Sense Motive: How do you do it?

[ruemere]

(written in response to my claim of Sense Motive being active skill)

MM, no. Sense motive is a REactive skill to oppose other's bluff checks. There is also an active element in the Hunch use, against a set DC.

Do you also require players to state "I'm looking behind the door to see if someone is hiding" in order to get a Perception test to see the hiding enemy?

Sense Motive, active use in bold:

Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.

I believe that the bolded parts of the quote above qualify as active. And since both are part of default use, I'd say that Sense Motive can be used actively (in addition to the uses listed elsewhere in the skill description).

Regarding your second question:
Spotting hidden opponent is an opposed check. By default, both sides should roll d20 (i.e. the check should be considered an active use of a skill).
However, depending on the circumstances, I may make different decisions.
For example:
- if the PC is just passing the door, talking loudly or otherwise distracted, and the opponent's check was over 10, I would probably rule that the Stealth check was successful without asking PC to make a check at all
- if the PC is reasonably aware of the environment, or the opponent's Stealth result is low, an opposed check would be made regardless of whether the PC is looking for anything
- if the PC's skill is exceptionally high, I could ask for the check even if the PC is distracted
- if the PC's action would be interfering with opponent's hiding (for example, the PC would be opening random doors without searching... a drunk returning from a party), an opposed check would be in order regardless of PC's being distracted

Does that answer your question?

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[ruemere]

Except that "Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill."

Kindly note remaining part of the paragraph:
You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Kindly note remaining part of the paragraph:
You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.

Regards,
Ruemere

Now define "you". Does you specifically mean the character? the player? the DM?

If you interpret it as an active skill then a player whose character has a +30 sense motive can be sold the brooklyn bridge and believe it if he doesnt straight out state he uses the ability which to me is pretty silly.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Have the players ask for it at all times, but remember that it DOES take a minute of interaction (10 rounds, not 1 sentence uttered by the NPC), AND if you think players are asking for no reason, ask them what exactly is making them suspect the NPC is lying. If one or more players seem to be doing it for no reason, I'd start making their checks secretly for them. If your players are good, I imagine they will only ask for a check when they really feel in their gut that the NPC is lying to their face.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Have the players ask for it at all times, but remember that it DOES take a minute of interaction (10 rounds, not 1 sentence uttered by the NPC), AND if you think players are asking for no reason, ask them what exactly is making them suspect the NPC is lying. If one or more players seem to be doing it for no reason, I'd start making their checks secretly for them. If your players are good, I imagine they will only ask for a check when they really feel in their gut that the NPC is lying to their face.

As DM are you going to start being an amateur actor so the players can infer things from your facial expressions and tone? When it comes to sensing deception only the most blatant lies are obvious from words alone, nonverbal communication is the key to knowing when someone is lying or not. Since I cannot see how the person talking is acting while talking I have no idea if I should be suspicious.

Unless as a DM you are going to say things like "the innkeeper stutters, shifting his feet, sweating, etc" which is just a dead giveaway and even if a player senses no deception they are going to assume they just failed the roll.

 

[ruemere]

Now define "you". Does you specifically mean the character? the player? the DM?

If you interpret it as an active skill then a player whose character has a +30 sense motive can be sold the brooklyn bridge and believe it if he doesnt straight out state he uses the ability which to me is pretty silly.

Descriptions of feats and skills use "you" to refer to the owner of the character, i.e. to the player.

Quoting from Pathfinder PRD, Skill Descriptions:

Check: What a character (“you” in the skill description) can do with a successful skill check and the check's Difficulty Class (DC).

Aside from the quote above, my personal style of gamemastering leans heavily toward the players taking initiative. My players know that I expect them to declare actions, and that I seldom rely on passive abilities.

In order avoid stuffing sessions with superfluous dicerolling, I allow for check results to persist throughout a scene (unless a scene features a twist or character's life/valuables/friends are at stake)... though some skills are exceptions to this approach.

The point I am trying to make here is that I favor active skill usage.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Which just means anyone with a decent Sense Motive skill is going to say they are using the skill at the start of every social encounter. Which is no different than rolling it passively.

 

[ruemere]

Which just means anyone with a decent Sense Motive skill is going to say they are using the skill at the start of every social encounter. Which is no different than rolling it passively.

It's a matter of managing responsibilities. Delegating a job to a player can produce time savings, improving GM's availability.
If I do it in a nice way, the player is likely to find it rewarding - she (or he) is likely to experience greater degree of immersion and freedom. On the other hand, if I forget to include passive check, I may be blamed for making a mistake.

Everyone ends up as a winner, or, in case things go bad, they are no worse than in case of GM-does-everything.

Strangely enough, the guys with +20 Sense Motive in my party often do not use the skill. Sometimes, at the end of the conversation, or when they feel that the person they met seemed untrustworthy, they do. Otherwise, they prefer Perception/Stealth scene checks, and draw conclusions on their own.

Though it may be just that I consider Charisma to be an important ability, and most of thoroughly rotten villains are quite charming, honest, forthcoming, helpful... until the showdown time comes.

For example, a PC was requested by an important official to act in his stead at a party, as the official felt somewhat indisposed. Of course, the PC knew something fishy was going on, he just did not expect to be interrogated under several truth seeking spells about nasty stuff. By local military and civil commanders none the less.
It was a grueling experience, probably as pleasant as dancing on broken glass.
Yet the evening was far from over - he was in cruel poke-slave tournament (slaves, treated to drugs and told to kill each other), revelation that the villain who made him do this, was himself (or a twin) with a bit more advanced version of the same mental illness, being warned by himself that he was going to be assassinated at the end of the evening by no one else them his other older self, and then, despite precautions, being poisoned almost to death with black lotus powder, by - probably - his other self.

In the end, the numerous twists, careful bluffing, application of Sense Motive and last second teleport into the arms of party cleric, allowed him to survive. Thanks to the rules listed above, the number of rolls was surprisingly low despite large number of events.
The other players were not bored. They were attacked, one of them was killed and several others were heavily injured as troops of a different villain attempted to ambush them (2 flesh golems, 3 Assassins, 2 Sorcerers, about 12 Rogues, several warriors).

5 hour long session

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[DumbPaladin]

As DM are you going to start being an amateur actor so the players can infer things from your facial expressions and tone?

Not at all. I'm suggesting this would be the way to handle a person who wants to roll Sense Motive each time an NPC says anything, as was offered as a potential problem earlier in the thread. I'd start requiring THAT player to justify their game-slowing behavior and borderline paranoia.

 

[IronWolf]

Strangely enough, the guys with +20 Sense Motive in my party often do not use the skill. Sometimes, at the end of the conversation, or when they feel that the person they met seemed untrustworthy, they do. Otherwise, they prefer Perception/Stealth scene checks, and draw conclusions on their own.

This seems to be how things go in my group. They do ask for sense motive checks at times, but not to the point where every single interaction with an NPC is having someone step up to call for a Sense Motive.