Reactive vs Requested Sense Motive checks

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

so an active lie is a bluff check, which gets a reactive S.M. check, but a sin of ommission is general untrustworthyness which requires a requested S.M. check to notice. Thank you, thats a fairly straightforward distinction.

As an extension, this means that someone who is a decent liar is almost always better off telling his lies, rather than leaving things unsaid.

In other words, a PC may get a general impression of untrustworthiness (by hitting the DC 20 SM check), but when they call the NPC on any particular issue, he'll appear to be telling the truth (because his Bluff score is high enough to always beat the SM check).

I'm not sure if I entirely like this, but then, I'm not sure I don't, either. I'll call that even. To me, it basically means you can recognize that the used car salesman is a shyster, but you don't know, specifically, what it is he's hiding / lying about.

 

[frankthedm]

I assume the players are always taking 10. I usually tip the players off by how trustworthy/ untrustworthy i make the npc sound [the higher thiersence motive bonus is, the more obvious i make it. They are pretty good at getting the meaning when a shopkeeper starts talking like a used car dealer..... I double check with them during game breaks that they got the message i was trying to convey.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I use it pretty much exactly how Patryn of Elvenshae does (minus the pregenerated rolls).

I think it's important not to go overboard with the Bluff checks. Bluff seems to be treated in the rules as a means to get someone to do something they normally wouldn't. NOT used merely whenever someone lies. Sense Motive isn't a flat-out lie detector either.

 

[Shadowdweller]

#1. I would call for reactive rolls, but there are one or two players that would use that information OOC.

It DOES require significantly more book-keeping, but allow me to recommend cheat-sheets (with appropriate skill modifiers) and a DM screen. I've gradually come to the conclusion that most people I play with just can't be trusted not to use OOC info.

Actually, I even roll saves for the PCs....with the caveat that they are allowed to see the rolls if their characters are aware of them (in some cases they shouldn't be). Extremely interesting to note just how much more often the players fail their saves when *I* roll.

 

[IcyCool]

Extremely interesting to note just how much more often the players fail their saves when *I* roll.

Odd, isn't it?