Dice rolls and how to counter it...

[Louis D'or]

Is it possible to make a list,of the dices need rolled to counter another players dice roll?
for example i like "bluffing" alot,but 9 out of ten times people seem to ignore it.
And maybe if people knew what dices to roll,it would be more natural to roll them,instead of ignoring a check becuse of not knowing how to oppose it?!
I would take it upon myself to make the list,but is it something that would be worth the while?

[Lucius]

Opposed rolls work better if you PM the target before and tell them you'll try a skill check. The two can get the details such as what to roll and then do the skill check.

[Weeblie]

Feeling... Go for feeling...

Like... Personally, I use "will save" against "bluff" as there aren't any "sense motive" skill and I dislike opposed rolls.

[Talan Va'lash]

The dicebag doesn't have the appropriate counter rolls for... really anything.  Or even the appropriate agressor rolls for attacking.

A strength check is not an attack roll, and a reflex save is not how you avoid an attack.

*shrugs*

Just kinda have to go for feeling atm.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

I usually do a DEX check plus BAB, plus any other modifiers.

Bluff, the way I usually do it, is either with an opposed Bluff or a Will Save.

You get the idea.

[Louis D'or]

Most suggestions and the different ways people percieve dice rolls makes perfectly sense in their own

right,but raises just as many questions as answers,for a person with a different view,be it anyone...

What i suggested to begin with is not realistic,i see now,taking the possibilities and limitations

of  "the bag" into consideration,but would if be totally off to standardise the skill rolls according

to what "the bag" can do?

To put it simple(as i am not sure i am expressing this right): Take each official skill roll (only

skill roll),starting from the top, "the bag" is able to roll,and find its counter,be it ability roll

or another skill roll,and make that the official skill rolls!

TA DA presto,and the doubt is gone!

The "creative freedom" can still be there in "custom" situations,and of course 2 parties can always

agree between themselves,what the appropriate roll is,but if nothing else is agreed the "official"

list counts skill wise?!

[errk]

I personally think it’s difficult to have one fixed counter roll to bluff or many other subjective situations, it would have to be set to a DC as to how believable the bluff actually was.  

If a scruffy looking bard came up to my near-genius wizard, said the world would end if I didn’t give him all my gold..  and rolled a bluff against my lousy will-save..  Well, you get the point.  Bluffs could easy turn into a grievance if someone was forced to play along..  but could add a lot of spice to RP as well.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Yep. It really helps in those situations if you know the PnP rules well.

[SquareKnot]

I like the idea of having some kind of established system, especially for those who don't know the PnP rules. But I also agree that there are many extenuating circumstances.

For example, a scruffy bard really did once try a bluff on me. He claimed that he was a particular high level cleric. He rolled a very high bluff score (in the high 30's, as I remember. Who puts that many points into bluff?).

There was just one problem. I had met the cleric in question one week previous and had journeyed with him for several IG days.

Being doubtful, but knowing that magic makes people look very different, I asked him to call the ultra-powerful summons he had used while "we" were together. The subject was dropped and the conversation went a different way.

Did I cheat this player out of a successful bluff, or was it handled properly? I never rolled any dice during the entire exchange.

[Faldred]

Did I cheat this player out of a successful bluff, or was it handled properly? I never rolled any dice during the entire exchange.

The bluff has to be believable -- by trying to impersonate someone you knew, even a successful bluff would meet with suspicion, which you played well, I think.  The player could have tried to follow up the bluff with another one along the lines of "I do not call upon the favors of my god except in the case of true need".

On the other hand, a character like Zug, who's a bit simple and very trusting, would probably have believed the bluffer, at least for a while, even without a bluff check.

[kenty191]

Just out of curiosity, my character Kali spends a lot of time with Dervish the Eye. Now Intelligence, is defined as 'how well a character learns and reasons', Kali being a wizard has a huge intelligence and she has also seen Derv 'lie' enough to mostly know when he's up to no good.

Therefore in this case at least is it possible to assume Kali could make an intelligence check, rather than say will as she has learned how to spot Derv's lies, but not those of others.

Not really a question, but I just wanted to highlight the possible different checks that could be made, as suggested by the posts above this one.

[Rayenoir]

Generally, Wisdom is the key stat in spotting a lie.  I suppose if it was something that your character had a good chance of knowing better than Dervish, but detecting lies is usually (at least in D&D terms ) based upon subtle vocal and bodylanguage cues that one picks up on and processes without actively thinking about it.

[Weeblie]

Well, as long as both players agree, you can use whatever roll you want to counter bluff.

A: I didn't steal the pie!

(Spot)
B: *points at a spot on A's clothes* What's that then?

(Wis)
B: *sarcastic* Suuuure... What about all the other 154-times then?

(Int)
B: Yes, you did! You stole my blueberry pie!
A: No, I didn't! Besides, it was a blackberry one!
*long silence*
A: Erh...

(Persuade)
B: *cries* That was my last one...
A: *looks ashamed* Um... *murmurs* Sorry...

(Str/Intimidate)
B: *holds his throat tightly* GIVE IT BACK TO ME!

(Pick Pocket)
B: Oh... my mistake... *takes A's purse* Nevermind...

[Philosopher]

I usually do wisdom check VS Dervish, to draw on experience from lying. So far Dulan hasn't seen him lie, when Dervish WAS lying! Incredible I know! A will save seems a bit odd to throw against a lie...I mean your going to will away the lie and not let it get into your mind? Seems odd...

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

In Kali's example, I would say that it gives her a +10 bonus on the check to see when he's lieing... Of course, that's considering that she knows it's Dervie.

[darkstorme]

I like Weeblie's solution.  Particularly "Pick Pocket".  Mwaa haa haa haa.

Louis D'or's suggestion is hard to implement, particularly since dice rolls aren't "targeted", so an automatic counter-roll is impossible - you'd still have to select the appropriate skill check.

[Arcanist]

Bluff is a skill that can be countered depending on the situation, for example; if there was a book which has a happy ending, and the person bluffing wanted to tell someone it was a sad ending, the person being bluffed to could roll a lore check against the bluff, because if they had a high lore and had read the book before, they would know the ending well.

For another exaple; if a person was poisoned, and another person bluffed that the poison was fatal (when in truth it wasn't) the poisoned person could roll a heal check to see if they knew about how certain poisons effect the body.

Bluff could also be countered by a bluff, because those skilled in bluffing would know how not to lie, and through knowledge of knowing how NOT to lie, they could see if someone is lying by the tell tale signs of lying that they have learned to avoid while they themselves lie.

Thats my thoughts on bluffing...

[ycleption]

Well, as long as both players agree, you can use whatever roll you want to counter bluff.

A: I didn't steal the pie!

(Spot)
B: *points at a spot on A's clothes* What's that then?

(Wis)
B: *sarcastic* Suuuure... What about all the other 154-times then?

(Int)
B: Yes, you did! You stole my blueberry pie!
A: No, I didn't! Besides, it was a blackberry one!
*long silence*
A: Erh...

(Persuade)
B: *cries* That was my last one...
A: *looks ashamed* Um... *murmurs* Sorry...

(Str/Intimidate)
B: *holds his throat tightly* GIVE IT BACK TO ME!

(Pick Pocket)
B: Oh... my mistake... *takes A's purse* Nevermind...

I'm just bumping (well, really more like digging out of the grave) this thread, because I think Weeblie's example's here are particularly insightful. I've had a number of recent encounters where a player has said that wisdom check is "the" opposed roll, or that another bluff check is "the official" opposed roll. I know that many DM's ask players for certain rolls, but unless there has been some change I'm not aware of, there is no single roll that should be used... think of the lack of "sense motive" as an opportunity for creative role play. Obviously, if you are going a more creative route, use some OOC communication to ensure that the other player is alright with it.
A bit more my personal opinion, remember if your character has no reason to doubt the bluff, you don't need to roll an opposed check, you can simply accept the bluff as truth, and alternatively, obvious lies ("I am Toran in disguise") can be handled without a check: RP should trump mechanics.

[EdTheKet]

I know that many DM's ask players for certain rolls, but unless there has been some change I'm not aware of, there is no single roll that should be used...

Correct, there's no single roll. Some GMs want one thing, others the other, and yet others will have it depend on the situation.

remember if your character has no reason to doubt the bluff, you don't need to roll an opposed check, you can simply accept the bluff as truth, and alternatively, obvious lies ("I am Toran in disguise") can be handled without a check: RP should trump mechanics.

Agreed!

[Skabot Redwolf]

I usually do wisdom check VS Dervish, to draw on experience from lying. So far Dulan hasn't seen him lie, when Dervish WAS lying! Incredible I know! A will save seems a bit odd to throw against a lie...I mean your going to will away the lie and not let it get into your mind? Seems odd...

I think the idea is that will save is the wis based save, that being level adjusted, gives more experienced chars a better chance to save.  Therefore, a high lv fighter won't always believe a lie from a relatively low lv bard or rouge.  The way I see it, higher lv chars have had more exposure to liars, and have learned to sniff them out, as it were.  Also, there should be mods based on how boldfaced the lie is, how it effects the interests of the character, et all.  In PnP 3.5 the mods are as follows:
                                                                                             DC Mod
                                              Subject wants to believe you............-5
              Bluff is believable and doesn't affect the target much...........+0
  Bluff is a little hard to believe, or puts the target at some risk...........+5
     Bluff is hard to believe, or puts the target at significant risk..........+10
           Bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider..........+20