Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MnemonicSV 10-23-07, 06:21 PM	The question I've always had about Sense Motive is this: Why isn't there a check to be certain that the NPC is speaking the truth, when he actually is? Sometimes the truth may sound like a lie, even when it isn't. For example, lets say the PCs interrogate an NPC who claims that a gargantuan Black Dragon swooped out of the sky and stole a loaf of bread out of his hands. Let's also say that he's being honest, and for some bizarre reason it actually happened (or he at least genuinely believes it happened). The PCs think he's lying (it does, after all, seem pretty far-fetched) and attempt a Sense Motive check. What is the DC to be certain he is being honest? It's can't be a Bluff check, since he isn't bluffing. What is the DC, and moreover, what modifiers can be applied to that DC that would make the NPC more or less believable? Should honesty be equally difficult to detect as a lie would be, or should it be easier? In effect, why isn't there an "Honesty" skill? Why can't some people be better at conveying their honesty than others? I'm not saying there should be such a skill (it wouldn't see very much of use after all), I'm only suggesting that the rules need a mechanic for conclusively determining NPC honesty, because in that regard, Bluff doesn't cut it. It just seems strange to me the notion that you must make a Bluff check to convince someone of the truth. Some people are of the opinion that an NPC is effectively "forfeiting" or automatically failing their Bluff check in such a scenario. This mechanic is absurd, since it implies that being honest is always detectable. The fact of the matter is, sometimes people simply won't believe you, no matter how much you "aren't lying." Perhaps the Bluff skill should simply be retooled into a more generalized "Believablity" or "Persuasiveness" skill, to allow for the possibility that PCs and NPCs can convey honest motives as well as hide dishonest ones. Maybe it's simply a matter of renaming the skill... I don't know. Any opinions?
CrazyGuy 10-23-07, 06:50 PM	Try reversing it. Have the NPC make to Diplomacy roll (best fit I can think of) with a DC of the PC's sense motive checks. Success means he convinces them, failure, well, he fails.
Killydd 10-23-07, 09:18 PM	from the SRD on Sense Motive: Hunch This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy. So with this, a DC20 check lets you know that the person doesn't seem to be trying to manipulate you overall. Of course, I'd probably still do a dummy bluff check so that players don't know if they succeeded on this check or failed/succeeded against a bluff check.
ToastedAmphibian 10-23-07, 10:09 PM	Try reversing it. Have the NPC make to Diplomacy roll (best fit I can think of) with a DC of the PC's sense motive checks. Success means he convinces them, failure, well, he fails. HAHAHAHAHAHA This is relly funny to me It means that people who have more ranks in sensemotive are more likly to BELIVE that your LYING when your telling the truth, and are also more likely to belive that your LYING when you really are LYING. HEHE Need to rename "Sense Motive" skill to the "Parnoid Delusion that Everyone is Lying" (PDEL) skill
ToastedAmphibian 10-23-07, 10:23 PM	Ok, here is the deal. Sense Motive is the skill of descovering the intentions of another person(Creature?) including wether or not it is trying to decive you (bluff). A person that is telling you the truth, wants your sense motive check to SUCEED (As then you will know correctly that he is speaking the truth) so he will intentionally fail (Take 1) on his bluff check. The BELIVABILITY of what he is saying, wether it is the truth or a lie, provides a CIRCUMSTANCE bonus to his bluff check. If hes telling a lie, and its unbelivable, then your sensemotive check is more likly to make you think it is a lie (A -circumstance bonus on his bluff roll). If he is telling the truth, if it is unbelvable, it will still make you belive that he is lieing (A +circumstance bonus on his bluff roll) SO: Lieing = Sensemotive vs Bluff-circumstance Truth = Sensemotive vs 1 + circumstance (Thus the more unbelivable it is, the less likly you are to belive it...) Also, make sure you give bonuses for lies that are very easy to belive. If a complete stranger walks up to you on the street, and tells you his name is Jim, and you have no reason to disbelive him, he should get a large bonus on his bluff check.
jaelis 10-23-07, 10:25 PM	Personally, the way I think it should work is this: If you fail on a bluff check, then the target can tell you're lying. You just fail to be convincing, so the NPC won't tell you what you want to know, lend you money, or look down at his shoes... whatever you're trying to accomplish doesn't work. If you pass the bluff check, the target can't tell you're lying. That doesn't mean he automatically believes what you say... he just doesn't automatically disbelieve it. So he will react accordingly, either trusting you if it's a minor thing that doesn't matter much, or investigating further if it's a major thing that matters a lot. In that picture, if you are actually telling the truth then you don't have to make a bluff check. The NPC can't tell that you're lying, because you're not. How he reacts will depend on what the DM thinks is reasonable, but there's no question of a bluff check. For example, you run up the the gate of a castle and tell the guard captain: "There's a dragon coming to attack the castle... Run!" Case A: You are lying, and fail your bluff check. Response: "Aw what a bunch of ****. Get out of here, you filthy adventurer!" Case B: You are lying, and pass your bluff check. Response: "Really? OK, you men, go check it out. You others, alert the lord and the rest of the guard. Meanwhile, you adventurer, come with me, I want to keep my eye on you until we get more information." Case C: You aren't lying. Response: same as B.
ToastedAmphibian 10-23-07, 10:51 PM	So,(Directed at jaelis) you don't belive there is any circumstance where someone might belive that someone else is lying, even when they arn't? And you also dont think that this would happen less often to someone with a high sensemotive check? (Obviously if the first is true, the second is irrelivant, but what ever)
jaelis 10-23-07, 11:01 PM	So,(Directed at jaelis) you don't belive there is any circumstance where someone might belive that someone else is lying, even when they arn't? And you also dont think that this would happen less often to someone with a high sensemotive check? (Obviously if the first is true, the second is irrelivant, but what ever) I do believe there are circumstances where someone might believe you are lying when you are really telling the truth. I just think that would be equally likely if you are telling the truth and if you passed a bluff check. For instance, a zealous NPC warrior is guarding a treasure vault. You knock on the door and he opens it and says "Go away!" You yell, "Look out, there's a flumph behind you!" If you're lying, you try to beat his sense motive check (with a healthy penalty for it being a far-fetched lie.) If you lose, he knows you're lying and slams the door in your face. If you're not lying, or if you pass the bluff check, then he can't tell that you're lying. But in this case, I'd probably say he doesn't believe you anyway and slams the door in your face. How would you react if an earnest-sounding stranger knocked on your door and shouted that there was a flumph behind you? Your question about the relevance of Sense Motive is a good one. If the guard has a high Sense Motive modifier, then he knows that he is good at reading people. So the fact that he can't tell that you are lying would become more significant... he might well give you a glimmer of doubt. But I would adjudicate that whole thing through role playing... the dice roll is just to see if you manage to pull off the lie with a straight face, if you like.
ToastedAmphibian 10-23-07, 11:45 PM	Sure, but reverse your scenario. A PC is gaurding a treasure horde, and someone runs up and says there is a flumph (?) sneaking up behind him. If hes lying, the sensemotive roll should be pretty damn easy to make. But how do you figure out how high the sensemotive roll would be to realize that he is actually not lieing to you. If your player says "Ill make a sensse motive check to see if hes lying" do you just say "You cant do that"? Or do they somehow just automatically know that hes not lying, even though his claim is absurd? I dont think it would be unfair to set a DC for the sensemotive check equal to 1+Circumstance modifer. The circumstance modifer would consist of the NPCs past interaction with your PC and how belivable his story is.
Scribbler 10-24-07, 01:28 AM	He rolls his Sense Motive check and you say "You don't get a feel that he is lying." If you only roll Sense Motive checks when they are lying, then the players will always know when that is, after all. Actually not lying and failed Sense Motive check give you the same result. The PCs can still be suspicious if they feel that it is warranted--which matches what jaelis was saying about the reverse situation pretty well.
Mystyc 10-24-07, 02:48 AM	I do something similar to Toasted Amphibian. The Sense Motive DC for discerning a truth is 5, with any appropriate circumstance modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) tacked on.
Yaeri 10-24-07, 04:08 AM	I second toasted amphibian's method. It makes perfect sense.
jaelis 10-24-07, 07:17 AM	Sure, but reverse your scenario. A PC is gaurding a treasure horde, and someone runs up and says there is a flumph (?) sneaking up behind him. If hes lying, the sensemotive roll should be pretty damn easy to make. But how do you figure out how high the sensemotive roll would be to realize that he is actually not lieing to you. If your player says "Ill make a sensse motive check to see if hes lying" do you just say "You cant do that"? Or do they somehow just automatically know that hes not lying, even though his claim is absurd? The player says, "I roll an X on my sense motive... can I tell if he's lying?" You say "No, he seems to be telling the truth." Then the player reacts as he wants.
ToastedAmphibian 10-24-07, 05:21 PM	So, yes, in your game world there is no possibility that someone mistakenly belives someone is lying when they arn't, no matter how outlandish their tale is. Beliveing what someone says is teh truth, and beliveing that they arnt lying are very diffrent things. Obviously you can belive someone is crazy or just simply mistaken, but that is not the same as beliveing they are outright lying. I belive its possible to belive someone is outright lying to you, even when they are being perfectly honset, especially when you consider the circumstances and the person. Ever heard of "The boy who cried wolf" ?
ToastedAmphibian 10-24-07, 05:26 PM	Even more fun is trying to determine the circumstance bonus on a bluff check to make someone belive your lieing when your actually telling them the complete honest truth. Rogue Prisoner: "No, you dont want to go through that door, its traped" Orc Guard: "Out of my way, me not belive lying manling, me no stupid!"..... I supose you could even try to do that under the effects of one of thoes cumpulsions that force you to tell the truth...
jaelis 10-24-07, 05:30 PM	So, yes, in your game world there is no possibility that someone mistakenly belives someone is lying when they arn't, no matter how outlandish their tale is. Not at all. Rather, in my game, you are never forced to believe someone is lying when they aren't because you made a bad roll. Instead, you have to use your own judgement about the situation... is he lying and a good bluffer, or is he telling the truth? In the case of your example with the PC guarding the vault, there might well be a flumph in the room, but the PC might reasonably decide that the NPC is lying about it in an effort to steal the treasure. The player just has to decide about that on his own, rather than rely on the dice to tell him what's going on. The point is that I don't see how it makes the game more fun by having a built in "truth detector." It does make sense to have a mechanism for characters to lie in a plausible way that isn't dependent on everyone's roleplaying (and real-life bluffing) ability. But people in real life don't have any way to distinguish a well-told lie from an improbable truth... why should your characters?
ToastedAmphibian 10-25-07, 12:18 AM	They dont, which is eactly my point. The CHARACTER should be the one determing wether or not the NPC is lying. If the CHARACTER roles a sense motive check and dosnt belive that the NPC is lying, and the player decides to assume they are lying anyways, thats jsut poor role playing. :} Play your character. If you know something your character dosnt, well, do what you think your character would do given the knowledge that he has, even if it might be a bad idea.
ScipioX 10-25-07, 01:37 AM	I'm with Jaelis on this one. There is no check to determine if somebody is telling the truth. You can only determine if you think the target is being deceptive. Thus if the peasant says that a black dragon stole his loaf of bread, the PC's can believe any number of things: Maybe the peasant just rolled a really good bluff check. (This is why the DM rolls the sense motive check and not the player. The player knows he's generally pretty good because he has a good modifier, but doesn't know that his SM check was 25, so there's no way the peasant could beat that.) Maybe the peasant is simply being pranked by a mischievous illusionist. Maybe the peasant had false memories cast on him. Maybe the peasant is really a disguised rogue with a good bluff score trying to lure them into a trap. Or maybe the peasant is simply insane. All those scenarios should be possibilities when faced with an absurd statement that is said sincerely. Having a 'truth' check takes away a lot of the mystery of the game.
MnemonicSV 10-25-07, 03:40 AM	First, thanks or all the responses. The various points of view have given me some unique insights. All those scenarios should be possibilities when faced with an absurd statement that is said sincerely. Having a 'truth' check takes away a lot of the mystery of the game. By that rationale, there shouldn't be a bluff check either, since that equally takes away alot of the mystery of the game. For that matter, you would have to do away with Sense Motive as well. It comes down to this: If a PC skilled in Sense Motive can be certain when a NPC is lying, why can't that same PC be certain when a NPC isn't lying? The fact of the matter is, there simply isn't any mechanic in the core rules for handling a situation in which you need to determine the legitimacy of an NPC's claims, when they are actually legitimate. Sure, you can determine if he's lying when he's lying, but you can't determine if he's lying when he isn't lying. To use a movie reference, how did Gandalf know that there was "no lie in his eyes" when Pippin fessed up about looking into the palantir, in LOTR (extended edition). That HAD to be a Sense Motive check in D&D terms! But what is the DC for that? By core rules, there isn't one. So far I'm leaning heavily towards Toasted Amphibian's solution, until someone else can post a better one at least.
jaelis 10-25-07, 08:16 AM	To use a movie reference, how did Gandalf know that there was "no lie in his eyes" when Pippin fessed up about looking into the palantir, in LOTR (extended edition). That HAD to be a Sense Motive check in D&D terms! But what is the DC for that? By core rules, there isn't one. Gandalf had a huge Sense Motive modifier, and as far as he knows, Pippin had no ranks in Bluff. Makes it a reasonable inference, but that's not to say he was perfectly certain. Or alternatively, Gandalf cast a detect thoughts spell. He is a wizard, and all. :) They dont, which is eactly my point. The CHARACTER should be the one determing wether or not the NPC is lying. If the CHARACTER roles a sense motive check and dosnt belive that the NPC is lying, and the player decides to assume they are lying anyways, thats jsut poor role playing. :} Play your character. If you know something your character dosnt, well, do what you think your character would do given the knowledge that he has, even if it might be a bad idea. I'm afraid that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me... I think role playing is where you pretend to be your character and react as he would react, not when you use dice to determine what your character thinks. But aside from rationales, here is the main technical problem I have with your approach: in general, it allows you to tell when you've been successfully bluffed. For instance, say the party rolls into a village and is having an ale at the tavern. A portly man walks in and says, "You look like a bunch of adventurers... well I'm the mayor of this town, and I've got a job for you!" In fact, the man is a doppelganger playing the role of the mayor, and the adventure is really to figure that out. As DM, you don't want to give the secret away too early, so you make sure the monster has lots of ranks in bluff, resulting in a +25 modifier. But suppose one of the party members just decides to roll a sense motive check... perhaps his character is habitually paranoid. By your method, it sounds like he needs maybe a 6 or so on his SM roll to tell that the "mayor" is being truthful? But the character has a +10 SM modifier, so he'd make that, no problem. So what do you do? Obviously, if the character beats the doppelgangers bluff check, then he knows he's being lied to. That's fine, he invested the ranks in SM and thought to make the roll, he deserves a reward. But what if the doppelganger wins? You would say something like "You can't tell whether he is lying or telling the truth", I guess? But that immediately says he is lying, since if he were telling the truth, you would know for sure. And it doesn't matter how good a bluffer the doppelganger is, that will always happen. And it doesn't work for me. On another tack, lets look at the other skills that "let you learn something": Appraise: is there any way to be sure you've made an accurate appraisal? No... you might have rolled a bit below the DC. Gather Information: is there any way to know whether you've learned all the secrets a town has to offer? No. Listen: is there any way to be sure there really isn't anything behind that door? No. Search: is there any way to be sure there's no trap? No. Spot: is there any way to be sure there's really nothing there? No. I just think that bluff should work the same way... there's no way to be sure you aren't being lied to.
jaelis 10-25-07, 08:54 AM	Actually, having thought through all that, I realize that I may be misinterpreting some of what you all are saying. In my example with the mayor above, there are two cases, in your method: 1) the mayor is telling the truth, and the SM DC to tell that is 6. 2) the mayor is a lying, and the SM DC to tell that is (let's say) 35. Are you saying that in either case, if you beat the DC you get the correct impression, and if you fail then you simply get the incorrect impression? In other words: If its case 1 and you roll a 2, the DM says "He seems to be lying." If it's case 1 and you roll a 10, the DM says "He seems to be telling the truth." If it's case 2 and you roll a 20, the DM says "He seems to be telling the truth." If it's case 2 and you roll a 40, the DM says "He seems to be lying." So in principle, you're never sure whether you're being lied to or not, since there's no difference between failing the check to recognize the truth and passing the check to recognize a lie. If that's what you have in mind, then most of my objections are withdrawn. I thought you were suggesting something more like: If its case 1 and you roll a 2, the DM says "He seems to be lying." If it's case 1 and you roll a 10, the DM says "He's definitely telling the truth." If it's case 2 and you roll a 20, the DM says "He seems to be telling the truth." If it's case 2 and you roll a 40, the DM says "He's definitely lying." If that is what you had in mind, then my objections still stand.
MnemonicSV 10-25-07, 02:29 PM	I'm thinking of a general mechanic more along the lines of this: A failed Sense Motive check tells you nothing... you can't tell if he's lying or he's telling the truth at all. You gain no insight whatsoever. A successful Sense Motive check tells you with certainty if the person is being deceitful, or alternately, with certainty that he is being honest. At first, it seems like that's how the skill works, at least in theory. But in practical application, using Bluff vs. SM to determine the truth of a legitimately true statement doesn't work at all. The mechanic is being reversed... it's not a skill check contest at all in that case. The person WANTS you to believe him! It has to be a flat DC (with appropriate modifiers) and not a "contest" check of any kind. Unless a check is used to intentionally lower the "standard" DC for assuring truth certainty. Being good at making untrue or facetious remarks (Bluff) shouldn't be the means of determining the DC for the SM check when the remark isn't facetious at all. Behind the DM's screen, the player of course shouldn't know where the DC is coming from (either a Bluff check DC, or a "Truth" DC). The player would only really discover that if the SM check was successful. On a failure, as always, he wouldn't know.
ToastedAmphibian 10-25-07, 04:50 PM	Actually, having thought through all that, I realize that I may be misinterpreting some of what you all are saying. In my example with the mayor above, there are two cases, in your method: 1) the mayor is telling the truth, and the SM DC to tell that is 6. 2) the mayor is a lying, and the SM DC to tell that is (let's say) 35. Are you saying that in either case, if you beat the DC you get the correct impression, and if you fail then you simply get the incorrect impression? In other words: Exactly. But with one cavette. If you suceed by a large amount, or fail horribly, your more sure that you got it right. If they get a 6 on their bluff check, and you get a 40, its not "You think he might be lying, but your not really sure" (That would be if you got a 7 vs their 6 or something) its would be more like "Your almost certain that hes lying" Its the same principle as when you try and disarm a trap, if you screw up, bad things CAN happen. If your not any good at it, bad things are MORE likley to happen. Thus, let the rogue pick the trap, not the fighter. Let the asimar monk role the sense motive check, Not the Half-Ogre barbarian. :}
Amaranth 10-26-07, 10:57 AM	How does this sound? Using the DC's outlined in the above example, Let X = the PC's modified roll where x< 6 -- the PC is unable to get a clear read, no information is gained where 6< X <35 -- The PC believes the NPC to be telling the truth where 35 < X -- The PC notices some bit of inflection or body language that makes it clear the NPC is lying Throw in a natural 1 = always wrong rule if it suits your fancy and I think thats a system. :)
Scribbler 10-26-07, 12:45 PM	How does this sound? Using the DC's outlined in the above example, Let X = the PC's modified roll where x< 6 -- the PC is unable to get a clear read, no information is gained where 6< X >35 -- The PC believes the NPC to be telling the truth where X > 35 -- The PC notices some bit of inflection or body language that makes it clear the NPC is lying Throw in a natural 1 = always wrong rule if it suits your fancy and I think thats a system. :) So if you really blow your roll against the bluff, you get better information? He fools you if you you roll a 20, but on a 1 you essentially get a draw?
Amaranth 10-26-07, 02:03 PM	Lets take, as a parallel, the creation and evaluation of a counterfiet Picasso. Someone without training in art history has little ability to distinguish the original from a fake. However, they are also aware that they dont know what procedures would be used to find out. An experienced museum curator, on the other hand, would have knowledge of several methods to test the legitimacy of the painting in question. If the painting passed all his tests, he would confidently proclaim it the real deal, when it was, in fact, the work of a master forger. Replace with sense motive the evaluation of painting's legitimacy, and replace the forger's skill (and knowledge of what skeptical evaluators will use to test his work) with the bluff skill (and knowledge of what cues people look for when trying to determine his truthfulness). What you have is a infinitely expandable scale where just as there is always a way to uncover a fraudulent masterpiece, there is, conceivably at least, always a method that could dupe that particular test. (With the evaluator becoming more confident with every test passed that he can declare the work legitimate) It seems perfectly logical. Though, if you see a flaw in the analogy, please speak up.
Scribbler 10-26-07, 03:04 PM	OK, but your analogy works pretty well with what I was saying. You give the character the same result whether they failed to detect the fake or they were actually analyzing the real deal: "It doesn't look like a fake to you." The unenlightened says "It doen't look like a fake, but I don't really know about these things, so maybe it is. I'll ask an expert." The expert says "It doesn't look like a fake, and I'm confidant that I would have detected it if it was. Therefore, I conclude that it is not a fake." EDIT: And my point was that your way makes the Bluff skill rather useless. You can only Bluff people who are good at telling whether or not you're lying?
Amaranth 10-26-07, 03:53 PM	Ok, I see your point. I agree, that mechanic wouldnt work. hmm... What if you took a base DC 5, and applied the same modifiers to the DC to determine that the truth was true as you would to convince someone that a bluff was true. For example, your friend tells you that youll enjoy trying a particular activity that you have planned together (which they believe is true, and in fact, is). You, having already commited to the activity and preferring enjoyment to the lack thereof, wish to believe that it is true (-5 DC). Unless there are other circumstances, such as the friend having been shown to be an unreliable judge of such things in the past (which would apply a circumstance penalty to the sense motive check), there is not even a need to roll. On the other hand, lets say that, out of the blue, a ragged looking and poorly dressed man knocks at the door of your room at an inn. He claims to be the king, who was silently deposed and tossed in the dungeon until he escaped. Meanwhile, he claims, he has been replaced with a doppleganger (explaining that this is why noone even knew anything was out of place). He asks your help in storming the castle, fighting through the guards, defeating the doppleganger and restoring him to the throne. Pretty farfetched? yeah. Conceivable? also yes. So, if he was being honest, the DC is 5 for a base, +20 for being way out there and entailing great risk to the person in question (total DC 25 to be convinced right out that this is true, probably 15 to consider it a strong enough possibility to look into with divination magic, etc.) How does this look?
BW0222 10-27-07, 12:53 AM	MnemonicSV, Why isn't there a check to be certain that the NPC is speaking the truth, when he actually is? Sometimes the truth may sound like a lie, even when it isn't. There is. A player can sense motive when ever they want. If the person is bluffing, then the player may or may not detect the bluff. If the person is not blufffing, then the player won't detect a bluff. In addition, the more unbelievable the story is the harder it is to bluff. Therefore, is someone is telling something unbelievable, and your sense motive doesn't say that something sounds fishy... then you should conclude that they actually believe what they are telling you. If someone comes up to you and says there is a two-headed pink dragon in the barn... you can ask for a sense motive. The fact, you (and possibly everyone else around) can't tell he is conning you means he is either a master trickster or he actually saw a two-headed pink dragon in the barn. Common sense says that the stable boy isn't likely making DC 40 bluff checks, so most likely the guy is telling you the truth.
MnemonicSV 10-27-07, 02:33 AM	There is. A player can sense motive when ever they want. If the person is bluffing, then the player may or may not detect the bluff. If the person is not blufffing, then the player won't detect a bluff. In addition, the more unbelievable the story is the harder it is to bluff. Therefore, is someone is telling something unbelievable, and your sense motive doesn't say that something sounds fishy... then you should conclude that they actually believe what they are telling you. If someone comes up to you and says there is a two-headed pink dragon in the barn... you can ask for a sense motive. The fact, you (and possibly everyone else around) can't tell he is conning you means he is either a master trickster or he actually saw a two-headed pink dragon in the barn. Common sense says that the stable boy isn't likely making DC 40 bluff checks, so most likely the guy is telling you the truth. But, here we are back to square one again. The "assume truth unless proven otherwise (by a SM vs. Bluff check)" theory of detecting truth. This illustrates the problem... that if an NPC is not lying, you have no way of being certain or not (even though a firm mechanic is in place to be certain of the opposite). ... What if you took a base DC 5, and applied the same modifiers to the DC to determine that the truth was true as you would to convince someone that a bluff was true. For example, your friend tells you that youll enjoy trying a particular activity that you have planned together (which they believe is true, and in fact, is). You, having already commited to the activity and preferring enjoyment to the lack thereof, wish to believe that it is true (-5 DC). Unless there are other circumstances, such as the friend having been shown to be an unreliable judge of such things in the past (which would apply a circumstance penalty to the sense motive check), there is not even a need to roll... I like this.. I think it works. I would personally raise the base DC to 10, but the mechanic holds somewhat. So, this would be the breakdown of scenarios for determining Sense Motive DCs: If the NPC is lying: Make a Sense Motive check, DC = NPC's bluff check result. A successful Sense Motive check indicates you are certain the NPC is bluffing you in some manner. A failed Sense Motive check indicates you cannot tell if the NPC is bluffing or not. If the NPC is not lying: Make a Sense Motive check, DC = 10 + circumstance modifier (as though making a bluff). A successful Sense Motive check indicates you are certain the NPC is not bluffing you any manner. A failed Sense Motive check indicates you cannot tell if the NPC is bluffing or not. As usual, all Sense Motive checks (and Bluff checks in the event of a lie) are made in secret by the DM when prompted by the player, so that you don't know which DC is being used (and thus cannot indirectly determine bluffing/truth by comparing check results). We still have the problem though, that when you reach the higher levels (that is, your SM check is very high), you can be assured of knowing the truth whenever you hear it, which means if you ever get a "you cannot tell" result from a bluff, you indirectly know it's actually a bluff. Maybe there's just no way around that. I suppose if the base DC for truth is cranked up to 20 or 30 then the mechanic will still hold up until roughly epic levels. Beyond epic levels though, it will still inevitably break down.
MnemonicSV 10-27-07, 02:43 AM	Unless (continuing from previous post)... What if a failed Sense Motive check against an epic level Bluffer did not result in an "unknown" reaction, but instead you in fact assume it is with certainty the truth (as though you had successfully made a SM check against an honest NPC)?
BW0222 10-27-07, 10:59 AM	MnemonicSV But, here we are back to square one again. The "assume truth unless proven otherwise (by a SM vs. Bluff check)" theory of detecting truth. This illustrates the problem... that if an NPC is not lying, you have no way of being certain or not (even though a firm mechanic is in place to be certain of the opposite). Yes. In real life you have no idea if someone is telling (for sure) that someone is telling the truth either. In D&D you aren't sure if someone is lying either -- maybe they just have a good bluff check or maybe your sense motive sucks. Same with spot. If you want to be sure that Joe isn't hiding in the trees, you are left with guessing. If you can't see him, either he isn't hiding in the trees or else your spot was less than his hide. However... you can make in-game decisions based on your character's understanding of the mechanics. A person with a good sense motive modifier (say +10), not threatened (i.e. taking a 10), understands that most people can't tell outrageous stories to him (say +20 to the sense motive check). He doesn't understand the exact mechanics, but he is aware that only extra-ordinary folks can get away with this type of story on him -- due to the fact that he seems to notice everytime when someone normal tries stuff like that. Same as the party elven ranger with +15 on his spot checks is rarely snuck-up on by normal creatures. He spots tigers, deer, rabbits, etc. all the time baring some strange circumstances. Now, if he is looking for someone in a crowd of wearing a bright red cloak and a golden hat, and he doesn't see that person... he can make the obvious conclusion that he isn't either there or he is a master at hiding. Again, he doesn't know the numbers, but he understands that it is an almost impossible thing to do. (Say 25 on the spot check, with a -10 on the hide check for the bright costume, so someone needs to crack a DC 35 hide check) A person making a sense motive against an outrageous story knows that it is extremely difficult to tell such a story with a straight face, when questioned about it, etc. So... he can make an in-game conclusion that if he can't tell that someone is lying that he must believe it or be extra-ordinarily good at lying. Further, he can make the determination of who is telling him the story and whether it is likely that they are capable of such fabrications. i.e. if the stable boy tells me that there is a two-headed pink dragon in the stables... it is highly unlikely he could make a DC 30+ bluff check to pull off such a con. If a known rogue or bard tried the same story... the person might be a bit more suspicious.
The_sleeper1 10-27-07, 01:37 PM	Right, wrong, lieing or telling it like it is, is the skill bluff because it is the skill used to make something believe what your telling them. If anything you as the DM may apply a mod to the roll based on how reasonable the trougth sounds.
MnemonicSV 10-28-07, 01:53 AM	Yes. In real life you have no idea if someone is telling (for sure) that someone is telling the truth either. In D&D you aren't sure if someone is lying either -- maybe they just have a good bluff check or maybe your sense motive sucks. Same with spot. If you want to be sure that Joe isn't hiding in the trees, you are left with guessing. If you can't see him, either he isn't hiding in the trees or else your spot was less than his hide. Actually, in D&D you can be relatively certain when someone is lying, via a successful Sense Motive check. Only on a failed check do you have no idea if it's a lie or not. Making a "real life" comparison doesn't work for D&D at all, since in real life you couldn't logically ever be 100% certain that someone is lying either (even though that's something you can do in the game). In the terms of "real life," the Bluff and the Sense Motive skills don't even exist: In real life you can never be certain of either a bluff or the truth, you have to decide that for yourself. Start throwing "real life" into the discussion, and all you're really doing is starting a "Why are there Bluff and Sense motive checks at all?" thread. Spot isn't a good example, since that's a different mechanic entirely for comparison purposes. It's a matter of interaction. You're interacting with Joe when he's conveying the truth (you have something to base your deduction upon as he's conveying information to you). You're not interacting with Joe when you're eyeing a location to be certain he's not in it (you have nothing to base you're deduction upon because no information is being conveyed to you). You could try physically or magically searching the location, or listening for Joe, but by that point it isn't even a Spot check anymore. --- To think of it another way, picture a modern day lie-detector. A properly trained individual can use the machine to come to one of three reasonable conclusions: A given response is a lie. A given response is the truth. A given response could be either (that is, inconclusive). Why can't sense motive work like a lie-detector? Why is it only "I can tell you're lying," or "I can't tell if you're lying or not?" Why is it reasonable that a game mechanic exists for determining the first or third options, but it's unreasonable that a game mechanic could exist for the third?
ToastedAmphibian 10-28-07, 01:55 AM	There is actually a way around that problem. If they fail by more than, say 5 or 10 points, then they get a FALSE reading. AKA They BELIVE the lie, or they BELIVE the TRUTH is a LIE. Problem solved, a really good bluffer can still trick them, without the player being able to meta-game out the actual situation.
MnemonicSV 10-28-07, 02:00 AM	There is actually a way around that problem. If they fail by more than, say 5 or 10 points, then they get a FALSE reading. AKA They BELIVE the lie, or they BELIVE the TRUTH is a LIE. Problem solved, a really good bluffer can still trick them, without the player being able to meta-game out the actual situation. Now THAT is a good solution! Fair too.