defend the real king and obey his every word, would he not follow an order given to him by his real king (whom he thinks the PC is) to kill an imposter (the real king in this case) out of his own free will?

[Boci]

However, if the person in cause is a loyal (and not very bright) palace guard, that has sworn to defend the real king and obey his every word, would he not follow an order given to him by his real king (whom he thinks the PC is) to kill an imposter (the real king in this case) out of his own free will?

No. That is the problem with the way bluff was used at your table, not glibness. If I were the DM at best the guard would (apologizing repeatedly to both kings) stand both up against the wall and send someone else to get a mage qualified to find out who is the real king.

[LordBlades]

No. That is the problem with the way bluff was used at your table, not glibness. If I were the DM at best the guard would (apologizing repeatedly to both kings) stand both up against the wall and send someone else to get a mage qualified to find out who is the real king.

It's just a matter of DM-ing style then. Our DM doesn't like screwing players over when they try something other than the expected approach.

And just for the record, I do not think your approach would be entirely RAW. Most people that believe something tend to act in consequence, not seek further proof of it. However, discussing the hypotetical motivations of a hypothetical person in a hypothetical situation is pretty much useless.

[Boci]

It's just a matter of DM-ing style then. Our DM doesn't like screwing players over when they try something other than the expected approach.

So wait, you equate having the guard not kill the king to screwing the PCs over?

And just for the record, I do not think your approach would be entirely RAW.

I know, I don't care. I would change it, to avoid situations like the one you described.

Most people that believe something tend to act in consequence, not seek further proof of it.

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

[tcrudisi]

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

Hm... well, I can't say what others would do, but my own reaction would boil down to one of three possibilities were I in this situation:

1) Get as far away as possible. I don't know how long an impostor has been on the throne, so I can't know for sure how he will treat me. As such, I might play it safe and gtfo.

2) Continue as though I know nothing. After all, after thinking about it for a minute, I would realize that the impostor would not want to rock the boat. So really, if I'm high up, he would not want to rock the boat by killing me.

3) Blackmail the king. "Hey King, I know your secret. Give me 100,000gp and I'll stay quiet. I have several accomplices with instructions on going public with my information tomorrow if I do not contact them." ... And then I would disappear.

Attacking the king would not be something I would even consider, even if the king was my best friend (and therefore I thought the impostor had killed him). Why? Because everyone else still thinks he's the king and he will be protected as such.

Even though magic is available, I would not seek further proof. Why? Because, well, I believe the guy who told me. He passed his Bluff check, so why wouldn't I believe him? I could see someone wanting to get proof in order to oust him as an impostor, though.

[Caphi]

It basically boils down to "No I'm not making them do X, I'm making them believe that X is the right thing to do which RAW allows. Unlike making them do X, which it only allows for a round or less". This is RAI nonsense behind a thin veneer of overly literal RAW.

Not really. The art of deception is nothing more than making people do what you want by manipulating their information. Making someone do what you want by changing their view of the situation is how Bluff works. The "brute force" application of Bluff (the first one printed, for some reason) is a much worse alternative.

[Acanous]

See, the thing here is you're trying to use Bluff as Diplomacy.
Now, a ridiculously high bluff check helps a lot, but if you really wanted a coup, and bloodless besides, you'd want to epic-diplomancy the king into lawfully naming you his successor and stepping down.

THAT is RAW.

[Fiery Diamond]

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

I agree with this. Here's what I think the guard would do - go to get some other people. "The King just told me there's a doppelganger on the throne!" he'll cry. "His Majesty wants the doppelganger killed! We must act!" Remember, he's convinced that the King told him this, but unless he's got a very low Wis score, he's not going to go anything alone when the stakes are that high. This then brings other people into the equation, and the situation could go any number of directions.

[LordBlades]

So wait, you equate having the guard not kill the king to screwing the PCs over?.

Finding rules interpretations that invalidates a PCs actions when there also is an at least equally reasonable(in my opinion) interpretation that allows them to succeed, is kind of screqing players over in my book.

I know, I don't care. I would change it, to avoid situations like the one you described..

You found this approah works for you. Removing Gibness worked for us. You're having fun with the game, we're having fun with the game. I see no problem with it.

Sorry, but no. I feel that I can safely claim that the vast majority of people WOULD require further proof before committing what could potentially be high treason.

The way I see it, it's implied in a sucessful bluff check that you have brought enough arguments to the target that he is convinced what you say is true.

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

[Fiery Diamond]

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

This is also true. A lot of us civilians have a hard time remembering this as it is so utterly alien to our way of thinking (I'm talking about American civilians in general...can't speak for any other societies, though I suspect most Western cultures are similar and most Eastern ones are not).

[Boci]

Finding rules interpretations that invalidates a PCs actions when there also is an at least equally reasonable(in my opinion) interpretation that allows them to succeed, is kind of screqing players over in my book.

The party researches what happened last time a shapeshifter infiltrated the court, then plen the beguiler under and illusion convinces the court guard that it may have happened again and that he is the real king. The King and the beguiler are lined against the wall whilst the court mage is fetched, who is unconcious and lying under his bed, and waiting for the guards in his room is the party's mage disguised to look like him. He returns to the court (whilst the party fighter enters the mage's room and force feeds him a custom made potion of modify memort) and identifies the real king as the shapeshifter and is sent to the dungeon. The party now has some breathing space, but they are left with 4 options as to what to do with the real king:

1. Leave him to the courts and trust that his claims of inocence will be viewed as lies.

2. Modify his memory so that he genuinly believes he is a shapeshifter.

3. Assassinate him, but make it look like it was done for something he did whilst on the throne.

4. Come up for an acceptable reason to hasten the trial and execution.

Or, the PC has a super duper bluff check and convinces a guard to kill the king and court that he is infact the real king. Each to their own, I know what I would rather see my PCs do.

The way I see it, it's implied in a sucessful bluff check that you have brought enough arguments to the target that he is convinced what you say is true.

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

And I believe that the guard would know just how well some people can play with your mind and would thus hesisitate to take actions that are hard to reverse.

[Acanous]

The Secret Service being told he's being Bribed?
Yes. They would shoot. The guy that told them he's being bribed.

Extorted, on the other hand...

[Killer Angel]

I am very confused by your argument, KA. There are two applications of Bluff, one which you can make someone act as you wish (for 1 round or less) and the other which causes them to believe something that you want them to believe (no duration).

In the previous examples used, if you were to tell someone that their king is an impostor, you are not making them act as you wish. They have many options available to them. Instead, you are causing them to believe something that you want them to believe, which has no duration. They still get to choose how to react to this information. Some will choose to attack their king, others will try to find the general to arrest him, others will flee, others will not care. The DM is not forced or obligated to follow a certain course of action that you give him, he is forced to have the character react to new information, much as though they have to react if you draw a crossbow and point it at them.

Can you please explain to me why using Bluff to convince someone of something is "making them act as you wish"?

OK, clearly my explanation wasn't clear.
LordBlades' group removed glibness from the game, 'cause with a bluff so buffed, there was a coup d'etat.
Obviously, it's they right to do so, and if it's good for'em, OK.
I was (poorly) pointing that, as you said, by RAW, the DM is not forced or obligated to follow a certain course of action (that is eventually possible only with the first option of bluff: "making someone acting as you wish for 1 round")...
As also Boci said, the problem lies with the way bluff was used at LordBlades' table, 'cause even with glibness, it's totally in the hand of the DM to decide the way the NPCs react to bluff (although the reaction must be credible).
The NPC may believe the bluffer, but it's the DM that decide what consequences develope from such belief.

Also, I believe that for most rank-and-file military men, obeying orders ranks higher in their priority list than questioning their morality and implications.

This is true in many cases, but even by military law, you can (and should) disobey a direct order, if you believe/know that the order is wrong. For example, you cannot execute some civilian, claiming as an excusation "my official ordered us to do so!"

[turkishproverb]

A player tried this on me once. Deciding to let them think that interpretation of Glibness was correct (Let's not go there) I responded without much effort. It tTurned out the king's advisers and some of his guards intended to kill the king and replace him with a doppelganger anyway. The poor PC died screaming.