A Reminder

[roguethree]

SM automatically opposes bluff mathimatically

Right, but who's to say the DC must be established before the roll is made? It doesn't really matter who rolls first because regardless of dice order, resolution of the rolls will occur in the same space.

I disagree, as well, that it's situationally dependent. My rolling Sense Motive in no way creates any Meta information other than, "Hey, I think something's up." However, a preemptive Bluff check says, "I'm lying." Players can be responsible with that information, but they can also subconsciously (or consciously) allow it to subtly guide their IC actions. In the interesting of preventing opportunities to metagame, I think Sense Motive should always precede Bluff.

What if the player of the character you're lying to dosen't know you're lying, and hence can't ask you for a Bluff?

Exactly. If you've no reason to suspect someone of lying and they're not making outlandish claims, why would that person need to roll Bluff? Just because I have an impressive Sense Motive score, I shouldn't be able to walk up to stranger who happens to be a Banite, strike up a conversation, talk bad about Banites, and be able to tell he's actually a Banite supporter when he says, "Yeah, man, Banites are bad news. Glad I'm not part of that crowd."

Same situation, except I've seen him palling around with Clive. He says, "Yeah, screw Banites. I hate 'em." Now I'm suspicious, now I roll Sense Motive, and now he rolls Bluff.

[Dragor]

@r3

Your point is well made

However several points from the opposing view also make sense (to me)...and as stated my own personal view is that it is situational

There are just some situations I have put my char's in where it made sense to me to roll a Bluff check

I dont think either way is wrong

[crazyjerren]

I have an idea: Couldn't we add a 'bluff vs sense motive' private roll? One that does an auto-check behind the scenes no one can see. Maybe even borrowing a bit from 4e and making it a 'passive' sense motive of DC 10 + SM skill. If the bluffer succeeds, nothing happens. But if the bluffer fails, a message in the 'combat' box pops up saying 'Player X seems uneasy' which could then prompt the player to make an actual SM roll.

Granted, a bluffer could simply not make a roll ever and your back to square one: Leaving it up to the SM player to call out the bluffer. But it would provide a neat way to bluff without it being public knowledge.

[Machiavelli]

I think the example Root brought up illustrates part of the problem with how people view bluff. I can't see why the Black Hand player should have to roll bluff at all (unless they want to). If the other two PCs have no reason to suspect him, he should be able to lie with impunity at his player's discretion (up to the player whether they want to make him seem shifty). Bluff only comes into it when you're trying to get people to swallow something outlandish, or weasel your way out of something. The statement "I am not a Banite." doesn't require any sort of bluff check unless those present have reason to believe otherwise.

[Root]

I think the long and the short of it is, if you're not putting ranks in bluff, and someone talking to you is a master in Sense Motive, don't expect to be keeping any important secrets for very long. They made the investment, you didn't, pay the price.

Still merrily disagree with r3, burden should be on the liar. The only reason for the liar not to roll bluff would be metagaming suspicions, and if people do metagame it, just call them out on it and set things straight.

[DM_Acorn]

I have an idea: Couldn't we add a 'bluff vs sense motive' private roll? One that does an auto-check behind the scenes no one can see. Maybe even borrowing a bit from 4e and making it a 'passive' sense motive of DC 10 + SM skill. If the bluffer succeeds, nothing happens. But if the bluffer fails, a message in the 'combat' box pops up saying 'Player X seems uneasy' which could then prompt the player to make an actual SM roll.

Granted, a bluffer could simply not make a roll ever and your back to square one: Leaving it up to the SM player to call out the bluffer. But it would provide a neat way to bluff without it being public knowledge.

This I like quite a lot actually. To go even further towards the way it should be (DM makes check in secret and informs players)

I would say the Bluff check should be made blind for the bluffer as well. Perhaps they could even have a SM check to see if the other bought it. Opposed by the target of the bluffs, bluff check :P LOL perhaps this is too circular but it is a cool thought.

Yes it is true the bull-shitter is on his/her honor to make the check (advocating for the missing DM) but I think we have a respectable enough community that this is not asking too much.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

Hey folks,

I hate to cast Animate Thread here, but the DM staff has seen a lot of PC's lately with below average stats. Keep in mind, that we expect you to roleplay those stats accordingly, whether or not a DM is online.

To help, here's a basic guide to how stats are supposed to play out when creating a character. The example that they give should be a basic reference for most PC's who take negative stats.

Also, please keep in mind that your skills should reflect what your character is able to know or do. If you don't have any ranks in knowledge: arcana, we really shouldn't see folks sprout off information about the physiology and breeding habits of green dragons.

This isn't meant to single out any specific PC's, but is just a reminder. Roleplay should be first and foremost when determining how a character acts.

[Snowmane]

Hey folks,

I hate to cast Animate Thread here,

Thread Necromancy! I knew there was something wrong with that GD guy. He's a Dark Advent sympathizer!

[Pew]

I play a half orc with 8 charisma, and 10 intelligence, i try to speak and be a bit slow in the head. but how much would that effect such a character ?

[Catastrophe]

Well there is no real answer that we can give you for that.

But stats of ten are considered average. So just imagine a person with average intelligence. Concerning charisma, people tend to use the stat for different things. Some tend to have it stand for how good looking their character is, and some tend to use it for how their character would act in social standings.

[Pew]

Not easy to know how to play it though, will try to figure it out along the way.

[Kirin]

Not easy to know how to play it though, will try to figure it out along the way.

Look on Youtube for a video called "Meet the Heavy". (from Team Fortress 2).

There's your Half-Orc.

[Mournas]

Nothing wrong with Min Maxing when the Game world you play in Minimizes the power of Magical Items you can have, hence why Spell Casters are OP in Sundren. Straight non magical melee fighters Min Max to get them that one extra to hit and damage, and that extra toughness or ac they need, when casters can Melee just as well, if not better with the right buffs up.

[roguethree]

concerning charisma, if you have a positive score, you have a positive trait(s). If you don't, you don't.

ftfy.

[Catastrophe]

Nothing wrong with Min Maxing when the Game world you play in Minimizes the power of Magical Items you can have, hence why Spell Casters are OP in Sundren. Straight non magical melee fighters Min Max to get them that one extra to hit and damage, and that extra toughness or ac they need, when casters can Melee just as well, if not better with the right buffs up.

We as a whole are not telling you not to do it. We just hope that if you do do it, then roleplay those stats accordingly.