|
The alpha version of Deception creates a situation where in order to be good at detecting a falsehood, one must also be adept at telling a falsehood.
Sense motive should not be included in deception.
The rules should help support the game we envision. Paladins who detect lies should be common. Paladins who are good at telling lies should be much less common. While several skills could and should be combined, I think that these should be kept distinct.
Ah, the paladin is something I hadn't thought of at first. And, 'tis true, there are some people I know who are so good at lying themselves that they can never tell when someone else is lying to them.
Then again, for the sake of simplicity and elegance of rules, it's much easier to roll them together. Maybe the paladin could just get a spell-like ability to discern lies x/day?
I think Deception works for the Palading as well, it's mostly the name that adds a bit bad flavor...
But regarding the combination of bluff and sense motive:
Only if one could do something does not necessarily mean he does it.
A Paladin could easily rampage around and slay the innocent with his holy blade, but he won't do that. Hopefully, that is.
Greetings, Daniel
|
|
The Paladin is certainly not the only example of a person who WOULDN'T lie, but should be able to discern if someone else is lying. The simple fact is that the two skills are very different. There are plenty of people who are good at lying, but are also gullible, and people who can always tell if they're being lied to, but can't tell a lie to save their life.
Because the two skills that have been combined are distinct enough, this combined skill stretches believability for me. Worse, the rules are supposed to support a play style. If a character is good at something but can't choose to use that skill (or won't), why did the rules make them good at that in the first place?
There are a lot of good changes to the rules, but the idea of opposed checks isn't gone. When someone uses stealth to approach you, you use perception to notice them. This particular combination is like combining perception into stealth. You would use stealth to sneak up on someone or notice that someone is sneaking up on you. Obviously that wouldn't make sense.
So, just like perception opposes stealth, I think there is a benefit to having sense motive oppose deception.
Here's a thought: maybe we're thinking too narrowly. Maybe there should be a Social skill = Bluff + Diplomacy + Sense Motive. Paladins receive a -10 class penalty to the Bluff aspect, if that makes people feel better, and maybe rogues could get a +2 class bonus to Bluff.
Some people don't so much try to be deceptive as they try extra hard to make others like or agree with them -- this is called tact -- but they end up saying all sorts of things that aren't necessarily true because of it (Southern "graciousness" comes to mind). Then you have your stereotypical New Yorker: "What, are you high?!" Typically, those who employ a lot of tact in day-to-day life are MUCH better at sensing when others are agreeing with them verbally but not emotionally. So maybe a bigger overall skill, rather than a smaller one, is the way to go here?
First, I too agree that "Deception" and "Sense Motive" don't mesh very well.
However, Bluffing isn't something that a Paladin would necessarily shy away from. Bluffing incorporates more than just an outright lie. Take a poker game for example; playing like your hand is stronger than it really is, is NOT a lie, but it IS a bluff. Similarly, acting tough when you're surrounded while foes and making them think maybe you're bigger stuff than you are, isn't lying, but it is bluffing. And, again, a feint is a bluff but not a lie.
However, Bluffing isn't something that a Paladin would necessarily shy away from. Bluffing incorporates more than just an outright lie. Take a poker game for example; playing like your hand is stronger than it really is, is NOT a lie, but it IS a bluff. Similarly, acting tough when you're surrounded while foes and making them think maybe you're bigger stuff than you are, isn't lying, but it is bluffing. And, again, a feint is a bluff but not a lie.
Excellent point; I agree. Rather than a mechanical penalty, the role-playing of the paladin's code against lying is his impediment to doing so.
|
The alpha version of Deception creates a situation where in order to be good at detecting a falsehood, one must also be adept at telling a falsehood.
Sense motive should not be included in deception.
The rules should help support the game we envision. Paladins who detect lies should be common. Paladins who are good at telling lies should be much less common. While several skills could and should be combined, I think that these should be kept distinct.
I suggested on another thread that there should be an Insight skill or Sense Motive could be folded into Perception as Perception (Insight).
Sense Motive does have more in common with Perception than it does with Bluff. Really, the two just don't go together.
I also think Sense Motive should be folded into Perception. Sense Motive was a Wisdom-based skill after all.
If they do change it, perhaps a person who has at least 5 ranks in Deception gets a +2 synergy bonus when using Perception to see through a disguise or falsehood. They are so used to lying themselves that they can sometimes see through other peoples falsehoods. The reverse could also be true. A person with 5 ranks in Perception could get a +2 synergy bonus to make Deception checks.
Of course, this means advocating more synergy bonuses. :)
Yeah something like Insight/Intuition (Gather Info, Sense Motive, and maybe some aspects of Diplomacy) and Influence (Intimidate, Bluff, and most uses of Diplomacy) skills.
Not all new skills need to be a 1 for 1 folding, aspects of an "old" 3.5 skill could be broken into different new skills.
I see no problem with why a Paladin should not be able to lie (and do it well). I've never been a fan of the Lawful Stupid alignment people seem to want Paladins to have.
I mean, in a dramatic moment you might want fool the villain into thinking you are a bigger threat than you are so that he focuses his attack on you, or you might want to convince him that the person you are protecting has escaped instead of hiding behind you in the grass. Being pure-hearted doesn't mean you can't be clever.
For people who do want to be able to spot a liar without lying, they should probably just make Deception opposed by Deception or Perception, at the discretion of the target. Just as you can avoid being tripped by being big and strong or by being dexterous and good at balancing, you should be able to spot a liar by the takes-one-to-know-one approach from Ocean's Eleven or by the never-stop-looking-for-clues approach from Dragnet.
-Frank
This is a point I've been debating with my players for a bit already, because Lone Wolf OGL folds skills up quite similar, and we've agreed that Sense Motive is best served if it stays separately instead of being folded into Perception, for the simple reason that there is a lot more than simply "interpreting sensory information" at work when you try to get into another person's head and try to discern its thoughts and emotions. I simply folded Bluff together with Diplomacy and Intimidation into "Persuasion" and was done. Sadly, Forgery and Disguise can't easily be folded together, since they are based on different attributes, so they had to stay separate as well (I'm STILL searching for a good way to fold them into Deception or Subterfuge, if anybody can help me out here I'd be grateful).
I didn't like that Sense Motive got folded into Deception, so I've folded it into Perception.
Although I think that might make Perception just TOO big a skill (since it gets Search as well).
Just an idea for the 'people skills' -
Diplomacy - (Improve an NPC's attitude toward you, gather information)
Persuasion - Bluff/Intimidate (Convince someone do what you want, convince someone something is true, feint)
Perception - (Spot, Listen, Taste, Touch, Smell)
Intuition - (Sense Motive, gut instinct, oppose disguise, detect enchantment).
Something that I've been toying with in my games is the idea of Scoring instead of rolling.
The concept is pretty simple, a character is interacting with an NPC, and its a pretty cool interaction. Now if the character has been doing well at influencing the NPC I hate to make them roll a Diplomacy check and get a 1 on the roll, so the last few minutes of talking don't mean anything.
Instead a character's roll is based on a score I give them depending on the quality of the RP. The score is anywhere between 1-20.
An example of Play -
Hal the 1st level Half-Elf Bard has a Diplomacy and Deception modifier of +7. Hal encounters a gruff dwarf deep in the mountains, the Dwarf is a hermit and distrusts strangers (unfriendly).
Hal's player greets the Dwarf in a friendly way, and proceeds to tell the dwarf about his current plight (being lost in the mountains), he compliments the Dwarf's fine beard, and keen knowledgeable look and hopes the dwarf would be able to lead him back to civilization. The Player was very 'on' during the entire interchange, so I give him a score as follows
10 - For playing in character, and entertaining the group with his good roleplaying skills
+2 - Complimenting the Dwarf on his beard
+2 - calling the dwarf knowledgeable
For a total roll of 14, he then adds his Dipmlomacy modifier of +7 to get a total of 21. Enough to change the unpleasant Dwarf's attitude from unfriendly to indifferent. And more than enough to get the dwarf to give directions to the nearest village (DC 10).
Although I think that might make Perception just TOO big a skill (since it gets Search as well).
Agreed 100%.
We can't seriously propose that Perception = Listen + Spot + Search + Sense Motive. If so, why not throw in trapfinding, trap sense, all detection spells, and the kitchen sink while we're at it? Ooh, and Appraise allows you perceive the value of things, and not be deceived by faux pearls. Let's fold that in, too.
In addition to making some sort of common sense, skill groupings need to preserve some semblance of mechanical game balance.
Charm (CHA) or Influence
Bluff + Gather Info
Negotiate (CHA) or Diplomacy
Diplomacy + Sense Motive
Switch Bluff and Diplomacy.
Charm (CHA) or Influence
Bluff + Gather Info
Negotiate (CHA) or Diplomacy
Diplomacy + Sense MotiveSwitch Bluff and Diplomacy.
But then I can't houserule a folding of Gather Information into Knowledge (local)!
Yep, the pieces never all fit together when trying to fold the skill list down. It will drive you crazy. There is always a few extra pieces left over when it's all assembled.
I say "chuck 'em" ;)
I agree, Sense Motive just doesn't fit in with Deception. I also agree that it best fits in with Perception.
Another thing is I beleive that Disguise should be wrapped in with Deception. It just belongs their.
A small part of me beleives that Search should be taken out of Perception and moved into Theft. And I also am on the bus of Open Lock being moved to Disable Device.
I see no problem with why a Paladin should not be able to lie (and do it well). I've never been a fan of the Lawful Stupid alignment people seem to want Paladins to have.
There is a difference between "should not be able to" and "does not desire to". I have no problem with someone playing a Lawful Good character that knows how to lie. I do have a problem requiring it if they want to be able to judge someone's intentions.
(Like a few people on this thread, I could see Sense Motive being part of Diplomacy, although I think it works better as a Wisdom-based skill.)
Charm (CHA) or Influence
Bluff + Gather Info
Negotiate (CHA) or Diplomacy
Diplomacy + Sense MotiveSwitch Bluff and Diplomacy.
Although I'm hesitant about mixing the Cha and Wis, Diplomacy + Sense Motive makes tons of sense to me.
So how about...this:
Influence (CHA)
Bluff + Gather Info
Negotiate (CHA) or Diplomacy
Diplomacy + Sense Motive
Examine (Int)
Appraise + Search
Perception (Wis)
Listen + Spot + other senses
I like moving Search out of the WIS-based Perception. Folding it into Appraise, as defined in 3.5 is a viable solution.
However (and there is always a however, isn't there) Mr. Buhlman has changed the definition of Appraise in the Alpha version to give it enough juice to stand on its own. It might still be able to combine the new version of Appraise with Search, I don't know, but I feel leaving it on its own would be better for now.
If you have read the definition of the new Appraise and feel Search can fold into it, then I say go for it. I think your solution would work in gameplay just fine, and I like the name Examine.
If you are interested, here is what I did:
Influence (CHA) or Charm Bluff + Gather Info
Negotiate (CHA) or Negotiation Diplomacy + Sense Motive
Perception (WIS) or Awareness Listen + Spot
Decipher Devices (INT) or Examine Disable Device + Search
Deft Hands (DEX) or Nimble Fingers Open Lock + Sleight of Hand
|
|
I'm going to have to take the opposite post on this one I think. I think that sense motive and bluff fit quite well together. It is the same idea as the old anecdote 'It takes a thief to catch a thief.'
Someone who is good at spotting someone lying knows what tells to watch for, they are aware of how someones breathing might change or eye movements or nervous ticks. Because they are aware of those things, when lying themselves they are better able to control them.
Its the same reason that I agree with the forgery skill in 3.5 being opposed by forgery rather then a spot check. The average person looking at two paintings which are similar side by side may be able to spot minor differences, but they won't know which is authentic. However someone trained in such matters is going to know to look at the age of the paper, to investigate the layers or types of paints, even the type of brush strokes. And on the same hand someone who knows to look for those things will have a better idea of how to mimic them and thus throw someone off the trail.
I think that combining skills that oppose each other this way, but aren't completely different(sneaking and perception is an example of this, being aware of your surroundings doesn't necessarily mean you know how to sneak. Being light on your feet and knowing where/how to step, may make you more observant but not necessarily.) seems a good thing to me.
I do lean towards putting this under charisma as they did, someone above mentioned wisdom being a dump stat, but with it tied to your will save I think cha is much more likely a dump stat. And the bluffing aspect seems much stronger of a pull to it, even the sense motive relates to identifying aspects of behavior rather then general observation. The attribute is debatable, but I lean towards cha and keeping this as is.
-Tarlane
Contributor
|
Funny story.
I have a friend who is an actor. She is really good at telling when people are lying, trying to think of what to say, and generally at reading people's expressions. Why? Because she has been trained in simulating subtle facial expressions that simulate these things, and like wise in simulating facial expressions that avoid these things. She is really good at detecting if someone is lying because she has been trained in the art of deception.
Just sayin'...
I have a friend who is an actor. She is really good at telling when people are lying, trying to think of what to say, and generally at reading people's expressions. Why? Because she has been trained in simulating subtle facial expressions that simulate these things, and like wise in simulating facial expressions that avoid these things. She is really good at detecting if someone is lying because she has been trained in the art of deception.
She, like most actors, was trained to both observe people and to pretend to be them. That's two different things.
A police officer may be really good at knowing when someone lies to him. But unless he, like an actor, also practices lying, he may never be a good liar himself. Knowing how someone lies may make his own practice easier, but it doesn't automatically make him a skilled liar.
|
|
There are two types of good liars in the world. The kind that know what they do when they're lying and can recognize it in others, and the kind that don't know what they're doing and can't recognize lying in others.
The first group has an awareness of self - a concept strongly tied to Wisdom. The other group does not. Natural talent (as that would be considered) is probably more of a charisma related ability (as far as D&D defines the relationship between abilities and everything else).
Simply put, some liars should be able to recognize other liars. They should take the sense motive skill.
Some people who never lie should be able to recognize liars. They should take the sense motive skill. And you can be good at spotting a liar but be a terrible liar. Some people blush anytime they try to lie - doesn't mean they can't tell when I'm lying.
The skills do different things. Certainly they may often be found in conjuction with each other, but that is true for people who are naturally athletic. If you're athletic you're probably good at basketball and football - but some people are good at one and not the other. Go figure.
I'm of the opinion that both sides are valid.
Being able to lie generally indicates being able to spot a lie, just as being able to move silently usually goes along with hiding.
At the same time, there are police officers and paladins who can detect lies with abandon, but can't bluff their way through a poker game.
Furthermore, being able to read a person and respond in kind is an invaluable part of making a good offer during negotiations, to the point that one's skill at diplomacy rests almost entirely on this talent.
So, Perception, Deception, and Diplomacy should all be able to be used to detect lies. Possibly, the kind of information one gets from each different kind of use could be slightly different, but, really, this is a rather basic skill that letting more than one party member have easily does not do any harm.
|
|
Paladins who detect lies should be common. Paladins who are good at telling lies should be much less common.
I disagree. I see this as the classic story of the good cop exposed to bad people all day. He sees evil, he knows evil, he could easily slip into using evil to fight evil. A Paladin could be a great liar, he just has to resist the temptation. Why do you think fallen Paladins are such an archetype? They bump into evil all day every day. Dying in the name of Good, that's easy. Resisting the temptation to cross the line in pursuit of good, that's hard.
My thoughts on Deception -
Deception (Cha) – Bluff + Disguise + Forgery (?) + Sense Motive (kind of) + Gather Information
These are all skills that have to do with lying. Bluff and Disguise are both Cha skills. Forgery isn’t (it’s Int), but I don’t see it as a function of Linguistics (as described in Pathfinder) either. Sticking it here is a bad fit too, but it’s a weird, rarely used skill anyway. The only other thing I can think of is making it Profession (forger), which might actually be a better choice. With Sense Motive, I’ve called the skill “Detect Ruse” in my games for a while and focused on the lie detecting, seeing through disguises aspects of Sense Motive; I think that would fit here. You've got to know how to lie to catch someone doing it, and just because you know how to do it doesn't mean you have to. I don't think making Sense Motive/Detect Ruse a Cha skill would be too much of a stretch. Deception rules would work as in Pathfinder for lying, feinting, sending secret messages, etc., and Disguise and Forgery would function as in 3.5. I’d like to see something about hiding or camouflaging large objects mentioned here too.
One other thing, because a person could reasonably use deception to wander around town and ask questions, pretending to be someone they’re not or just generally being sly (or talking to people and gleening the truth behind their lies), I would add the Gather Information skill to Deception without taking it away from Diplomacy. (I actually think you should be able to Gather Information with Deception, Diplomacy and Intimidate; same mechanic, different methods, different repercussions.)
|
|
This is where it comes down to personal preference. Some people can lie but can't tell if they're being lied to. Others can tell if they're being lied to, but can't tell a lie to save their life. Others can do both equally well.
This would indicate that it is best represented by two distinct skills, and some people have one 'maxed', others the other, and some with both skills maxed.
I think that generally having more choice is good for the player. So, in this case, keeping the skills distinct suits me better.
Director of Games
|
To be honest, the combining of Bluff and Sense Motive was one of the harder choices I made while working on the Skills system. It is obvious to me that this matter is not yet settled.
I will continue to think upon it. Please continue the discussion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thank you for taking time to post on this and other posts, Jason. And I would like to apologize for misspelling your last name every time I have used it. My only defense is my longest running campaign is set in the Duchy of Tenh.
I agree with those who believe Sense Motive and Bluff should not be combined.
I would combine Bluff (Cha) and Disguise (Cha) into Deception (Cha).
I would combine Sense Motive (Wis) and Appraise (Int) into Scrutinize (Wis).
I always felt Appraise should be a Wisdom-based skill, not an Intelligence-based skill. Both involve the ability to notice small details and make conclusions from them. Appraise is also a rarely used skill, so merging it with one of the more widely used skills makes sense.
|
|
Again, I'll say no matter what the final version of the Pathfinder game is, I'm very glad and constantly impressed by the level of participation you allow your customers. It is a very different, and in my mind, clearly superior model than some of the other gaming companies I can think of.
In any case, continuing the debate - on the one hand we have the general idea that combining skills sometimes makes sense. There are some skills that are generally weak, some that simply seem like other aspects of another skill, and some that stand alone pretty well.
The simple fact is that we don't NEED to combine any skills. We can still make Pathfinder a workable system without doing so. The only skills we should combine are the ones that really make good sense to do so.
I think that combining listen and spot into perception is good. Why? Because if someone is sneaking up on you you have to roll twice when they're separate. You have one chance to see them and one chance to hear them. Likewise when they are sneaking up on you, they must hide and move silently. Essentially, they have two opportunities to make a mistake. The combination of listen/spot and hide/move silently. I do think that search is sufficiently different from other perception type checks to remain a distinct skill.
Some certainly believe that the skill consolidations have not gone far enough, and some feel that they have gone too far. I'm sort of in the middle. There are certainly some combinations that don't make sense to me, and some I would like to see. Overall, I'm leaning toward there are too many skills combined. I don't think any should be unless there is a good argument for it. Of course, every time we combine a skill, that means one less 'dedicated skill' a class has to spend.
So, on the meta-issue, regarding 3.5 skills, I favor combining spot/listen into perception. I favor combining hide/move silently into stealth. I favor combining open lock/disable device into disable device (Int). I favor eliminating knowledge (arcana) and moving some aspects into knowledge (history) and others into Spellcraft (spell effects, etc). It seems to me that dragons are historical creatures, as are most of the other 'examples' of things you might know with a knowledge(arcana) check. I favor eliminating knowledge (nobility/royalty) and making it simply a part of knowledge (local).
Regarding interaction with others, I think that there could be an influence skill, which combines both Intimidate and Diplomacy. Intimidate should allow one to make the check more quickly, but offers the disadvantage of making the person less friendly when you're not around. Diplomacy takes longer but has the same general goal - convincing someone to do something for you at the moment - and not hating you after they do. Since they're both CHA skills, they can be combined, even though they are two very different approaches to the same thing. Bluff is a sufficiently useful ability that it can stand on its own, no need to combine any other skills into it.
Again, some other skills that have been considered lately can stand alone. Forgery and Disguise, for instance, aren't always useful, but they certainly can be when used well. If a character takes these skills, he likely will try to use them. I'd rather see a character spend the skill points to get an ability that can be EXTREMELY useful in a few limited situations than bundle it free with a generally useful skill.
I like combining Tumble and Balance, but I don't think that Jump fits in there very well. Somewhat okay, but it is a useful enough ability that it can be separate - and maybe have some reimagining for the things you can do with jump. For example, with jump you should be able to ignore rough terrain when making a charge - assuming you can jump far enough. That should be clearly listed as one of the advantages...
And regarding Bluff and Sense Motive, they can both remain separate skills.
I really don't like the idea of combining Bluff & Sense Motive - a good liar is not necessarily good at telling when they're being lied too and someone who can pick a liar is often not good at telling them.
My suggestion - either make it opposed by Perception (though I think this may make Perception just too indispensible) or widen the uses of Sense Motive.
In my game I'm using an Insight skill which I use both to replace Sense Motive and for providing clues when the players get stumped by investigation or puzzles (replacing the old standby: "Sigh... give me a wisdom check, DC 20"...)
Another option would be an Integrity skill which is used to oppose Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate (instead of the current static DCs).
Again, some other skills that have been considered lately can stand alone. Forgery and Disguise, for instance, aren't always useful, but they certainly can be when used well. If a character takes these skills, he likely will try to use them. I'd rather see a character spend the skill points to get an ability that can be EXTREMELY useful in a few limited situations than bundle it free with a generally useful skill.
I wouldn't mind seeing Forgery and Disguise moved in with the Craft skills. Making fake items and clever disguises seem to me to be another form of craftsmanship.
I wouldn't mind seeing Forgery and Disguise moved in with the Craft skills. Making fake items and clever disguises seem to me to be another form of craftsmanship.
I'm working on a "Pathfinder alternative" skills draft now, in which Forgery is part of Craft (fine art). Disguise is rolled into Perform (acting), to simulate the character's familiarity with costumes, props, and impersonation.
Disguise is rolled into Perform (acting), to simulate the character's familiarity with costumes, props, and impersonation.
How is Perform (acting) different than "Bluff"? Or is Bluff rolled into Perform (acting) too. (That actually would be a good idea.)
Hmmm....
Roll Diplomacy into Perform (Oratory)
Roll Tumble, Balance and Perform (Dance) into Perform (Acrobatics)
Roll Disguise, Bluff and Perform (Comedy) into Perform (Act)
Roll Perform (Keyboard) into Perform (String Instruments)
Hmmm....
1. Roll Diplomacy into Perform (Oratory)
2. Roll Tumble, Balance and Perform (Dance) into Perform (Acrobatics)
3. Roll Disguise, Bluff and Perform (Comedy) into Perform (Act)
4. Roll Perform (Keyboard) into Perform (String Instruments)
1. Well, I'd probably state it the other way around, but yes, exactly.
2. Yes; I'd keep Acrobatics as Tumble + Balance, and might let a player make a case that his or her character can dance, too -- and then I could eliminate Perform (dance).
3. This is definitely one that I'd like to get as much feedback as possible on. For example: what about Sense Motive? If it's not part of Deception, does it get its own skill? I think I'm against adding anything else to Perception; it's already almost too good.
4. I'd actually take ALL musical performance types and combine them; you'd learn new groups of instuments the way Linguistics gives you "free" languages.
2. Yes; I'd keep Acrobatics as Tumble + Balance, and might let a player make a case that his or her character can dance, too -- and then I could eliminate Perform (dance).
Should a brd be able to invoke bardic abilities through Dance? If so, then you want to keep that as a Perform skill. If not, no problems.
what about Sense Motive? If it's not part of Deception, does it get its own skill? I think I'm against adding anything else to Perception; it's already almost too good.
I suggested in another thread that Sense Motive be combines with Appraise to form a new skill called "Scrutinize" which allows yo to gather information from small details (like a person's "tells" or the fact that the yellowing on this antique parchment was really caused with lemon juice)
4. I'd actually take ALL musical performance types and combine them; you'd learn new groups of instuments the way Linguistics gives you "free" languages.
I love that! That's a great suggestion!!
|
|
To be honest, the combining of Bluff and Sense Motive was one of the harder choices I made while working on the Skills system. It is obvious to me that this matter is not yet settled.
I will continue to think upon it. Please continue the discussion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, since we already have those Perception subskills, it would really only be mechanically consistent to add Perception (Insight) to that list. Being a natural liar, IMO, doesn't automatically make you sensitive or aware to other people lying.
I really like the Deception skill, though. I just wish Forgery would be folded into it (you would still need Linguistics as a prerequisite for taking it).
Should a brd be able to invoke bardic abilities through Dance? If so, then you want to keep that as a Perform skill. If not, no problems.
That's a good point. On one hand, bards are supposed to get a lot of skills, so if our dancing bard doesn't have to spend one on Perform (dancing), I'm not sure he's got THAT big of an advantage over his lute-toting friends. But then again, we don't want to mechanically make one type of bard "better" than the others. I'll have to think about this one. Maybe dance could be one subset of the music performances? I know it's a stretch in terms of "realism," but it might work in game terms.
I suggested in another thread that Sense Motive be combines with Appraise to form a new skill called "Scrutinize" which allows yo to gather information from small details (like a person's "tells" or the fact that the yellowing on this antique parchment was really caused with lemon juice)
That's an interesting thought... does "scrutinize" subsume parts of Search as well? There are some overlap ramifications with Perception that we'd need to think through, but the basic idea might work pretty well.
---
Thanks for the suggestions, and the feedback!
|
|
I'm going to throw something outside the box of the current thinking right now;
Instead of trying to find the right mix/combo of skills for Sense Motive to appear in (for various reasons being proposed);
I say to make Sense Motive an option within BOTH Deception, and Diplomacy.
Much like balancing is one aspect of Acrobatics, Sense Motive can be part of both.
Diplomacy would be more viable as a class skill for clerics and Paladins
Bluff would be more viable for rogues (not that Diplomacy ISNT)
In either case, it is assumed then that those "trained" in the art of Diplomacy and/or Bluff are capable at spotting or recognizing or reading into what the other is thinking during the conversation to better counter it.
While we're on this line of thinking - Gather Info should be a function of both skills as well - (AND Intimidate!).
Essentially, the art of gathering info is done differently depending on who's doing it and by what means it is being done.
For instance: A silver-tongued rogue would gather info by bluffing to need the info, throwing about coin, pretending he's getting drunk with everyone but truthfully he's keeping his wits about him to hear what he must, pretending he's someone else to get the info etc. A Paladin with diplomacy would visit the local good churches, the magistrate, the councilmembers, rub elbows with the nobles - share a glass of wine, his thoughts on the future of the society, etc - meanwhile gathering info on what it is he needs to know via being the diplomat. Finally the fighter or barbarian with his intimidate skill goes into the less patrolled areas of the city; roughs up some folks, threatens to smash skulls, inspire fear into some people while punking them for information.
All three methods are seperated only by the actual roleplaying - but they share a common function and mechanic to resolve.
Maybe dance could be one subset of the music performances? I know it's a stretch in terms of "realism," but it might work in game terms.
Or, the rules could allow a Bard to assign any Dex or Cha based Skill in which they are proficient as a form of Performance. Maybe with the purchase of an "Exotic Performer" Feat. Or maybe such Skills could count as two categories of musical instrument. Then dance is a part of Acrobatics.
does "scrutinize" subsume parts of Search as well?
I'm hesitant to do that. Scrutinize means noticing the details in an object everyone can see plainly. Spot and Listen mean noticing a thing that people might not see.
If you let people substitute Scrutinize for Spot, you encourage some gamesmanship I don't like. (I try to Perceive Traps. Crud, I rolled a 4. You don't perceive any. Okay. I scrutinize the area for traps. I rolled a 19! Grumble....)
Or, the rules could allow a Bard to assign any Dex or Cha based Skill in which they are proficient as a form of Performance. Maybe with the purchase of an "Exotic Performer" Feat.
Wow, I like that. Then, if you really wanted to, you could have a lasso-hopping Use Rope-based bard (unless of course you eliminate Use Rope as a separate skill, which I'm in favor of but which is a bit off-topic...)
Scrutinize means noticing the details in an object everyone can see plainly. Spot and Listen mean noticing a thing that people might not see.
Gotcha. OK, as long as there's a clear distinction made somewhere, that might work. You'd still probably have to spell out in the text exactly what tasks can be done with which skill, example by example, but we already do that for the most part.
If you let people substitute Scrutinize for Spot, you encourage some gamesmanship I don't like.
Yeah, I'm overall not a fan of letting two skills do the same thing, for exactly that reason.