How do you guys handle Snese Motive?

[JiffyPopTart]

What you guys have just said has pretty much backed up my point.

The game isn't set up for you to be able to play a decently skilled (in genral terms, not just related to other paladins) paladin.

If you think i'm an idiot you are entitled to your opinion, however I have derailed this discussion about Sense Motive enough already so I will not discuss it further.

DS

 

[javcs]

What you guys have just said has pretty much backed up my point.

The game isn't set up for you to be able to play a decently skilled (in genral terms, not just related to other paladins) paladin.

If you think i'm an idiot you are entitled to your opinion, however I have derailed this discussion about Sense Motive enough already so I will not discuss it further.

DS

Did you even READ what they wrote?
Because, as non-skill-monkey classes go, what was presented was a decently skilled (in general) paladin.

How are you defining 'Decently skilled'? Because someone who isn't a dedicated skill-monkey build in a high-skill class should have fewer skill points than someone who is a dedicated skill-monkey build in a high-skill class.

Decently skilled ... let's see, I'd call that having at least average skill points/level.
The average number of base skill points per level for the core PC classes is 3.8181818181818181818181818181818, plus Int of course, so the 4+Int as presented by StreamOfTheSky is above average. The average with non-core classes depends on just which supplements are allowed.

You want a highly skilled paladin? Take enough rogue levels to qualify for Shadowbane Stalker. And/or use the tricks presented above/on previous pages.
I believe that there's another PRC that's similar, but I haven't personally perused it, so I don't know for sure.

But taking a pure paladin that isn't properly built for a high amount of skill points, and then saying that a the system is broken because you can't get a lot of skills with that build? That's analogous to saying the system is broken because as a rogue that is built improperly for having lots of HP, I can't get as many HP as a fighter/paladin/barbarian.



As for the original topic ... random number generators are quite effective at solving the problem of making rolls.
When I DM, I require that players give me their modifiers and stat breakdowns for a short list of things and keep me updated whenever they improve. I generally require ACs, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Search, Saves, Special Senses, and Resistances/Immunities. If it's not on my list, they don't get the benefits of their abilities on anything that I roll for them. Having the list lets me check for things without alerting the players to anything, and if it's a Spot/Listen/Sense Motive/other senses check and a character succeeds, I pull the player aside, and give them the information that the check allows them privately - what they do with that info is then up to them.
I highly recommend that all my fellow GMs do something similar. Either that, or randomly call for checks from the players at 1d4 minute intervals, unless something more important is going on than a random check.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

What you guys have just said has pretty much backed up my point.

Que?

The game isn't set up for you to be able to play a decently skilled (in genral terms, not just related to other paladins) paladin.

But...I already proved you could...unless you think the 4 +int skills classes are also not "decently skilled." And again, a Paladin is really set up from the get-go to not be so great in the skills department, it's hardly fair to compare one to a Ranger or whatever.

Back on topic...

I don't see the major problem with having the players ask for their sense motive checks, and I don't think using spot checks is a fair comparison, for whoever said that. I can't even remember now. I think the key difference is knowing what you're rolling for. In the case of a spot or listen check, it could be for something as important as noticing the choker over the door way or as trivial as hearing two horny teenagers rolling around in the tall grass. The point is, that information isn't provided to the players until after the fact (typically, I'm sure there are exceptions). The result is entirely unhazy, too. Either you make the check and notice, or fail it and don't...until whatever it is makes itself known.

Contrast with Sense Motive, where you are actively interacting with the "trigger" of the check. There will be cases where it really doesn't matter if the NPC is lying or honest, and the PCs will just not even want to bother fact-checking the claim. Seems realistic to me. When the friendly shop clerk talking aimlessly about his trip out to the prairie is actually an undercover spy bs'ing every single bit of it as part of his cover...do the PCs deserve a check without asking? Maybe, I can understand insisting that they get one. To me, it's more a kudos to the spy's skill that they just shrug off his boring story and move on...unless while they listen they pick out some conflicting details or something they know (say, via knowledge check) to be untrue or unlikely... I don't know, I think it encourages more active roleplaying. Also, Sense Motive isn't nearly as binary as Spot/Listen. Sense Motive does not at all dictate how your character feels. You can fail to Sense Motive a dozen times on an NPC and still not trust his word for , you just simply have no concrete reason to feel distrustful, and you may end up being wrong.*

*It is annoying to me that there's no counter situation to that, a sort of "tell the truth but be so uncharismatic or unfairly suspected of falsehood that you're considered to be lying anyway" similar to how with Diplomacy you can make someone dislike you more. I really wish there was a mechanic to cover that.

 

[Animal]

i dunno.. if i use your SM routine in my game, i can imagine some paranoid players calling for SM checks after each npc's phrase. could bog down the roleplaying part a lot.
and if their checks bring forth some vague and probably misleading answers from the DM they might feel frustrated because they basically burned sp's on a useless skill.

 

[irdeggman]

i dunno.. if i use your SM routine in my game, i can imagine some paranoid players calling for SM checks after each npc's phrase. could bog down the roleplaying part a lot.
and if their checks bring forth some vague and probably misleading answers from the DM they might feel frustrated because they basically burned sp's on a useless skill.

Who's routine are you referring to?

SoTS's is actually (as written) a broad statement application that indeed follows the RAW.

per PHB:

"Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you."

 

[billd91]

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. This discourages other players from roll playing because they are scared of rolling low on the untrained skill check.

Keep in mind that there are some modifiers for how (un-)believable a bluff is when trying to beat someone's sense motive. If you're good at figuring out what the bluff should be, the task is easier.
But I have no problem with plenty of 20th level characters not being able to tell if someone is lying better than lower level characters... for whom that is an important skill. It's all in how you develop the character over the levels. If you really want to be good at reading people, invest in the skill. If you weren't willing to do that, it obviously wasn't so important, was it? Pay the price for gullibility and move on.

When I DM, I have a rule of no skill checks PC vs PC. So no slight of hands, diplomancy, sense motives and bluff. 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.

Ah, that should depend on how smart the thief really is. If he can keep the graft to an unnoticeable trickle, why would you expect the other PCs to notice? Eventually, they might. That rogue will probably roll sufficiently low vs the other PC rolling sufficiently high if he really does it a lot and triggers that many contests and that will suffice to get him caught. That's one of the benefits of having the random factor be so large, it takes a substantial investment for someone's skill to dominate the die roll.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I just tell them what the NPC says. If they choose to make a Sense Motive roll, then I make a Bluff roll, whether or not the NPC is actually bluffing. They also know that I will make the roll whether or not the NPC is bluffing, so they know that the use of dice doesn't indicate anything.

In short, I let the players choose when the rolling will occur.

When they do successfully make a Bluff check (and when they don't, actually), I don't say "you think the NPC is lying" or "you think the NPC is being truthful." I give a general description of the NPC's mood. For example, "he seems confident and sure of what he's saying" or "she seems tense and nervous." Then I let the players put it together with what the NPC is saying, and the other information they have, to figure out what to do. Rather like happens in reality, actually ....

Of course, when the NPC is a rather creepy ranger living in an isolated dell who urges you to spend the night under his roof, and says that he'll keep guard so you can all go to sleep, and your Sense Motive check reveals that he's excited, eager, and tense, the PCs get a pretty good idea that something fishy is going on!

 

[Muddman]

The general problem is the idea that they get a check after 1 minute OR anytime somone bluffs.

Bluff is defined as a statement meant to "...or MISLEAD", well every lie is a freaking misleading statement, meant to lead you away from the truth, so according to the rules, they have to make a check, which in turn trggers a counter check.

So what happens goes something like this, "Do you know who did it?", "No", "Do I get a Sense Motive Check?"

I tell them not to, but they keep doing it.

Here is my problem, because its 2 fold:

1. I can't tell them the truth or else hours and hours of work go down the tubes as well as the rest of the nights game

BUT

2. The player took the skill, spent a good stat for wisdom and spent the points because he wants his guy to be good at spotting stuff like that. So by robbing him of that, I'm pretty much igoring a big part of his character.

What I've started doing is using Sense Motive for other things as well, telling te PCs "its not a lie detector, I don't give a *bleep* what the book says". It helps you not get feinted, not get led into traps, and get a basic idea of the kind of person you are dealing with, not the truth of their statements made, ever.

Its not RAW, but so be it.

 

[irdeggman]

The general problem is the idea that they get a check after 1 minute OR anytime somone bluffs.

Bluff is defined as a statement meant to "...or MISLEAD", well every lie is a freaking misleading statement, meant to lead you away from the truth, so according to the rules, they have to make a check, which in turn trggers a counter check.

So what happens goes something like this, "Do you know who did it?", "No", "Do I get a Sense Motive Check?"

I tell them not to, but they keep doing it.

Here is my problem, because its 2 fold:

1. I can't tell them the truth or else hours and hours of work go down the tubes as well as the rest of the nights game

BUT

2. The player took the skill, spent a good stat for wisdom and spent the points because he wants his guy to be good at spotting stuff like that. So by robbing him of that, I'm pretty much igoring a big part of his character.

What I've started doing is using Sense Motive for other things as well, telling te PCs "its not a lie detector, I don't give a *bleep* what the book says". It helps you not get feinted, not get led into traps, and get a basic idea of the kind of person you are dealing with, not the truth of their statements made, ever.

Its not RAW, but so be it.

Then start inserting the "time" requirement.

In order to do a bluff that is misleading requires interaction and is always a full-round action. So the check is actually to cover the majority of a normal conversation - or at least a good hunk of it in D&D time. Therefore the check is made once and covers the entire conversation, not each individual part of it. One Bluff - one Sense Motive and go from there.

The other thing is when the player asks for a Sense Motive check simply tell him he detects nothing "wrong" without a roll. Sense Motive is not always an opposed check, a Bluff is.

The only time a roll comes into play is if the other character is actively attempting a bluff. So there is no roll to be opposed by his attempt at Sense Motive - it is automatically successful.

The other thing to apply is the circumstance modifiers on the bluff (whenever there is someone actually attempting to bluff the character).

If an NPC is attempting to bluff the PCs - I let the conversation play out (in order to determine their "state of mind" to figure out any circumstance bonus/penalties that apply and tell them to give me a Sense Motive check. I do this because the NPC is attempting a bluff check. I also do not call it an attempted bluff if the information has no meaning whatsover. Bluffing about how tall you are or your weight is not something that, in general, matters. Bluffing about your marital status when attempting to seduce someone does.

 

[billd91]

What I've started doing is using Sense Motive for other things as well, telling te PCs "its not a lie detector, I don't give a *bleep* what the book says". It helps you not get feinted, not get led into traps, and get a basic idea of the kind of person you are dealing with, not the truth of their statements made, ever.

That's good because the book doesn't exactly say that Sense Motive is a lie detector. It tells you if someone's trustworthy and it protects you from being influenced into doing something via bluff. Someone could register as untrustworthy... and be telling the truth, in a general way. They might be omitting information. They might be putting spin on it. They might also just be shifty people.

I think there are too many players out there who treat the social skills as too binary in their applications, particularly with diplomacy. These skills should be useful tools, but like a complex combat, they shouldn't usually be one-roll answers to encounters.