How do you guys handle Snese Motive?

[Vegepygmy]

This is one of those truly annoying aspects about 3.5. Most 20th characters are less able to tell if an NPC is lying then a 1st level bard. I'm playing with a cleric who would like to tell a fib or two but is stymied because he doesn't have any ranks in bluff but he has plenty of ranks in diplomacy. The DM generally asks for a bluff roll every time my bard lies about something.

I understand that many people blame the system in this situation, but IMO the DM is at fault.

On the other hand, I see no reason why a 20th level character should be any better at discerning lies than a 1st level character--if the 20th level character hasn't made any effort to improve that ability.

This discourages other players from roll playing because they are scared of rolling low on the untrained skill check. Additionally, sense Motive skill ckecks have to be requested.

Another failure by the DM, IMO. I hate when DMs require me, as a player, to request a Sense Motive check. If my character only gets a skill check when I (the player) already suspect something is hinky, I may as well just spend my skill points on something else and rely on my metagame intuition.

I've personally struggled with how to role play as player knowing a rogue was using slight of hands to steal from the group but nobody being able to beat his skill check. Eventually the characters should become aware of this even if they can never beat a spot check.

Why?

 

[pawsplay]

Another failure by the DM, IMO. I hate when DMs require me, as a player, to request a Sense Motive check.

It's very similar to making an active Spot check versus simply noticing something. Sometimes, it's worth asking, "Do I get a hunch?" But the GM probably covers the rolls in secret if the bad guys are bluffing, if a doppelganger replaces a party member, etc.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It's very similar to making an active Spot check versus simply noticing something. Sometimes, it's worth asking, "Do I get a hunch?"

To be clear, I don't have any problem with a DM who calls for Sense Motive checks (or secretly rolls them himself) when a PC is being Bluffed, but also lets players request one when, for example, they want to know if they get a feeling that "this guy seems trustworthy." (After all, few DMs will think of calling for Sense Motive checks when the NPC isn't trying to deceive anyone, just as few DMs will call for Spot check when there isn't anything hidden in the room.) That is, as you note, similar to making an active Spot check.

But I have heard of many DMs who essentially never call for PCs to make Sense Motive checks, and only allow them upon request. That's the equivalent of allowing only active Spot checks, as well.

 

[irdeggman]

But I have heard of many DMs who essentially never call for PCs to make Sense Motive checks, and only allow them upon request. That's the equivalent of allowing only active Spot checks, as well.

Well that is not in accordance with the RAW.

Bluff checks are always opposed by a sense motive check. That is the only way to determine if it is successful. There is no set DC for such a thing.

The DM may roll the SM check in secret though, which is fine as long as there is an opposed check going on.

 

[lottrbacchus]

I taught my nephew and his girlfriend to play this summer and they were awesome. There was a part where they had to determine if the NPCs were lying or not, we roll-played the entire conversations and rolled SM versus Bluff, the PCs rolled low and roll-played using their good-alignments and naiveness as justifications for letting the NPCs off the hook.

They were prettys sure the NPCs were guilty, but they rationalized that their characters would rather let a guilty person go than punish an innocent. I was so very pleased that they didn't let metagaming come in to play. Maybe DMs need to remind and encourage their players to do the same?

 

[Allegro]

I understand that many people blame the system in this situation, but IMO the DM is at fault.

On the other hand, I see no reason why a 20th level character should be any better at discerning lies than a 1st level character--if the 20th level character hasn't made any effort to improve that ability.

Another failure by the DM, IMO. I hate when DMs require me, as a player, to request a Sense Motive check. If my character only gets a skill check when I (the player) already suspect something is hinky, I may as well just spend my skill points on something else and rely on my metagame intuition.

Why?

I've played illusionist wizards before and have been rewarded with BAB bumps when my character never rolled an attack. Why is the BAB bonus different then social graces? I like social games and would like all characters to become better at social interactions as time goes on. To me social interactions are equivalent to combat both have the party fortune and fate at stake. For example is the party rewarded or imprisoned by the town guards for killing the nobleman who was on the brink of summoning a demon to destroy the town. This event can involve multiple party members talking and making arguments pro and con. But when diplomacy roles are asked for suddenly everybody shuts up except the face of the party.

When a rogue is using skill checks to steal from the party eventually every character should have a hunch. Deciding when enough events have passed for a suspicion to develop I think is tricky. Perhaps starting at 1% and adding 1% for every theft for a d100 role would help. Additionally, I would never ask/allow a diplomacy check to redistribute the share of treasure. Imagine OK Joe the bard has rolled a 35 on his diplomacy check which beats your check of 12. Your character is now convinced to give up his share of the treasure to Joe. He also now thinks Joe is the most likeable guy you have ever met and you would gladly sacrifice your life for him. This is why I don’t like skill checks PC to PC.

 

[Kask]

When a rogue is using skill checks to steal from the party eventually every character should have a hunch.

You still haven't answered why you'd get a "hunch".

 

[aboyd]

I've played illusionist wizards before and have been rewarded with BAB bumps when my character never rolled an attack. Why is the BAB bonus different then social graces?

Because that's how the game is balanced.

I like social games and would like all characters to become better at social interactions as time goes on.

So if you would like that, then either all the characters should have put ranks into diplomacy/bluff/sense motive, or else they should be putting points into charisma. Either way they would see small improvement over time.

This event can involve multiple party members talking and making arguments pro and con. But when diplomacy roles are asked for suddenly everybody shuts up except the face of the party.

Just like real life.

Do you think it's unfair that someone who attends Toastmasters and took some psychology classes is able to interact with people better? Is it wrong that they can tell a story that makes everyone laugh, while someone else in the room sits quietly, unable to be as charismatic?

Life is unfair and unbalanced, and that's... fair, oddly enough. Some people are better than others. I prefer a game that models that inequality.

When a rogue is using skill checks to steal from the party eventually every character should have a hunch.

Sure, if they're all missing their loot, the rolls or checks should eventually move from Sense Motive or Spot and into deduction-type rolls, such as Wisdom checks or Intelligence checks. But at no point should we say that it's unfair that the rogue has these skills and everyone else should be equally good at theft. Likewise, a half-elf bard will kick everyone else's butts when it comes to diplomacy rolls. That's the build, that's what it does, it should be better at it. Maybe even better than a level 20 character that has penalties to wisdom & charisma, and zero points in social skills.

Joe the bard has rolled a 35 on his diplomacy check which beats your check of 12.

I don't think diplomacy works like that. It's not like bluff; there is no opposed roll. Maybe you know that and used "check" instead of roll to denote your knowledge that there is no roll. If so, good for you. But then you must also know that diplomacy involves more than that. There is an actual table in the DMG that must be referred to. NPCs have dispositions and high diplomacy rolls can move an NPC from one disposition to the next (such as from hostile to neutral). Players have no disposition and cannot be moved from one state to the next. Instead, the humans sitting around the table playing the game are empowered to make judgment calls on their own.

Your character is now convinced to give up his share of the treasure to Joe. He also now thinks Joe is the most likeable guy you have ever met and you would gladly sacrifice your life for him. This is why I don’t like skill checks PC to PC.

I don't know if this is a house-rule, but I do not allow PC-to-PC rolls to diminish a player's decision-making. The rolls may impact physical things, such as whether a character visually spotted something -- rolls determine what info they get and what they perceive (if they fail a Sense Motive, they don't get the tipoff that the speaker is a jerk). But I do not allow a NPC or PC to diplomacy-force PCs into compliance. That's a mechanic that only works PC-to-NPC, as far as I'm concerned. Partly I feel that way because there simply isn't any mechanic for the players to state their dispositions and whether there are mitigating circumstances, etc. It's a whole evaluation thing that a DM can easily adjudicate for a monster, but which is dynamic, constantly revising, and complicated for a player. There is no "current disposition" checkbox for hostile/unfriendly/neutral/favorable on any player character sheet I've ever seen, f'instance.

 

[irdeggman]

I don't know if this is a house-rule, but I do not allow PC-to-PC rolls to diminish a player's decision-making. The rolls may impact physical things, such as whether a character visually spotted something -- rolls determine what info they get and what they perceive (if they fail a Sense Motive, they don't get the tipoff that the speaker is a jerk). But I do not allow a NPC or PC to diplomacy-force PCs into compliance. That's a mechanic that only works PC-to-NPC, as far as I'm concerned. Partly I feel that way because there simply isn't any mechanic for the players to state their dispositions and whether there are mitigating circumstances, etc. It's a whole evaluation thing that a DM can easily adjudicate for a monster, but which is dynamic, constantly revising, and complicated for a player. There is no "current disposition" checkbox for hostile/unfriendly/neutral/favorable on any player character sheet I've ever seen, f'instance.

You are correct.

Rules Compendium pg 66 under Influence and Interaction

"Some of these skills can used against player characters as well, but playes decide what their characters do unless those characters are magically compelled to do otherwise."

This is also in the DMG (in essence) on pg 128 under NPC Attitudes

"The players always make their characters' decisions."

 

[taliesin15]

Motive IMHO is more than just whether someone is lying to the King or not. This is one where I really try to play up a character's alignment. Especially since alignments seldom get deeply into questions of morals or ethics during the game. "This person is looking out for #1" or "this Ranger seems very formidable but seems to have the good of the community in mind" or "this well dressed man is smiling at you but you think he is playing you for a fool" etc.

One further thing you can do as a DM is if the character rolls successfully, but just barely, you don't say they Sense the other person is lying, but rather that they revealed a "tell" or "feint" or "blinked"--as commentators in televised Poker Tournaments will put it in those high stakes games of Bluffing and Sensing Motive.