Page 1187 - Gin & Doctor, Part 7

26th Feb 2019, 6:00 AM
<<First Latest>>
Gin & Doctor, Part 7
Average Rating: 0 (0 votes)
<<First Latest>>

Author Notes:

Newbiespud 26th Feb 2019, 6:00 AM edit delete
Author: Winged Cat
Artist: Digo Dragon

Guest Author's Note: "So... yeah. The bigwings. They are not pegasuses. Neither are they truly rocs (though they use that as a nickname), but they've got the falling part down.

Gin is about to feel low, deflated, not standing tall..."


Guest 26th Feb 2019, 6:25 AM edit delete reply
Of the opinion that succeeding in bluff doesn't convince someone you're telling the truth. Just that you convince them that you believe your telling the truth. So succeeding at making an outrageous claim is just convincing them that you yourself believe what you say is true, and therefore you're insane. Definite helps prevent abuse.
Ganny 26th Feb 2019, 7:35 AM edit delete reply
Eh. That's why its generally countered by Sense Motive. FoE runs a bit differently, but I generally don't see players specialize in Bluff as it is. So I'd let Bluff be 'The player is telling the complete truth'. Especially since the GM can use it too.
Draxynnic 26th Feb 2019, 7:54 AM edit delete reply
I've generally played it that a successful Bluff check doesn't even convince them you're telling the truth - just that they haven't caught you out in a lie.

Primarily, because of the reverse situation: PCs often don't have sky-high Sense Motive, and some antagonists have Bluff checks that most PCs won't be able to beat, even with the circumstance modifiers for tall claims. I don't think it'd be fair to tell the players they have to believe the NPC completely and must act accordingly because they can't beat the NPC's bluff check. Turning that around, there are times when I think a successful Bluff check is not necessarily enough to ensure that an NPC thinks you're telling the truth... but they will at least think you MIGHT be telling the truth and act accordingly.
Digo Dragon 26th Feb 2019, 7:54 AM edit delete reply
Digo Dragon
I most often see Bluff used by players to get past the law or get out of trouble; telling a guard you're just making a delivery, bluffing the officer that you didn't witness the crime you took part of, or convince the king that yes you totally took care of his dragon problem.
Draxynnic 26th Feb 2019, 8:53 AM edit delete reply
Yeah, in those cases a successful Bluff check would probably cover it. But there is the potential even with those for the "you seem to be on the level, but..." approach to apply. Or "I can't tell HOW you're lying, but you're a (insert race subject to prejudice here) so I'm sure you're guilty of something".
Crisis 26th Feb 2019, 10:17 AM edit delete reply
Bluff and Sense Motive have essentially been replaced/folded into Deception and Insight in 5e, which is what I mostly play.

Also, I like to tailor results of contested dice rolls to the difference between the results. The bigger the difference, the bigger the success for the winner.

One of my players in a level 0 campaign (using my own house rules to make that work) is playing a con artist and he decided to sell a tall tale about a golden fish no one can catch to an experienced (i.e. level 4) rogue in a tavern. He rolls decently for Deception (something in the mid-teens if I recall correctly), but the Rogue rolls absolute crap for Insight - lower than 5 on the raw roll - and this level of disparity repeats *twice* (i.e. a difference of significantly more than 5 between them) as he continues his tall tale BS, so I decide that he's somehow found the world's most gullible Rogue as a mark.