|
Anything that is a DC like Jump checks is a meets it beats it, but opposed checks between two PCs or NPCs or what have you requires the person trying to beat the other person to end with a higher result.
If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than
the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting
to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you
fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure
depending on how much your check is above or below the
required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target’s
skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target.
Its right in your Player's Handbook on page 86 under skill checks.
|
|
If the person is using stealth to avoid them and the person with perception isn't physically looking then the person with stealth wins. If the person is physically looking for the stealthy character then the perception check wins.
Its all about who is the aggressor.
Lets use Sleight of Hand and Perception its a tad easier.
Rogue rolls 10 adds sleight of hand ranks 6 so 16.
Bar patron rolls 10 adds perception ranks 6 so 16.
In this case the bar patron has to BEAT the 16 of the rogue in order to spot him cutting his coin purse.
|
|
Thats the way it reads and how I've always done it. I don't see any FAQ to further clarify and I did a search under James Jacob's page and didn't see any posts he made to clarify any more.
Like disable device is a set number for locks. It doesn't change from average lock to average lock, so its a DC that is set in stone. But, opposed checks are fluid and variable based on rolls and ranks so there has to be a clear cut winner.
In case of a tie, the one with the highest modifier wins.
Yes, this is the correct answer. And is how it worked in 3E.
The quote, "Some skill checks are opposed by the target’s
skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target."
Doesn't help for resolving ties. Because the other guy is ALSO making an opposed check. Barring specific text to the contrary, PF should work the same as 3E, where ties go to higher modifier: " In case of a tie, the higher skill modifier wins. If these scores are the same, roll again to break the tie."
So...once again, PF being written more poorly than 3E rears its ugly head. They left out that text for some reason, probably a page space issue. But, I've proven that was the rule in 3E, the onus is on those arguing to the contrary to show specifically in the text where that rule was changed in PF. If there is no such text, the 3E rule should still apply.
When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.
Emphasis mine. Therefore, it depends on which skill is opposing which skill.
Using the examples provided by the OP:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive: The Sense Motive roll must exceed the Bluff roll. If it does not, the bluff succeeds. Therefore ties go to the bluffer.
Disguise vs. Perception: Unless the Perception roll exceeds the Disguise roll, the disguise works.
Linguistics vs Linguistics: The opposing roll is made to beat the roll made to craft the forgery. If the roll to examine the document does not exceed the roll made to craft the forgery, the document is accepted as valid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case of a tie, the one with the highest modifier wins.Yes, this is the correct answer. And is how it worked in 3E.
The quote, "Some skill checks are opposed by the target’s
skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target."Doesn't help for resolving ties. Because the other guy is ALSO making an opposed check. Barring specific text to the contrary, PF should work the same as 3E, where ties go to higher modifier: " In case of a tie, the higher skill modifier wins. If these scores are the same, roll again to break the tie."
So...once again, PF being written more poorly than 3E rears its ugly head. They left out that text for some reason, probably a page space issue. But, I've proven that was the rule in 3E, the onus is on those arguing to the contrary to show specifically in the text where that rule was changed in PF. If there is no such text, the 3E rule should still apply.
Thats not how its written at all. The 3E rule shouldn't still apply this isn't 3E.
It specifically says EXCEEDS as Shadowborn said.
Pretty straight forward rule...
Ok, then. Your opposed result tied the other guys'. You do not win the opposed check, because you did not exceed his check.
But...he was rolling an opposed skill check against you as well, the same rule applies to him. So he failed to succeed, either.
The "order" of rolls is irrelevant, they're both still opposed rolls and follow the same damn rule.
So, I suppose that means on a tie they both "fail." How does that work, exactly?
Tell me how your interpretation makes any sense at all. Also, since when was the "if it wasn't changed, it's the same as in 3E" guideline been chucked to the side?
In 3.5 at least, we always went with defender wins ties. I don't know where this came from though (it may have been a houserule and not RAW).
It was definitely a houserule. 3E had the RAW stated plain as day, as linked in my first post.
|
|
Ok, then. Your opposed result tied the other guys'. You do not win the opposed check, because you did not exceed his check.
But...he was rolling an opposed skill check against you as well, the same rule applies to him. So he failed to succeed, either.
The "order" of rolls is irrelevant, they're both still opposed rolls and follow the same damn rule.
So, I suppose that means on a tie they both "fail." How does that work, exactly?
Tell me how your interpretation makes any sense at all. Also, since when was the "if it wasn't changed, it's the same as in 3E" guideline been chucked to the side?
If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than
the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting
to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you
fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure
depending on how much your check is above or below the
required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target’s
skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target.
The opposed check is the second check made.
If my rogue wants to pick pocket you and rolls a sleight of hand your perception is the opposition to my sleight of hand. I'm not rolling opposed to anything until you decide to try and beat me. You don't have to make that check...you can disregard it altogether and get robbed.
I do it all the time on my dumb fighter. GM goes make a sense motive check and I go "nope".
And this isn't 3E. If it were 3E we'd be on the 3E forums not Pathfinder. As it is written in Pathfinder is what you examine.
|
Ok, then. Your opposed result tied the other guys'. You do not win the opposed check, because you did not exceed his check.
But...he was rolling an opposed skill check against you as well, the same rule applies to him. So he failed to succeed, either.
The "order" of rolls is irrelevant, they're both still opposed rolls and follow the same damn rule.
So, I suppose that means on a tie they both "fail." How does that work, exactly?
Tell me how your interpretation makes any sense at all. Also, since when was the "if it wasn't changed, it's the same as in 3E" guideline been chucked to the side?
If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than
the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting
to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you
fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure
depending on how much your check is above or below the
required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target’s
skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target.The opposed check is the second check made.
If my rogue wants to pick pocket you and rolls a sleight of hand your perception is the opposition to my sleight of hand. I'm not rolling opposed to anything until you decide to try and beat me. You don't have to make that check...you can disregard it altogether and get robbed.
I do it all the time on my dumb fighter. GM goes make a sense motive check and I go "nope".
And this isn't 3E. If it were 3E we'd be on the 3E forums not Pathfinder. As it is written in Pathfinder is what you examine.
LOL
So by waiting to make my action I get the equivalent of a +1 to the skill as I get to win the ties?No, the actions happens at the same time. The rogue is picking the guy pockets and the target is trying to notice that at the same time, there is not a sequence of events.
|
|
Ok, then. Your opposed result tied the other guys'. You do not win the opposed check, because you did not exceed his check.
But...he was rolling an opposed skill check against you as well, the same rule applies to him. So he failed to succeed, either.
The "order" of rolls is irrelevant, they're both still opposed rolls and follow the same damn rule.
So, I suppose that means on a tie they both "fail." How does that work, exactly?
Tell me how your interpretation makes any sense at all. Also, since when was the "if it wasn't changed, it's the same as in 3E" guideline been chucked to the side?
If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than
the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting
to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you
fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure
depending on how much your check is above or below the
required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target’s
skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target.The opposed check is the second check made.
If my rogue wants to pick pocket you and rolls a sleight of hand your perception is the opposition to my sleight of hand. I'm not rolling opposed to anything until you decide to try and beat me. You don't have to make that check...you can disregard it altogether and get robbed.
I do it all the time on my dumb fighter. GM goes make a sense motive check and I go "nope".
And this isn't 3E. If it were 3E we'd be on the 3E forums not Pathfinder. As it is written in Pathfinder is what you examine.
LOL
So by waiting to make my action I get the equivalent of a +1 to the skill as I get to win the ties?No, the actions happens at the same time. The rogue is picking the guy pockets and the target is trying to notice that at the same time, there is not a sequence of events.
This isn't combat. There definitely is a clear sequence of events. IF he goes to pick pockets THEN you get a chance to catch him. IF I try and stealth by THEN you get a chance to notice me. IF I lie to your face THEN you get a chance to discern truth from lie.
There has to be an initiating action to warrant a reaction. If there is no initial action then there can be no reaction.
This isn't combat. There definitely is a clear sequence of events. IF he goes to pick pockets THEN you get a chance to catch him. IF I try and stealth by THEN you get a chance to notice me. IF I lie to your face THEN you get a chance to discern truth from lie.
There has to be an initiating action to warrant a reaction. If there is no initial action then there can be no reaction.
You're making up rules that don't exist. Or make any sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think it's pretty clear in the RAW:
From the PRD:
"Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."
If I were taking a stab at re-writing the rules, I'd rephrase the "Opposed Skill Check" rules to keep the math identical, but make the wording more consistent with the "d20 roll + modifier must equal or exceed a DC" central mechanic.
"In an opposed check, the character taking the action sets the DC, and the character that's reacting to that action has to meet or exceed that DC."
Examples:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive: The Bluff check sets the DC for the target's Sense Motive Check.
Sleight of Hand vs. Perception: The Sleight of Hand check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
Stealth vs. Perception: The Stealth check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
...etc.
|
|
You're making up rules that don't exist. Or make any sense.This isn't combat. There definitely is a clear sequence of events. IF he goes to pick pockets THEN you get a chance to catch him. IF I try and stealth by THEN you get a chance to notice me. IF I lie to your face THEN you get a chance to discern truth from lie.
There has to be an initiating action to warrant a reaction. If there is no initial action then there can be no reaction.
Oh I'm sorry I quoted RAW and you quoted 3E, so unless you can contribute via hard evidence I think your time is best spent reading the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
The statements I have made have been restated in two different ways by two different posters...so maybe your comprehension is lacking.
Actually, I think it's pretty clear in the RAW:
From the PRD:
"Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."If I were taking a stab at re-writing the rules, I'd rephrase the "Opposed Skill Check" rules to keep the math identical, but make the wording more consistent with the "d20 roll + modifier must equal or exceed a DC" central mechanic.
"In an opposed check, the character taking the action sets the DC, and the character that's reacting to that action has to meet or exceed that DC."
Examples:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive: The Bluff check sets the DC for the target's Sense Motive Check.
Sleight of Hand vs. Perception: The Sleight of Hand check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
Stealth vs. Perception: The Stealth check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
...etc.
I think that's usually consistent with "defender wins ties" (it is "reactor wins ties" and the person reacting is usually the defender).
The rules you quoted say nothing of the actor vs. reactor, or order of events. That is why I said you are making up rules. All the rules say is that on an opposed roll, you must beat the other's roll in order to win. But both sides are making opposed rolls, so that rule applies to both of them. That is all the PF RAW says. In the vacuum of rules text for PF, the default is to go to the 3E rules. If you can actually show RAW in PF backing up your claims, very good. But if you cannot, then none of what you say is true.
Magimaster: Two people are having a debate over some topic, and roll opposed diplomacy checks. Which person is the "defender"?
|
Actually, I think it's pretty clear in the RAW:
From the PRD:
"Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."If I were taking a stab at re-writing the rules, I'd rephrase the "Opposed Skill Check" rules to keep the math identical, but make the wording more consistent with the "d20 roll + modifier must equal or exceed a DC" central mechanic.
"In an opposed check, the character taking the action sets the DC, and the character that's reacting to that action has to meet or exceed that DC."
Examples:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive: The Bluff check sets the DC for the target's Sense Motive Check.
Sleight of Hand vs. Perception: The Sleight of Hand check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
Stealth vs. Perception: The Stealth check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
...etc.
That was my fist thought when I saw the thread title, too. On opposed skill checks, one person is always setting the DC that the other one tries to beat. When you tie a DC, you succeed.
That sounds like an extended roll to me, which explicitly has a no-one-wins-ties rule (at least in 3.x).
I can't actually think of a situation that would be handled by a single, standard opposed roll that would be perfectly symmetrical. Of course, it'd be easy enough to say that in such a case, no one wins (though that would certainly not be covered in the existing RAW).
Actually, I think it's pretty clear in the RAW:
From the PRD:
"Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."If I were taking a stab at re-writing the rules, I'd rephrase the "Opposed Skill Check" rules to keep the math identical, but make the wording more consistent with the "d20 roll + modifier must equal or exceed a DC" central mechanic.
"In an opposed check, the character taking the action sets the DC, and the character that's reacting to that action has to meet or exceed that DC."
Examples:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive: The Bluff check sets the DC for the target's Sense Motive Check.
Sleight of Hand vs. Perception: The Sleight of Hand check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
Stealth vs. Perception: The Stealth check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
...etc.
Unfortunately, in two of your examples you are using the initiator as the target.
Bluff vs Sense Motive would be the sense motive is the target of the bluff. Tie goes to Sense Motive (you are trying to pull one over on the target who uses sense motive).
Sleight of Hand vs Perception. The Perception is the target of the Sleight of hand. Tie goes to Perception (you are trying to use sleight of hand on the target who has a chance to notice you).
Whoever initiates the skill (uses the action) is the one that has to beat the other skill by +1. Tie goes to the defender basically.
- Gauss
Edit: I can see Stealth vs Perception work either way since Perception is both a move action and a non-action. It would depend on the situation.
|
|
Actually, I think it's pretty clear in the RAW:
From the PRD:
"Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."If I were taking a stab at re-writing the rules, I'd rephrase the "Opposed Skill Check" rules to keep the math identical, but make the wording more consistent with the "d20 roll + modifier must equal or exceed a DC" central mechanic.
"In an opposed check, the character taking the action sets the DC, and the character that's reacting to that action has to meet or exceed that DC."
Examples:
Bluff vs. Sense Motive: The Bluff check sets the DC for the target's Sense Motive Check.
Sleight of Hand vs. Perception: The Sleight of Hand check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
Stealth vs. Perception: The Stealth check sets the DC for the target's Perception check.
...etc.
Unfortunately, in two of your examples you are using the initiator as the target.
Bluff vs Sense Motive would be the sense motive is the target of the bluff. Tie goes to Sense Motive (you are trying to pull one over on the target who uses sense motive).
Sleight of Hand vs Perception. The Perception is the target of the Sleight of hand. Tie goes to Perception (you are trying to use sleight of hand on the target who has a chance to notice you).
Whoever initiates the skill (uses the action) is the one that has to beat the other skill by +1. Tie goes to the defender basically.
- Gauss
Edit: I can see Stealth vs Perception work either way since Perception is both a move action and a non-action. It would depend on the situation.
No. If I tell you a lie you have to successfully use your wit to discern the truth from my lie. You have to roll higher. Its pretty self explanatory.
Ossian666, Im not sure how you see that. You are the one initiating the action. Thus the target is the one you are initiating the action against. Thus, by your own quote ("...your check result exceeds the result of the target.") you must beat the target's check. The target here is the one on the receiving end of the action.
Bluff is an action. Sense motive is used by the target to counter bluff.
Sleight of Hand is an action taken against a target. Perception is used by the target to counter Sleight of Hand.
Stealth vs Perception can go either way depending on the situation.
Situation1: Stealth is the action, perception is the counter thus stealth must beat the counter.
Situation2: Established hidden character (no longer any actions). Perception is now the initiator trying to find the hidden character.
The stealth vs perception is my take. The other two should be pretty cut and dry.
- Gauss
No. If I tell you a lie you have to successfully use your wit to discern the truth from my lie. You have to roll higher. Its pretty self explanatory.
This may appear obvious but it is false logic. If I stated, for you to lie to me, you have to overcome my suspension of disbelief, it is just as logical, but switches the result of a tie.
I will research Pathfinder here in a minute, but it is a clear rule in 3.5 that the highest modifier wins a tie. If all modifiers are equal, reroll. I understand that may not be a RAW Pathfinder rule. I feel it is more likly an oversight rather than a change.
Edit: From initiative, but following the same rules as other shave stated above.
If two or more combatants have the same initiative
check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of
total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie,
the tied characters should roll to determine which one of
them goes before the other.
More examples of false logic:
In this case the bar patron has to BEAT the 16 of the rogue in order to spot him cutting his coin purse
What if I countered with, perception happens all the time? I am perceiving in my sleep, while fighting, swimming, talking, eating and the like. I only have to roll when that perception is not an automatic pass. Your thief has to beat that, because I started it first, at birth.
See how the logic is flawed? At any time that you can simply reverse the logic, the logic does not work (in the game environment).
|
|
No. If I tell you a lie you have to successfully use your wit to discern the truth from my lie. You have to roll higher. Its pretty self explanatory.This may appear obvious but it is false logic. If I stated, for you to lie to me, you have to overcome my suspension of disbelief, it is just as logical, but switches the result of a tie.
I will research Pathfinder here in a minute, but it is a clear rule in 3.5 that the highest modifier wins a tie. If all modifiers are equal, reroll. I understand that may not be a RAW Pathfinder rule. I feel it is more likly an oversight rather than a change.
Edit: From initiative, but following the same rules as other shave stated above.
If two or more combatants have the same initiative
check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of
total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie,
the tied characters should roll to determine which one of
them goes before the other.More examples of false logic:
In this case the bar patron has to BEAT the 16 of the rogue in order to spot him cutting his coin purseWhat if I countered with, perception happens all the time? I am perceiving in my sleep, while fighting, swimming, talking, eating and the like. I only have to roll when that perception is not an automatic pass. Your thief has to beat that, because I started it first, at birth.
See how the logic is flawed? At any time that you can simply reverse the logic, the logic does not work (in the game environment).
Congrats you found the rule on Initiative. If this was an argument on how Initiative worked I'd argue that what was typed in the book is OBVIOUSLY wrong because I can't read and comprehend. See what I did there?
Perception does happen all the time, but to notice a specific thing while you are distracted requires a reactionary roll. I understand the Perception aspect of this argument makes this suck because Perception is used for EVERYTHING in this game as opposed to Listen, Spot, Search, etc. from games in the past.
But the truth of the matter is the book is written one way and that is the right way. There are 2 opposed checks and no such thing as ties. One person has to EXCEED the other in their skill check. There will ALWAYS be a definite winner. And if you don't like that answer then I suggest you go back to the broken 3.5 system or hit the FAQ button or maybe go post in the Ask James Jacobs' thread so you can get the same answer you did here.
Wow. With no defined logic or reasoning that can't be completely turned on you, you are so sure of your position that you feel the need to be rude.
As I stated before, using your way only requires a false logic version of which skill started it. As shown, it is easy to use that logic either way on most opposed checks. As such, there is no defined way to rule, using your rule.
I for one, don't believe Paizo would mean it that way. Maybe they did. As I noted, my answer was not RAW. It doesn't mean that my explanation is invalid. I feel, (read: do not claim as a scientific law or RAW) that this is likely an oversight.
So in reference to my post about false logic, not the rule itself, do you counter it? Who gets the bonus? By the RAW definition you have to exceed the target, as you stated. How could you rule that the bar patron does not set the target? The thief is trying to do something to the target. The bar patron is the target of the sleight of hand check. Clearly by RAW the thief would have to beat the tie.
But you would rule otherwise. And to you there's no exception. Your perception is the sleight of hand skill is the target. And apparently no logic will show you the error in your logic.
My initiative reference was to show that Pathfinder, at least somewhere, held over the mechanic for breaking a tie on a type of opposed roll. Because, while not opposed skill checks, initiative checks are opposed rolls. It is my belief (again, not RAW) that when Pathfinder switched to CMB/CMD they took out the opposed roll text as they did not realize it would be as important without all the opposed grapple/trip/etc. checks.
As to using 3.5 as a reference, so? Like it is a horrible thing to state it for someone's clarity to show where the rule came from, rather than just out of the blue? How dare I show a correlation to the inspiration, not only for Pathfinder, but for Paizo's entire existence?
With all things, your mileage may vary.
But back to your ruling, I am truly curious because I like to discuss rules, not just quote them, how do you determin which person of the opposed skill is the target? I do not agree with what you have written so far, because the logic may be switched. Alternatively, if you were to say that the person whose turn it is, which appears to be how you lean, always counts as the target, I could at least agree that it is now defined. Then, in all cases, the player and GM (Since DM is a trademark of WotC and Dungeons and Dragons and therefore not allowed here) will know what the rule is without bickering about which is the defender.
Otherwise how do you resolve:
Two people are having a debate over some topic, and roll opposed diplomacy checks. Which person is the "defender"?
I am interested in that answer for sure.
PS
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place.
|
|
Initiative isn't an opposed check. There is no winner or loser. There is no negative or positive ramifications for having a lower or higher starting initative. Therefore that point is moot.
Your Perception case is the flawed logic. You don't play the game going "Perception check to see if someone is stealing my belt pouch" "Perception check to see if someone looked at me" "Perception check to see if that guy said my name" "Perception check to see if that band used a spell". If you do then I feel terribly sorry for your party because you'd NEVER progress forward when you are making 1000 Perception rolls before even starting a scene in a bar. Short of actively making a Search, Listen, Spot, etc check Perception is a REACTIONARY roll.
99% of opposed skill checks are going to be reactionary rolls. So there is a 1 and a 2. 1 is the action taken and 2 being the reaction. I don't understand why there is a need to argue needlessly about a rule that doesn't exist in this game. Ties are not handled based on modifiers or ranks or anything. Take the wording and interpret it as 1 has to exceed 2, or 2 has to exceed 1. Period. Dot. End of subject. Doesn't matter how you cut it there can be no ties and there will always be a clear cut winner.
As far as your diplomacy question goes...I believe the sky is pink. Prove me wrong. You can't. Just as in a debate its all opinion and there can be no winner. Incase you are confused (and it appears you are) what Diplomacy is for below is a link to what Diplomacy is used for. A theological debate of opinion is not one of them. If you were using it to improve on someone's attitude then there would definitely be a DC for that and it is not an opposed roll.
Initiative IS an opposed check. Just not a skill check,but an ability check.
There is a winner and loser, and there are ramifications for it. You roll initiative for combat or another circumstance where you want to take an action before some other guy. Failing that opposed check absolutely has ramifications!
Again, where does it say that which roll is reactionary has any effect at all on breaking a tie? They're still both opposed rolls, don't just keep quoting that same line about opposed rolls that applies to both. Show me where the rules say what you claim, that action vs. reaction matters. Like you said, "I don't understand why there is a need to argue needlessly about a rule that doesn't exist in this game." Your rule does not exist in this game. You have not shown one shred of evidence to claim it does.
The diplomacy question was to the guy claiming every opposed check had a "defender." I agree, diplomacy is one of the few opposed skill checks where you could have no winner (but your claim is that on a tie, there is still a winner, it's just determined your way instead of the way we're saying it is). But most of them need to have a winner for it to make sense. I could list examples where having no winner makes no sense, but you don't seem to be arguing that "there is no winner" is a valid interpretation of the rules, so why bother?
|
|
Reactionary is common sense. You don't get a sense motive check if there is no bluff. You don't get a perception check against the sleight of hand if there is no sleight of hand. There has to be one for the other to take place. That doesn't have to be written. You don't have to have rules in the game for breathing but it still takes place and works. There aren't rules for everything and everything isn't written out. The reactionary roll is that of the intended target. If I go to Bluff you the reaction is for you to make a Sense Motive. Whether you read it as your Sense Motive has to exceed my Bluff or my Bluff has to exceed your Sense Motive doesn't matter, but the truth of the matter is there has to be a difinitive outcome from this interaction. That outcome will either be you believing the Bluff or disbelieving the Bluff. If you are the target then lets say your result is a 16. The Bluff result is also a 16. There can be no tie. Interpret it as my Bluff the target of your Sense Motive. Therefore you need to beat the 16.
You can't make a Sense Motive check randomly. There has to be an action that warrants the Sense Motive. Whether it is really a Bluff or someone speaking truthfully the action has to be there for that skill check to take place. Bluff can be used without a counter skill check of Sense Motive.
There are no negative ramifications for just losing initiative. You may go next in order and the actions of the guy that won may cause you harm, but that isn't a negative ramification for losing initiative.
Ramification: 1. a consequence of an action, usually unintended, which complicates a situation
An example of a ramification is failing your Bluff check. In the event of a low Initiative you didn't fail. There are no winners or losers with Initiative. Initiative is also not an action. Its actually a determination of when actions will take place.
Read these. See where it says the opposed check is *bla*?
When making an opposed skill check, the
attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result
of the target.
The opposed check to Stealth is Perception. Therefore the attempt to detect stealth is successful if your check (Perception) exceeds the result of the target's (Stealth).
Sp what if the stealthing thief rolls, but his check is opposing the constant vigil of the guards? They started their active perception checks when they went on duty, long before the thief decided to sneak in. But the thief did take the initiative to sneak in so he is the aggressor. Who wins?
Also, a lot of what is being stated as "obvious" here is obviously (no pun intended) not obvious, since people are still discussing how to interpret it. So a clarification from the game designers would not go amiss, I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post. Someone not seeing the world exactly as you do does not make them an idiot.