Sense motive, when players ask or automatic [Archive] - Wizards Community

Sense motive, when players ask or automatic [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
LGMoses
01-10-07, 03:31 PM I've always rolled sense motive automatically for players w/o their knowing. A mod I'm running Tuesday has a scene where it says, "roll sense motive checks for the players if they think of it?" Which use is preferred. I've always thought skills like sense motive, spot, listen, knowledges, etc. were automatically used. ne opinions on this or official rulings on how its suppossed to be done?
CrystalBlue
01-10-07, 03:45 PM It's difficult to say, for me. Logic would dictate that you couldn't roll a Sense Motive check because it's your senses. It's just something that happens or doesn't. Like a Spot check. However, I will always say I'm making a Sense Motive check to the DM because I am suspicious.

How I would do it is...you make the sense motive check, knowing their bonus. From that, you tell them if they suspect lies. Otherwise, if the PC doesn't roll Sense Motive, they are blissfully oblivious. So, give them a chance to do it on their own, but if they don't, you should at least give them one.
LGMoses
01-10-07, 03:56 PM It's difficult to say, for me. Logic would dictate that you couldn't roll a Sense Motive check because it's your senses. It's just something that happens or doesn't. Like a Spot check. However, I will always say I'm making a Sense Motive check to the DM because I am suspicious.

How I would do it is...you make the sense motive check, knowing their bonus. From that, you tell them if they suspect lies. Otherwise, if the PC doesn't roll Sense Motive, they are blissfully oblivious. So, give them a chance to do it on their own, but if they don't, you should at least give them one.

thats what I've been doing all along. Just the way one of my mods phrased it made me want to check. I'm fairly new to dm'ing and all.
CrystalBlue
01-10-07, 04:14 PM There are some mods that tell you that you should pre-roll all of the players checks for them. Sometimes, it's easier for the game to flow that way because you won't have to call for checks all the time. But some players like to roll their own dice. Another thing is that prerolling gets around cheating very nicely.

What you should do is, at the beginning of each game session, have everyone write down their Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, and any other non-active skills. Non-active meaning that a player shouldn't normally be using the skill...they should be told when to use it. Sense Motive, though, is a special case some times. And sometimes you'll get people wanting to roll Listen and Spot checks. If I were you, tell them that you'll let them know when they have to make these checks...then just make them for them. ^.^
budleiser
01-10-07, 04:48 PM If you use quick cards for players you can have them fill out their quick card with name, ac, initiative, 3 spot checks, 3 listen checks, 3 iniative. And when you come across it in a mod just quick glance through the cards to see if they hit the DC. Otherwise players will metagame and start doing "active spot" checks knowing out of character that they missed something.
solbergb
01-10-07, 05:13 PM Short answer.

Automatic. That's what the rules say. Otherwise you have no DC for NPC bluff checks. Get it up front if it's important to the plot. If it isn't hugely important PC's can usually firewall their metagame response vs their inchar knowledge well enough.
denny1824
01-10-07, 10:20 PM I am curious, as a player, is it wrong to be asking for sense motive checks and spot checks? I find that if one player asks for it then everyone else at the table rolls for themselves aswell. Usually these checks dont find anything usefull from either roll being to low or nothing important to find out. Sometimes a player rolled sense motive does catch a lier or a player rolled spot check catches something unnoticed. Are these things out of place? I have always played you can get those rolls and until now have never heard anything different. If this is simply the DM's call, what possible table variants can I expect?
LGMoses
01-11-07, 01:43 AM its not "DM's Call" its just an effect that you use automatically like an elfs search check to notice a secret door. If i ask you randomly for a search check, u know something is up, but if i roll it for you then you're none the wiser when that 1 comes up.

this is true for sense motive also. This way when the BBEG that you don't know yet is the BBEG tries to lure you into his clutches I don't have to go, "hey yaw give me a sense motive check real quick" and ruin the moment and start the wheels of metagaming. The way I've done it is if you ask for a check during a conversation thats fine, i'll give it to you. If the convo isn't important or theres nothing sinister to be determined then I'll just give you some hints into what the person's motives or feelings are.
JJeff
01-11-07, 02:30 AM Can't it be said that the NPC Bluff checks is the DC for the PC Sense Motive checks instead of the other way round? I would rather a player ask for one or assume a "take 10" on Sense motive because having the DM roll kinda slows the game and spoils the moment too.
Lupo
01-11-07, 02:48 AM I am curious, as a player, is it wrong to be asking for sense motive checks and spot checks? I find that if one player asks for it then everyone else at the table rolls for themselves aswell. Usually these checks dont find anything usefull from either roll being to low or nothing important to find out. Sometimes a player rolled sense motive does catch a lier or a player rolled spot check catches something unnoticed. Are these things out of place? I have always played you can get those rolls and until now have never heard anything different. If this is simply the DM's call, what possible table variants can I expect?

as any try to "bluff" sets an automatic "sense motive", they should be automatic. the same goes for "spot" versus "hide" and "listen" versus "move silently".

and a table of prerolled d20 with each player's "sense motive", "spot" and "listen" modifiers is handy for this.

if a player asks specifically for a "sense motive", "spot" or "listen" check, it depends. some do it out of pure metagaming :P, so they should not get anything from it. if a player has some "in-character" reason, like he has been warned, he has found tracks, special info "i look out for a place for an ambush" (with survival or dungeoneering), i am fine with it.

ciao

martin m.
paigeoliver
01-11-07, 07:22 AM I don't preroll sense motives but I NEVER let the player's roll their own either. I ask their bonus and roll it hidden and I ALWAYS roll an opposed roll to it (usually fake). Otherwise they get too much information just from their dice total.
CrystalBlue
01-11-07, 08:25 AM I like the idea of pre-rolled checks. But, if the character would be rightfully paranoid about something and thinks that a spot, listen, or other sense check is required, I let them have it. And yes, letting them roll allows them to calculate their own success, which shouldn't happen.

I guess it's table variation. I've seen it done a lot of ways. Most of the time, though, DM's just don't care that much or they think it'll bog the game down too much. So, they just let the PC's roll.
Iswald
01-20-07, 03:48 AM I prefer players to run their own characters. Unless there is some special reason for me as a judge to do so, the PC needs to declare that they are making a sense motive check, searching for traps, etc and make their own rolls.
Akhamshyy
01-20-07, 11:46 AM Unless the player is role-playing an absent minded PC, it's reactionary and instant. When I run, have players put down thier Saves and reactive skill bonuses on 3x5 cards before every game. I'll ask them for a roll and unless they make it they don't know what it was for, and neither does the character. It could have been; a spot to notice some sleight of hand, sense motive agianst a bluff, or a will save agianst divination. If they make it they are welcome to know. I very much dispise meta-gaming, and discourage it in the younger gamers I bring into the game. Sad thing is when players get angry at others for not meta-gaming, and assuming something thier characters would have absolutly no clue about.
Lupo
01-20-07, 01:09 PM I prefer players to run their own characters. Unless there is some special reason for me as a judge to do so, the PC needs to declare that they are making a sense motive check, searching for traps, etc and make their own rolls.

a "sense motive" should be an automatic check every time someone uses his "bluff skill", sometimes characters can use "sense motive" for other things, like getting hints on the "feeling" of NPCs, then i would only grant it when specifically asked for it :).

"search for traps" is somehow trickier . . . :rolleyes:

a character with the "find traps ability" should get some information and hints for a start. the rules for "search" are at best poorly edited as some (magic)-traps have far longer trigger ranges than the 10 ft. distance a sneaky type can cover :( .

actually the "trigger" should be findable not only the trap itself . . . ;)

ciao

martin m.
Munkwunk
01-20-07, 01:56 PM It has already been pointed out, but I'd like to stress that any time an NPC is making a Bluff check (deliberately telling a falsehood) the players are entitled to a Sense Motive check. It shouldn't be left up to the players' own "sense motive" to consider making a roll for it; that in and of itself encourages meta-gaming. When the player has to think that something is amiss before he is allowed to make a check for his character, there's a problem.

That being said, I also think that the opposed check should be hidden from the players, but only when it's necessary. For example, I would allow a player to make his own Sense Motive roll against a feint attack because it is irrelevant whether or not the players knows he was successful. A social Bluff check, made by an NPC who is trying to be misleading, should slip by the both the players and their PCs if the Sense Motive checks failed.

How you want to go about making secret rolls is up to you. A lot of GMs just ask for the players' skill modifiers and rol in secret when the time comes and, IMO, that's the preferable method. I hate it when DMs ask me to make 10 "pre-rolls" before every mod they run. In such instances, I have this permanent "meta-game sense" going on in my head that says "Well I know I rolled that 1, so I need to watch out for it. Is it an init check? A failed saving throw? Holy crap! Is that Finger of Death going to be my Nat 1? NOOOO!"

IMO, it's best to just get the modifiers and make the rolls behind the screen. That elminates as much "meta-game sense" as possible and still leaves the players guessing.
Akhamshyy
01-20-07, 03:23 PM It's always preferable to allow the players to make thier own rolls. It makes the game into too much of a hands-off simulation when control of the dice are taken away. On top of that you have the possibity of optional re-rolls from any number of sources, ect.
Although I have asked a table to make me a dozen rolls once. When asked where to put it on the card I replied 'nowhere I just thought you'd all like to start warming your dice up.'
Man I got lazerbeam-eyes from the people who broke 15s...

I also have a habit of rolling out in the open. At times the players may have no clue to what effect it may be. Other times they know that BBEG just hit AC 30+ on a 7, since as I see it; in reality you'd know how easily a time someone was having fighting you. Anyone else like this?
gomeztoo
01-21-07, 07:30 AM I roll in the open, except for stuff like Search checks for traps, or secret Sense Motive/Spot checks etc.
I don't let people roll Sense Motive checks willy nilly though.
If a player suspects soemthing goes on, he can ask for a Sense Motive and then we can roll (opposed cheks if needed). Until then, I see no need to bog down the game, as then I should really ask them to roll a Sense Motive every single time they talk to any NPC they meet.

Gomez
Akhamshyy
01-21-07, 10:07 AM Ah, there's the mental block right there.
Your not asking for a "sense motive" check, your asking for a D20 roll. It could account for any number of things. Having them need to ask for the roll is the player using there own sense motive agianst you; not thier PC using it agian NPCs. And I've never had rolling a D20 bog a game down in an ubsurd fasion. That's the D6s Mages like to toss down that do that.

Lets put it this way; your PC is in a crowded market. After returning to the inn you find that your missing some valuables.
If the judge at that table told you you never asked for a spot check to notice being pick-pocketed you'd have something to say.
My way, your asked to roll a single die and later on when your PC notices the loss and you ask what happened I say 'remeber that roll in the market, you failed your spot there'. And that's the game
Same with sense motive only there are those encounters with creepy mindreaders who'd be making you roll will saves but your PC won't know unless you succeed.
LGMoses
01-21-07, 01:49 PM lol, that reminds me of a paladin player I have in my group i'm judging for. I try to have him pickpocketed about everytime he goes through low market but the pickpockets keep failing their checks but the paladin doesn't notice. The one time he did notice it was just a kid and he gave the kid some pottery he'd just purchased and told him to turn to the right side of the law.
gomeztoo
01-21-07, 03:54 PM If a PC talks to a NPC and I say: rolle a D20, then in there'll be instant metagaming. That's how it works.
Also, as long as a PC is not suspicious of a situation, I see no reason to roll Sense Motive checks unless it is something fairly obvious. People with no ramnks in Bluff that lie/are afraid would fairly easy be noticed, as would someone who is dominated once you are with them for some period of time, or someone who is tryng to signal you something is wrong.
But a master disguise artist that has a good Blufff check should pass the test in a normal situation unless the PCs are already suspicious.
Munkwunk
01-22-07, 03:26 PM People with no ramnks in Bluff that lie/are afraid would fairly easy be noticed, as would someone who is dominated once you are with them for some period of time, or someone who is tryng to signal you something is wrong.
But a master disguise artist that has a good Blufff check should pass the test in a normal situation unless the PCs are already suspicious.
No and yes.

A person who is lying to the PCs should always make a Bluff check (he is, after all, bluffing) and a Bluff check is entitled to an opposed Sense Motive check. There are certain modifiers applied to the Sense Motive check depending on the believability of a lie and how much the target wants to believe you, so that may work in the NPC's favor (or disfavor) as appropriate.

A Disgusie check is only opposed by a Spot check if the characters interacting with the disguised NPC are suspicious, that's true. There are certain modifiers and situations in which characters mgiht always be assumed to be suspicious (such as if the NPC is trying to disguise himself as someone the PCs know). Should the PCs interact with a disgusied character, they should be given a Spot check, or at least be assumed to be taking 10, as per the Disguise rules:
If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Spot checks.
One might argue that the PCs need to have probable cause to be suspicious first, but IMO any interaction with the disguised NPC should warrant a check. If the NPC is good enough at what eh does, chances are the majority of NPCs wont' be able to make the necessary Spot DC anyway.

If a PC talks to a NPC and I say: rolle a D20, then in there'll be instant metagaming. That's how it works.
Also, as long as a PC is not suspicious of a situation, I see no reason to roll Sense Motive checks unless it is something fairly obvious.
To be clear: When talking about a "PC" it sounds like you mean the actual human playing the characters, not the player's character. Am I right? IMO, there needs to be a distinction: there are players, and there are player characters (PCs).

That being said, if what you means is: "...as long as the [player] is not suspicious of a situation..." then there's a big issue here. I'm not trying to single you out here; I've heard this said a thousand times by a thousand people, and it bugs me. DMs say "I only have the players roll Sense Motive if they feel something's wrong. That's to avoid emta-gaming when I asked them to roll dice."

See, forcing the players to decide that something's fishy is meta-gaming in and of itself. If their Paladin character has max ranks in Sense Motive, he's going to be a lot better judge of whether or not someone is lying than the player is. Why deny his trained character the ability to detect lies just because the player isn't as adept?

This is similar to the argument that a 26 INT wizard shouldn't be penalized in-game because his player is of average intelligence. I've heard it said time and again by people playing wizards: "My character is a lot smarter than I am." If you want to avoid meta-gaming, then you need to allow the characters -- NOT the players -- the opportunity to use their skills.

I'm really not sure when meta-gaming became one of the seven deadly sins of roleplaying, but I think a lot of it is bred by DMs who refuse to admit that characters often have more skills than players, but they still seem to want the players to think of every solution all by themselves. You can't hav eboth. Either accept that some emta-gaming is going to occur (when you ask players for die rolls) or cut it out altogether by allowing the characters to use their passive skills without necessarily being prompted.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LGMoses 01-10-07, 03:31 PM	I've always rolled sense motive automatically for players w/o their knowing. A mod I'm running Tuesday has a scene where it says, "roll sense motive checks for the players if they think of it?" Which use is preferred. I've always thought skills like sense motive, spot, listen, knowledges, etc. were automatically used. ne opinions on this or official rulings on how its suppossed to be done?
CrystalBlue 01-10-07, 03:45 PM	It's difficult to say, for me. Logic would dictate that you couldn't roll a Sense Motive check because it's your senses. It's just something that happens or doesn't. Like a Spot check. However, I will always say I'm making a Sense Motive check to the DM because I am suspicious. How I would do it is...you make the sense motive check, knowing their bonus. From that, you tell them if they suspect lies. Otherwise, if the PC doesn't roll Sense Motive, they are blissfully oblivious. So, give them a chance to do it on their own, but if they don't, you should at least give them one.
LGMoses 01-10-07, 03:56 PM	It's difficult to say, for me. Logic would dictate that you couldn't roll a Sense Motive check because it's your senses. It's just something that happens or doesn't. Like a Spot check. However, I will always say I'm making a Sense Motive check to the DM because I am suspicious. How I would do it is...you make the sense motive check, knowing their bonus. From that, you tell them if they suspect lies. Otherwise, if the PC doesn't roll Sense Motive, they are blissfully oblivious. So, give them a chance to do it on their own, but if they don't, you should at least give them one. thats what I've been doing all along. Just the way one of my mods phrased it made me want to check. I'm fairly new to dm'ing and all.
CrystalBlue 01-10-07, 04:14 PM	There are some mods that tell you that you should pre-roll all of the players checks for them. Sometimes, it's easier for the game to flow that way because you won't have to call for checks all the time. But some players like to roll their own dice. Another thing is that prerolling gets around cheating very nicely. What you should do is, at the beginning of each game session, have everyone write down their Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, and any other non-active skills. Non-active meaning that a player shouldn't normally be using the skill...they should be told when to use it. Sense Motive, though, is a special case some times. And sometimes you'll get people wanting to roll Listen and Spot checks. If I were you, tell them that you'll let them know when they have to make these checks...then just make them for them. ^.^
budleiser 01-10-07, 04:48 PM	If you use quick cards for players you can have them fill out their quick card with name, ac, initiative, 3 spot checks, 3 listen checks, 3 iniative. And when you come across it in a mod just quick glance through the cards to see if they hit the DC. Otherwise players will metagame and start doing "active spot" checks knowing out of character that they missed something.
solbergb 01-10-07, 05:13 PM	Short answer. Automatic. That's what the rules say. Otherwise you have no DC for NPC bluff checks. Get it up front if it's important to the plot. If it isn't hugely important PC's can usually firewall their metagame response vs their inchar knowledge well enough.
denny1824 01-10-07, 10:20 PM	I am curious, as a player, is it wrong to be asking for sense motive checks and spot checks? I find that if one player asks for it then everyone else at the table rolls for themselves aswell. Usually these checks dont find anything usefull from either roll being to low or nothing important to find out. Sometimes a player rolled sense motive does catch a lier or a player rolled spot check catches something unnoticed. Are these things out of place? I have always played you can get those rolls and until now have never heard anything different. If this is simply the DM's call, what possible table variants can I expect?
LGMoses 01-11-07, 01:43 AM	its not "DM's Call" its just an effect that you use automatically like an elfs search check to notice a secret door. If i ask you randomly for a search check, u know something is up, but if i roll it for you then you're none the wiser when that 1 comes up. this is true for sense motive also. This way when the BBEG that you don't know yet is the BBEG tries to lure you into his clutches I don't have to go, "hey yaw give me a sense motive check real quick" and ruin the moment and start the wheels of metagaming. The way I've done it is if you ask for a check during a conversation thats fine, i'll give it to you. If the convo isn't important or theres nothing sinister to be determined then I'll just give you some hints into what the person's motives or feelings are.
JJeff 01-11-07, 02:30 AM	Can't it be said that the NPC Bluff checks is the DC for the PC Sense Motive checks instead of the other way round? I would rather a player ask for one or assume a "take 10" on Sense motive because having the DM roll kinda slows the game and spoils the moment too.
Lupo 01-11-07, 02:48 AM	I am curious, as a player, is it wrong to be asking for sense motive checks and spot checks? I find that if one player asks for it then everyone else at the table rolls for themselves aswell. Usually these checks dont find anything usefull from either roll being to low or nothing important to find out. Sometimes a player rolled sense motive does catch a lier or a player rolled spot check catches something unnoticed. Are these things out of place? I have always played you can get those rolls and until now have never heard anything different. If this is simply the DM's call, what possible table variants can I expect? as any try to "bluff" sets an automatic "sense motive", they should be automatic. the same goes for "spot" versus "hide" and "listen" versus "move silently". and a table of prerolled d20 with each player's "sense motive", "spot" and "listen" modifiers is handy for this. if a player asks specifically for a "sense motive", "spot" or "listen" check, it depends. some do it out of pure metagaming :P, so they should not get anything from it. if a player has some "in-character" reason, like he has been warned, he has found tracks, special info "i look out for a place for an ambush" (with survival or dungeoneering), i am fine with it. ciao martin m.
paigeoliver 01-11-07, 07:22 AM	I don't preroll sense motives but I NEVER let the player's roll their own either. I ask their bonus and roll it hidden and I ALWAYS roll an opposed roll to it (usually fake). Otherwise they get too much information just from their dice total.
CrystalBlue 01-11-07, 08:25 AM	I like the idea of pre-rolled checks. But, if the character would be rightfully paranoid about something and thinks that a spot, listen, or other sense check is required, I let them have it. And yes, letting them roll allows them to calculate their own success, which shouldn't happen. I guess it's table variation. I've seen it done a lot of ways. Most of the time, though, DM's just don't care that much or they think it'll bog the game down too much. So, they just let the PC's roll.
Iswald 01-20-07, 03:48 AM	I prefer players to run their own characters. Unless there is some special reason for me as a judge to do so, the PC needs to declare that they are making a sense motive check, searching for traps, etc and make their own rolls.
Akhamshyy 01-20-07, 11:46 AM	Unless the player is role-playing an absent minded PC, it's reactionary and instant. When I run, have players put down thier Saves and reactive skill bonuses on 3x5 cards before every game. I'll ask them for a roll and unless they make it they don't know what it was for, and neither does the character. It could have been; a spot to notice some sleight of hand, sense motive agianst a bluff, or a will save agianst divination. If they make it they are welcome to know. I very much dispise meta-gaming, and discourage it in the younger gamers I bring into the game. Sad thing is when players get angry at others for not meta-gaming, and assuming something thier characters would have absolutly no clue about.
Lupo 01-20-07, 01:09 PM	I prefer players to run their own characters. Unless there is some special reason for me as a judge to do so, the PC needs to declare that they are making a sense motive check, searching for traps, etc and make their own rolls. a "sense motive" should be an automatic check every time someone uses his "bluff skill", sometimes characters can use "sense motive" for other things, like getting hints on the "feeling" of NPCs, then i would only grant it when specifically asked for it :). "search for traps" is somehow trickier . . . :rolleyes: a character with the "find traps ability" should get some information and hints for a start. the rules for "search" are at best poorly edited as some (magic)-traps have far longer trigger ranges than the 10 ft. distance a sneaky type can cover :( . actually the "trigger" should be findable not only the trap itself . . . ;) ciao martin m.
Munkwunk 01-20-07, 01:56 PM	It has already been pointed out, but I'd like to stress that any time an NPC is making a Bluff check (deliberately telling a falsehood) the players are entitled to a Sense Motive check. It shouldn't be left up to the players' own "sense motive" to consider making a roll for it; that in and of itself encourages meta-gaming. When the player has to think that something is amiss before he is allowed to make a check for his character, there's a problem. That being said, I also think that the opposed check should be hidden from the players, but only when it's necessary. For example, I would allow a player to make his own Sense Motive roll against a feint attack because it is irrelevant whether or not the players knows he was successful. A social Bluff check, made by an NPC who is trying to be misleading, should slip by the both the players and their PCs if the Sense Motive checks failed. How you want to go about making secret rolls is up to you. A lot of GMs just ask for the players' skill modifiers and rol in secret when the time comes and, IMO, that's the preferable method. I hate it when DMs ask me to make 10 "pre-rolls" before every mod they run. In such instances, I have this permanent "meta-game sense" going on in my head that says "Well I know I rolled that 1, so I need to watch out for it. Is it an init check? A failed saving throw? Holy crap! Is that Finger of Death going to be my Nat 1? NOOOO!" IMO, it's best to just get the modifiers and make the rolls behind the screen. That elminates as much "meta-game sense" as possible and still leaves the players guessing.
Akhamshyy 01-20-07, 03:23 PM	It's always preferable to allow the players to make thier own rolls. It makes the game into too much of a hands-off simulation when control of the dice are taken away. On top of that you have the possibity of optional re-rolls from any number of sources, ect. Although I have asked a table to make me a dozen rolls once. When asked where to put it on the card I replied 'nowhere I just thought you'd all like to start warming your dice up.' Man I got lazerbeam-eyes from the people who broke 15s... I also have a habit of rolling out in the open. At times the players may have no clue to what effect it may be. Other times they know that BBEG just hit AC 30+ on a 7, since as I see it; in reality you'd know how easily a time someone was having fighting you. Anyone else like this?
gomeztoo 01-21-07, 07:30 AM	I roll in the open, except for stuff like Search checks for traps, or secret Sense Motive/Spot checks etc. I don't let people roll Sense Motive checks willy nilly though. If a player suspects soemthing goes on, he can ask for a Sense Motive and then we can roll (opposed cheks if needed). Until then, I see no need to bog down the game, as then I should really ask them to roll a Sense Motive every single time they talk to any NPC they meet. Gomez
Akhamshyy 01-21-07, 10:07 AM	Ah, there's the mental block right there. Your not asking for a "sense motive" check, your asking for a D20 roll. It could account for any number of things. Having them need to ask for the roll is the player using there own sense motive agianst you; not thier PC using it agian NPCs. And I've never had rolling a D20 bog a game down in an ubsurd fasion. That's the D6s Mages like to toss down that do that. Lets put it this way; your PC is in a crowded market. After returning to the inn you find that your missing some valuables. If the judge at that table told you you never asked for a spot check to notice being pick-pocketed you'd have something to say. My way, your asked to roll a single die and later on when your PC notices the loss and you ask what happened I say 'remeber that roll in the market, you failed your spot there'. And that's the game Same with sense motive only there are those encounters with creepy mindreaders who'd be making you roll will saves but your PC won't know unless you succeed.
LGMoses 01-21-07, 01:49 PM	lol, that reminds me of a paladin player I have in my group i'm judging for. I try to have him pickpocketed about everytime he goes through low market but the pickpockets keep failing their checks but the paladin doesn't notice. The one time he did notice it was just a kid and he gave the kid some pottery he'd just purchased and told him to turn to the right side of the law.
gomeztoo 01-21-07, 03:54 PM	If a PC talks to a NPC and I say: rolle a D20, then in there'll be instant metagaming. That's how it works. Also, as long as a PC is not suspicious of a situation, I see no reason to roll Sense Motive checks unless it is something fairly obvious. People with no ramnks in Bluff that lie/are afraid would fairly easy be noticed, as would someone who is dominated once you are with them for some period of time, or someone who is tryng to signal you something is wrong. But a master disguise artist that has a good Blufff check should pass the test in a normal situation unless the PCs are already suspicious.
Munkwunk 01-22-07, 03:26 PM	People with no ramnks in Bluff that lie/are afraid would fairly easy be noticed, as would someone who is dominated once you are with them for some period of time, or someone who is tryng to signal you something is wrong. But a master disguise artist that has a good Blufff check should pass the test in a normal situation unless the PCs are already suspicious. No and yes. A person who is lying to the PCs should always make a Bluff check (he is, after all, bluffing) and a Bluff check is entitled to an opposed Sense Motive check. There are certain modifiers applied to the Sense Motive check depending on the believability of a lie and how much the target wants to believe you, so that may work in the NPC's favor (or disfavor) as appropriate. A Disgusie check is only opposed by a Spot check if the characters interacting with the disguised NPC are suspicious, that's true. There are certain modifiers and situations in which characters mgiht always be assumed to be suspicious (such as if the NPC is trying to disguise himself as someone the PCs know). Should the PCs interact with a disgusied character, they should be given a Spot check, or at least be assumed to be taking 10, as per the Disguise rules: If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Spot checks. One might argue that the PCs need to have probable cause to be suspicious first, but IMO any interaction with the disguised NPC should warrant a check. If the NPC is good enough at what eh does, chances are the majority of NPCs wont' be able to make the necessary Spot DC anyway. If a PC talks to a NPC and I say: rolle a D20, then in there'll be instant metagaming. That's how it works. Also, as long as a PC is not suspicious of a situation, I see no reason to roll Sense Motive checks unless it is something fairly obvious. To be clear: When talking about a "PC" it sounds like you mean the actual human playing the characters, not the player's character. Am I right? IMO, there needs to be a distinction: there are players, and there are player characters (PCs). That being said, if what you means is: "...as long as the [player] is not suspicious of a situation..." then there's a big issue here. I'm not trying to single you out here; I've heard this said a thousand times by a thousand people, and it bugs me. DMs say "I only have the players roll Sense Motive if they feel something's wrong. That's to avoid emta-gaming when I asked them to roll dice." See, forcing the players to decide that something's fishy is meta-gaming in and of itself. If their Paladin character has max ranks in Sense Motive, he's going to be a lot better judge of whether or not someone is lying than the player is. Why deny his trained character the ability to detect lies just because the player isn't as adept? This is similar to the argument that a 26 INT wizard shouldn't be penalized in-game because his player is of average intelligence. I've heard it said time and again by people playing wizards: "My character is a lot smarter than I am." If you want to avoid meta-gaming, then you need to allow the characters -- NOT the players -- the opportunity to use their skills. I'm really not sure when meta-gaming became one of the seven deadly sins of roleplaying, but I think a lot of it is bred by DMs who refuse to admit that characters often have more skills than players, but they still seem to want the players to think of every solution all by themselves. You can't hav eboth. Either accept that some emta-gaming is going to occur (when you ask players for die rolls) or cut it out altogether by allowing the characters to use their passive skills without necessarily being prompted.