Both Bluff and Sense Motive were combined into the new skill, Deception (page 23 Alpha release #1). But doesn't Sense Motive have more uses than just seeing through lies?
In our game we use Sense Motive to notice suspicious behavior, determine others' emotions and otherwise read someone's actions. An example of the last use would be for a character to begin to suspect a cat of being more than a mere feline because two people in the room keep making eye contact with it.
What do the rest of you think?
This combination didn't sit too well, with me. I'm reminded of the U2 song that goes "it's true that a liar won't believe in anyone else." Just because you're good at lying doesn't mean you're good at telling that other people are lying.
Also, as you say, it's useful for way more things that that. I've always thought of Sense Motive as a general read of a person's body language, mood, and, well, motives. If someone's not lying (i.e, using the Bluff skill), Sense Motive can give you an idea of whether they trust what they're saying to you, how confident they are, etc. It might seem streamlined to combined opposing skills into one, but I don't think it makes logical sense and I think it removes some flexibility that I like in the skill system as is.
By the same arguement, Deception still reads into that idea that you can use body laungauge, words, and even intention to tell a bluff... You can also, as the DM, edit what information they get about why they know the person is being deceptive, or perhaps even that "he trusts his information but seems stilted in the speaking of it, as if another force controls him from on far" :D It is all up to the DM on this one. So while I agree that it is perhaps better to keep seperate to remind folks they do more then one thing, with the new setup, and description, it is fairly easy to use them in all the same ways they were used before...
~Elvnsword
I think Sense Motiv should be either a separat skill or merged into Diplomacy, since most characters rather use those two together then Bluff and Sense Motiv.
On the other hand, I would always rule that a bluff check can either be opposed by a Sense Motiv OR a Bluff check (which ever your character is better at).
BTW, I think Bluff, Forgery and Disguise are better skills that might be merged together.
I'd put Sense Motive and Gather Information together into an Insight skill. The Gather Information aspect would be tracking down information not convincing people to give you information, that'd be handled by Diplomacy. But to know who to ask you'd use Insight.
As for Sense Motive, in my opinion it'd logically fit the new system as Perception (Insight).
I agree with this approach. Listen, Spot, and Sense Motive are all Wisdom-based skills...and what is Sense Motive if not a more passive (rather than active) Perception skill? It's also used to counter various combat maneuvers (e.g., feints, etc.) and that would seem to fit better with Perception rather than Deception. After all, other deception-oriented skills (e.g., Stealth, Disguise, etc.) get countered by a person's Spot and Listen. So why not let Perception/Sense Motive counter Decption/Bluff rather than trying to roll it into Deception alongside Bluff?
And, while we're on the subject of Sense Motive...could someone please make that a class skill for Clerics? Who better to know a man's heart, read through his lies and denials, etc. than a priest? Paladins, Monks, and Rogues get Sense Motive as a class skill, but true clergymen don't? What's up with that?
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
I'd put Sense Motive and Gather Information together into an Insight skill. The Gather Information aspect would be tracking down information not convincing people to give you information, that'd be handled by Diplomacy. But to know who to ask you'd use Insight.
The trouble is that Sense Motive is WIS-based and Gather Information CHA-based, and if you merge them into a single skill, you'd create a WIS-based skill which lets you do what Diplomacy/Intimidate does (either to gather the information itself or who to ask from). And I don't think we need another skill for that.
I personally think Insight is based on your instinct and experience, not necessarily any knowledge or social skills. Also, I think that your version of Insight would make Knowledge (Local) a bit less useful, too, if you "know who to ask from" with a skill check (like I said above, you can accomplish this also with Diplomacy or Intimidate, but using those skills can have more serious consequences if you fail).
I would also like to keep it separate - but it's kind of a skill point drain.
What I did was house ruled that bluff was opposed by (character level + wisdom bonus), which accomplished three things:
1) Everyone got some sense motive, and more experienced characters are harder to fool
2) Wiser characters are harder to fool
3) A dedicated trickster will, on average, succeed against an equivalently experienced mark
In my personal variant of D&D I did the following (for now):
Skills:
Diplomacy (CH) - Diplomacy + Gather Info
Dominance (CH) - Intimidate + extra stuff like command and taunt/weaken resolve
Deception (IN or CH not sure yet) - Bluff + Forgery + Disguise
To counter a Bluff, you can either use a Bluff/Deception check yourself or you have the EMPATHIE feat and use Perception instead.
The Empathie feat actually let's you use all the standard sense motiv uses with the Perception skill.
I know it might be a bit too "NOT 3.5", but I think it's a good solution, because Sense motiv never actually fit into any other feat ALONE.
@ tergiver:
Your idea might be even better! At least for the opposed bluff check. Since this just get's rid of another role and speeds up the game.
|
I would also like to keep it separate - but it's kind of a skill point drain.
What I did was house ruled that bluff was opposed by (character level + wisdom bonus), which accomplished three things:
1) Everyone got some sense motive, and more experienced characters are harder to fool
2) Wiser characters are harder to fool
3) A dedicated trickster will, on average, succeed against an equivalently experienced mark
I think that this is an interesting variant. You could even still have the equivalent of a Skill Focus (Sense Motive) feat for people that were unusually good judges of character. Possibly the feat (or the house-ruled ability) could also enable the Hunch or Sense Enchantment uses of regular Sense Motive.
One possible critique: Does it really make sense (and far more importantly, work in play) that the 20th-level mage is as good or better at detecting cons than the 20th level rogue?
Whether with this system or another one, I agree with those who have said that Sense Motive should be a separate skill. Adding Bluff to Sense Motive is like putting fudge sauce on a flourless chocolate cake: It makes a rich food even richer, but does it really need it?
|
|
And, while we're on the subject of Sense Motive...could someone please make that a class skill for Clerics? Who better to know a man's heart, read through his lies and denials, etc. than a priest? Paladins, Monks, and Rogues get Sense Motive as a class skill, but true clergymen don't? What's up with that?
I wholeheartedly agree. If clerics in D&D-land would have any pastoral or counseling responsibilities, they'd use this skill all the time.
One possible critique: Does it really make sense (and far more importantly, work in play) that the 20th-level mage is as good or better at detecting cons than the 20th level rogue?
It hasn't come up, but I think you could argue it. A lot of cons, like the Spanish Prisoner and Nigerian 419 scams, presume that the mark is trying to get something for nothing. It can be easier to con a conner than an honest person.
I have to admit that I was unclear earlier - I've been incorporating a roll into the sense motive, so I wasn't speeding anything up. Using it as a static DC is a good idea, though.
|
Several people in my Pathfinder game have expressed concern with merging bluff and sense motive. Their argument is always that of "Just cause I know how to read people doesn't mean i know how to lie." And of course its reverse. I can certainly understand this perspective. My response would be to merge Diplomacy and Sense Motive. Diplomacy is, at its very heart, reading the people you are working with and trying to work together. I think this makes much more sense than bluff, the art of fooling others into believing things that aren't true. That being said, i feel Sense Motive, while a bit of a drain on skill points, is probably better left separate. But i would be more happy if it was mixed with Diplomacy. If it is left mixed with bluff, as the deception skill, i will probably house rule it a separate skill.
On a side note, i like the above suggestion that bluff, forgery and disguise be combined to create deception. That makes great sense for the Deception skill. As they are 3 sides to deception. Speaking untruths, writing untruths, and acting untruths.
|
|
Lying, forging documents, and disguising yourself with make-up and props are entirely different things. Just because they're on a theme doesn't mean we should merge them.
I agree. Yet I'd merge them into a single "category" like Craft, Profession and Perform, but you would take Deception (Forgery) or Deception (Bluff) as separate skills.
I think it's pretty ok to put some skills together so they improve as one skill.
While Bluff, Forgery and Disguise might be three diffrent abilities, they are related enough to be stick together.
But then maybe only Bluff and Disguise.
I just think it's no loss if they would be one skill.
Yes, I think BLuff and Disguise make a wonderful couple! (and have many fat children...)
Sense Motive is back!
Bluff and Sense motive are again two seperate skills!
Thankyou, Jason for returning such an important skill back to the list and you willingness to consider our suggestions and contructive criticisms!
If anybody's interested, I will be starting a new thread in Alpha Release 2/ Skills and Feats to debate some new uses for it for when it is added to the text.
Sense Motive is back!
Even more importantly to me, it's now a class skill for Clerics! Awesome. Seriously.
--Neil