Well, I tend to think of it like Perception, in Pathfinder terms. There are basically two ways you can use perception, in my eye. The first is to actively seek something out (similar to the old Search skill from 3.5). This takes time and effort to achieve. Or, there's the passive use of Perception which is, your senses feeding you information (even while you're asleep - you can make Perception checks while asleep). This takes no action, requires no effort or even thought. Opposed checks are a further thing on top of that passive element. (Sleight of Hand, Stealth)
Compare to Sense Motive - it's very similar. You can actively use it to if you are looking for something specific in someone (this is the use which allows you to 'get a hunch' for example). Beyond that, you are constantly evaluating everyone around you with sense motive - moments of absent-mindedness can be attributed to low 'rolls' or a bad Sense Motive (look at Vare - he has a negative Sense Motive). Again, like perception, opposed checks are an extra part of that.
Plus - nothing in the rules say it must be actively used - it requires no defined action (standard, move, etc. It takes a minute because you can't get a real sense for someone in a short space of time - but if you've been talking with someone for 20 minutes and you have no clue how they feel? You have a bad sense motive or you've been rolling poorly.
Fair enough, good examples too.
I have to counter with how it's written though.
You cannot 'try again' with this skill, so that suggests that a conscious attempt must be conducted, failure doesn't 'automatically' happen after a few moments per your passive description.
Now, the automatic rolls, or passive, /would/ occur when subject to a Bluff attempt, or someone uses a skill against your Sense Motive total, if that makes sense.
Additionally, per the write up of Skills themselves, nearly every skill does require some 'I'm going to use this skill', aspect, even Perception as per your Search.
So, yes, I do agree with you in some parts, but I don't believe that Sense Motive unconsciously scans the room all the time, regardless of your skill with it or not.
And while I realize this has gone past the original question, of 'Are we ignoring the 1 minute requirement (minimum)' per the rules, I do appreciate the discourse. A lot of the Skills in Pathfinder are Action based. Sure, it doesn't define a combat term in rounds for Sense Motive, but ...
If the commonly accepted practice, which I was querying, pinging, or whatever term you wanna call it here, is to just assume it's passive, always active, and you merely need to roll to compare against what people put in spoilers as your DC barrier to entry, fine.
I don't feel that's appropriate to the rules as I read them for Sense Motive. You /use/ this skill, it's not automatic save against Bluff checks, as many times as someone attempts to Bluff you.
If it were passive, and you failed once, you'd never passively get to 'use' that skill again, per the written 'Try Again' portion. :)
Okay, clearing this up real quick. Skills are barely even in use in the first place here. Occasionally something like Sense Motive comes into play because there needs to be some way to convey whether someone is good at picking up on clues. It's very much a passive skill, as in it happens all the time, and if someone puts up a DC, then that means there's something beyond the obvious to find out. And people may or may not put the pieces together. It represents looking at body language, reading tone, adding up clues based on what you know about a person, or in a case like Alreeneesha's, unintentionally listening to the thoughts of another being without realizing it, or potentially using some sort of empathy power.
Like many things we handwave past some of the RAW because it doesn't really add anything to the story besides hassle. FWIW I don't use the time limit on Sense Motive in the live games play in either. Because it basically renders the skill useless. And the GM tries to encourage options other than charge in and kill everything. He might add to the DC if we're doing it in a super rush, but most of the time it just isn't that big of an issue.
Clarity achieved.
Thanks. :) I'll adjust mah thinking. It isn't (obviously) automatic.
Sorry to continue to clog up discussion but I think I may have the proverbial nail in the coffin of this discussion.
You mentioned Damiani that the fact that it does not allow a retry implies a conscious effort behind, whereas I tend to think just the opposite. A prime example would be the Knowledge skills - these skills op also do not allow a retry. Why? Because they are unconscious, passive skills. You either know something or you do not. That's pretty plain.
The reason why Sense Motive does not allow a retry is that if you fail, your character has already (perhaps incorrectly) made up their mind about the person/action/lie in question. Something may happen later on that causes them to shake up their beliefs and one again attempt.
Compare to skills which do allow a retry: Climbing, Swim, Perform. These are all conscious actions.
Further, perhaps I was wrong earlier - Sense Motive could be "switched off", but it would mean your character is wholly disinterested in the subject of the skill. Which is fine, so I'll concede that point fairly.
This would be the passive thing.
You simply notice the funny tone and connect a possible meaning.
To compare to perception, you could search a room, akin to studying someone to get an idea of what they're thinking about. You can keep studying someone and you can keep searching a room. It takes time to do these, but you can keep looking.(unless of course something changes after a set amount of time looking.)
Or, if a bee flies past you, you make a perception roll to see if you notice it in the short time it takes to fly past. This is in reaction to something that happened to see if you noticed it happen.
This is what is happening here, but with sense motive. He said it funny, so if you notice that and can read people decently, you might get the idea that it was more than what it seemed at first.
You can't "try again" on this because it only happened the once, but it doesn't take time to do either.
Do this help?
I'm not sure why you think passive and not getting a retry are incompatible.
Basically as I see it, the check is made based on things you don't necessarily consciously notice, although you might. (do they look away when they're talking to me, do they blush, what's the tone of their voice, etc.) Based on your roll you either interpret that info correctly or not. And without any new info you just go on thinking your interpretation is correct even if it's dead wrong. But if you continue to run into that person on multiple occasions and get more info then that would equal a new check against new information. So someone who was previously clueless might figure out from that new information that they've been interpreting someone's behavior completely wrong.
Are we using epic rules?
If so, i can sense magic near me, occasionally defeat illusions without even touching them before makign a save, and non-magically use detect (one alignment)
Those are the ones i can do.
Skill checks don't, as far as i know.
And if not, what's the point to having checks this high?
So far as I can tell, no player is 'Epic'-- teachers occasionally are?
NPCs certainly (in some cases) are.
Re: Sense Motive, fair enough. Good points. I'd argue that the 'active check' is as much the same as the passive-- once you make it, you're mind is made up, either active or passive. After all, you never know (typically) as the PC, if your roll succeeded or not, often.
Perhaps I was relying too much on the actual 'in-game requesting' I've been used too, while at the table, asking for a skill check, versus GMs that actively request rolls made.
It's all in the style of play, I suppose.
Cheers.
Yeah, we're using epic rules, but students are not epic. Some of the teachers are. Some of the teacher really, really are.
So no epic skill checks?
Well, alright.
So no epic skill checks?
Well, alright.
I believe, and I'm sure someone will correct if wrong, no student can make or do anything 'epic' per rules.
So, yes, epic skill checks, provided you aren't a student.
No epic skill checks for the main charecters.
Better?
Not much point to high skill checks then.
No epic skill checks for the main charecters.
Better?Not much point to high skill checks then.
I really haven't seen much point for high skills of any sort, considering how most people don't seem to ever fail rolls. :)
Plus the rules light aspect, which sort of lessens the need to more of a personal choice thing too.
Most of the skill rolls I've seen appear more to see just how disgustingly high someone can get, versus 'realistic' use, in-game.
That's my two (three with inflation) cents.
Do what's fun. Get those high numbers to beat the DC!
I figured after being able to hear something turned out to be a bad thing you'd have stopped the high skills stuff anyway.
Gotta remember to use that kind of trap sometime... My poor players! (:<
Uh.. What?
I really haven't seen much point for high skills of any sort, considering how most people don't seem to ever fail rolls. :)
Plus the rules light aspect, which sort of lessens the need to more of a personal choice thing too.
Most of the skill rolls I've seen appear more to see just how disgustingly high someone can get, versus 'realistic' use, in-game.
That's my two (three with inflation) cents.
Do what's fun. Get those high numbers to beat the DC!
Yeah, well, when you're beating the dc 4 times over, some other uses for the skill would be nice.
|
I figured after being able to hear something turned out to be a bad thing you'd have stopped the high skills stuff anyway.
Gotta remember to use that kind of trap sometime... My poor players! (:<
Uh.. What?
The Perception check to hear a sound that might deafen you. It was a lovely trap used by someone else(I forget who) here in Avalon.
That's the worst thing I've ever heard of.
Punishing someone for a a high check.
What's next? A trap where if you make a high enough stealth check you can't see?
Chill the attacking, please, Ice.
Chill the attacking, please, Ice.
I don't mind not having epic skills- i never even expected to have them.
I do mind having high skills be a bad thing.
So basically, low skills are good, because in this setting you don't need them, but having them high may cause issues.
You can intentionally fail saves.
Right.
So it's another way to punish someone for being good at something.
Also, shadow evocation doesn't even lower the light level.
just wanted to say...
I think I owe some responses will get them out tonight. I hope some people are online tonight to get my scenes moving toward closing for the night.
Oh. I see,
Why wouldn't you already have a light scource in that situation?
So, you want to have high enough skills to auto pass checks, and no higher.
I feel, in the case of the sonic 'trap' for Perception, the sense of failing due to success is wrong.
After all, attacks are resolved by saves, Armor Class and ultimately hit points or attributes.
So, whether or not you heard the effect, thus, invalidating whether high skills are good or not, in this example, it will be other stats/abilities that matter.
I'll argue high skills are great-- the setting, and game play, diminishes their worth because our peeps are, "quite gross".
Relative to one another, perhaps not, but to nearly all standards of the rules, certainly.
Icehawk, calm down. The point here is that no matter how much you optimize a character, you can't account for every instance in which someone else is also clever. Challenges are part of the fun. (Says the person whose catchphrase is 'there's nothing in the rules that says I can't'....I'm told this is why we can't have nice things. ;P)
I feel, in the case of the sonic 'trap' for Perception, the sense of failing due to success is wrong.
After all, attacks are resolved by saves, Armor Class and ultimately hit points or attributes.
So, whether or not you heard the effect, thus, invalidating whether high skills are good or not, in this example, it will be other stats/abilities that matter.
I'll argue high skills are great-- the setting, and game play, diminishes their worth because our peeps are, "quite gross".
Relative to one another, perhaps not, but to nearly all standards of the rules, certainly.
I agree with this.
I was the one on the receiving end of the check, and the only way that I could have not taken damage is on a one. (Not like an auto fail. Just that if it was one it added to the minimum.)What about people with good perceptions?
That would be automatic damage. And as far as the game goes, damage with no save or any way to prevent it is not a thing.
I'm not going to argue about it, but I do dislike the principal.
I feel, in the case of the sonic 'trap' for Perception, the sense of failing due to success is wrong.
After all, attacks are resolved by saves, Armor Class and ultimately hit points or attributes.
So, whether or not you heard the effect, thus, invalidating whether high skills are good or not, in this example, it will be other stats/abilities that matter.
I'll argue high skills are great-- the setting, and game play, diminishes their worth because our peeps are, "quite gross".
Relative to one another, perhaps not, but to nearly all standards of the rules, certainly.
Especially since my perception can easily hit +84 without magic...
And I'm not gestalt, either.There are a few unpreventable (aside form immunity) spells, like waves of fatigue.
I'll never forget when the party necromancer sent a zombie through a hall to check fir traps and then, when nothing happened and we walked in it ourselves, the dm looks at us and says "Life Sense goes off..."
He was joking, but I at least thought he was serious for a moment.
But this is all within the rules.
The rules aren't made to punish you for being good at something. Nothing is. That's just not how stuff works. :P
Not that there is a rule for it, but that it would be supported by the rules.
Well, we could always just draft something up-- call it a 3rd Party 'thing' and it might be real. ;)
Lord knows some of those 3rd Party submissions being sold for money have abused 'balance' here and there. :D
Just saying!
Icehawk-- why on earth would you naturally, have +84 perception with just a 16th level single class? That's ... insane. How? Without tuning the Feats or what not, to get that?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I know. I heard one 3rd party company made Cantrips at will! The scandal!
Icehawk-- why on earth would you naturally, have +84 perception with just a 16th level single class? That's ... insane. How? Without tuning the Feats or what not, to get that?
Is it to try and see Mr. Strider, the stealth teacher? Cause that's not gonna happen unless he let's you see him. ;)
Yeah, I know. I heard one 3rd party company made Cantrips at will! The scandal!
#JustDnDSystemProbs
Hey now...
Cantrip abuse is serious business!
It's potentially worse than people using Mage Hand like some kind of TK, versus what it REALLY can do!
All it does is MOVE IT! Not animate or conjure an actual hand with fingers!
#rageatmagehand
:D
Is it to try and see Mr. Strider, the stealth teacher? Cause that's not gonna happen unless he let's you see him. ;)
Is this because Mister Strider is 'epic'-ally invisible? :D
I like cantrips....
Making them not at will just makes them really sucky spells...
Is it to try and see Mr. Strider, the stealth teacher? Cause that's not gonna happen unless he let's you see him. ;)Is this because Mister Strider is 'epic'-ally invisible? :D
If that's what you want to tell yourself...
Icehawk-- why on earth would you naturally, have +84 perception with just a 16th level single class? That's ... insane. How? Without tuning the Feats or what not, to get that?
All pazio matirial. I get a +10 total from feats.
It's not a single class, it's a multiclass.
40 of it is situational, however. These situations apply often, though, and against virtually all humanoid races.
Icehawk-- why on earth would you naturally, have +84 perception with just a 16th level single class? That's ... insane. How? Without tuning the Feats or what not, to get that?All pazio matirial. I get a +10 total from feats.
It's not a single class, it's a multiclass.
40 of it is situational, however. These situations apply often, though, and against virtually all humanoid races.
Ah, well, if it's a specialized perceptive built person-- much like Snail Girl is a specialized Divination person, that makes sense.
Hope that works out-- I mean, you can effectively remove any Invisibility bonuses, for standing still with spell active, with just half that +84!
That's impressive.