How do you guys handle Snese Motive?

[Mark Chance]

...Sense Motive...protects you from being influenced into doing something via bluff....

Which doesn't come into play when an NPC is using Bluff to lie to a PC since PCs' attitudes/beliefs aren't affected by interaction skills.

Player: "Is the guard lying? I use Sense Motive."

DM: "Wonderful." *rolls die* "Do you think he's lying?"

 

[aboyd]

Which doesn't come into play when an NPC is using Bluff to lie to a PC since PCs' attitudes/beliefs aren't affected by interaction skills.

What? I've never heard of that. I house-ruled that you cannot take away a player's ability to make decisions about what to do, and it turned out that's actually in RAW. But I've never heard that you cannot modify what they believe about things. Where is that?

So, really, a player who believes someone is honest cannot have a change of heart if the Sense Motive die roll reveals huge deceptions?

For my DMing, I would have played out your interaction like this:

Player: "Is the guard lying? I use Sense Motive."

DM: "Wonderful." *rolls die* "You sense nervousness from him -- he fidgets and shifts in his seat more than others normally would."

 

[irdeggman]

What? I've never heard of that. I house-ruled that you cannot take away a player's ability to make decisions about what to do, and it turned out that's actually in RAW. But I've never heard that you cannot modify what they believe about things. Where is that?

So, really, a player who believes someone is honest cannot have a change of heart if the Sense Motive die roll reveals huge deceptions?

For my DMing, I would have played out your interaction like this:

Player: "Is the guard lying? I use Sense Motive."

DM: "Wonderful." *rolls die* "You sense nervousness from him -- he fidgets and shifts in his seat more than others normally would."

If what you are talking about is getting a "feeling" about someone that is fine or some more information that the player may use to make a decision. As long as the player gets to choose what he does with that information.

But realize that if the guard is not trying to "Bluff" then there is no benefit from attempting a Sense Motive check.

Only a Bluff check is an opposed roll, a Sense Motive is not.

But in general I would agree with how you would play out a scenario and that is generally how I would too.

 

[Mark Chance]

Only a Bluff check is an opposed roll, a Sense Motive is not.

Exactly. If I'm RPing a guard who says something that isn't true to the players and I don't roll a Bluff check, then there's nothing for Sense Motive to do regarding that specific falsehood. After a minute of conversation, a Sense Motive check (made in secret by me) could judge the apparent trustworthiness of the guard, but Sense Motive isn't a built-in lie detector that pings! when confronted with false information and a high enough roll.

If the PCs want more muscular action versus falsehoods, there're spells for that as well as good, old-fashioned detective work.

My NPCs typically don't use Bluff for trying to pass off bogus information. Instead, it's used for feinting, distractions to Hide, and/or as in-game-behind-the-scenes justification for why people tend to trust someone who turns out to be a villain.

 

[Bullgrit]

As a DM, I assume the PCs are always taking 10 on their SM checks. I may roll for the bluffer, or I may just take 10 for him/her, too.

I do the same thing, generally, for Spot and Listen checks.

If the Player specifically calls for a check, I let them roll, and then I use that result.

As a Player, when I suspect someone is bluffing, I just tell the DM I have +X on Sense Motive. He can either assume take 10 or he can tell me to roll.

Take 10 is an amazingly useful rule, and it seems to work wonderfully for this kind of situation.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[irdeggman]

As a DM, I assume the PCs are always taking 10 on their SM checks. I may roll for the bluffer, or I may just take 10 for him/her, too.

I do the same thing, generally, for Spot and Listen checks.

If the Player specifically calls for a check, I let them roll, and then I use that result.

As a Player, when I suspect someone is bluffing, I just tell the DM I have +X on Sense Motive. He can either assume take 10 or he can tell me to roll.

Take 10 is an amazingly useful rule, and it seems to work wonderfully for this kind of situation.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

You can't take 10 when rushed or threatened.

In general this would eliminate it most of the time for use with a Spot check.

Since it is a conscious action to take 10 (that is the character must take their time and be careful this would , IMO, make a reflexive Spot or Listen check impossible.

Now for a Sense Motive check - since you must interact with the character I would rule that as being a "distraction".

 

[billd91]

You can't take 10 when rushed or threatened.

In general this would eliminate it most of the time for use with a Spot check.

Since it is a conscious action to take 10 (that is the character must take their time and be careful this would , IMO, make a reflexive Spot or Listen check impossible.

Now for a Sense Motive check - since you must interact with the character I would rule that as being a "distraction".

I'm not at all persuaded by this line of reasoning. I see no obvious rush or threat involved in a Spot roll. Nor do I see engaging in the precise activity that enables the check, interacting with an NPC for Sense Motive, as distracting.

As far as taking 10, it may take the conscious decision of the player to do it, but for the PC, it's just a routine half-assed skill check. Clearly not a "best effort" but I fail to see the lack of that as disqualifying Take 10 on the PC's part.

 

[mr.pink]

My dm has all of our sense motive, listen, spot, and search skills written down so he can roll for us without us going "well i rolled a 1 so there might be traps down that hall" or "we have to roll a listen check which suggest were about to be attacked, get your armour on"

 

[irdeggman]

As far as taking 10, it may take the conscious decision of the player to do it, but for the PC, it's just a routine half-assed skill check. Clearly not a "best effort" but I fail to see the lack of that as disqualifying Take 10 on the PC's part.

No actually the "mechanic" is that the player says what the PC is doing, but what is actually happening is that the PC is being "careful" and taking their time - so it is actually a conscious decision on the PC's part to be careful. It is not a routine half-assed skill check. Basically the PC is "concentrating" on the skill at hand - which is why you can't take 10 when distracted.

What take 20 does is repeatedly doing it over and over again until you do it the best you can, which is why the assuption is that you have failed at least once on the way.

 

[billd91]

No actually the "mechanic" is that the player says what the PC is doing, but what is actually happening is that the PC is being "careful" and taking their time - so it is actually a conscious decision on the PC's part to be careful. It is not a routine half-assed skill check. Basically the PC is "concentrating" on the skill at hand - which is why you can't take 10 when distracted.

What take 20 does is repeatedly doing it over and over again until you do it the best you can, which is why the assuption is that you have failed at least once on the way.

I still think your interpretation is way off. There's no particular need for concentration and the character is actually not taking their time at all since no time increase is involved. You'd figure that "extra" concentration would help them with the task and gain a benefit rather than just achieve a routine level of success, but it doesn't because there is no extra concentration. Taking 10 is pretty much just a reflection of a character doing the basics necessary to do a routine task with a routine level of success - nothing extraordinary at all.
The presence of an actual threat renders routine tasks exceptional, thus a real roll is required and not just the mechanic of taking average results to speed up resolution time.

And if the skill pretty much requires interacting with someone, then interacting with them really can't be considered a distraction.