Sense Motive would be an appropriate check here, or perception with a penalty. Otherwise, as said above, a failed check would see the NPC have a surprise round and then initiative for the start of actual combat.Situation:
PC has no reason to suspect NPC is peeved. They talk for a moment, then the NPC snaps and punches the PC.Mechanically, what should occur here? The PC perhaps gets a perception check to notice peeved body language? Assuming PC fails, the NPC gets a surprise round to attack, then it's initiative as normal?
Thanks
This.
The PCs only have reason to suspect the NPC is peeved if they succeed at their Sense Motive check. There is a feat you could put up for the NPC, or you could simply have them check SM like you would before the feat came out.
The DM should ask the pc if its just a relaxed conversation or if the pc is talking but at the same time trying to read how the npc feels in regards to what the pc says. If the pc is really trying to read the npc, it should be a sense motive check vs the npc's bluff check if they are trying to feign indifference. If the pc is just treating it like a casual conversation and not reading into it, maybe the sense motive check should not be allowed and the npc gets a surprise attack. At best, the pc could be allowed a sense motive but on a significant penalty since the pc is barely paying attention.
The problem with that, Equalizer, is it's reading too much into it and forcing more focus on it than is really required. If the guy roleplays his conversation intensely, then sure, otherwise, maybe just slap a penalty on his sense motive check. (Regardless, such a sense motive check is best rolled by the DM in my opinion.)
mmmmm. I suppose you're right there. However, it brings up an old question which has been kicking around for a while. "Should the pcs just be given stuff(in this case an automatic sense motive check), or should they have to ask for it? If the player says:"i chat with him for a bit." Thats all the player describes his character doing, then it sounds like a very casual conversation to me. Paying attention to what they're saying but somewhat half-hearted maybe? I'm used to players describing in detail what they do. For example "I tell him that........etc. I'd like to also watch what they(the npcs) say and how they say it." Thats more the sort of detail I'm used to. If the player is being vague, its up to the DM to "auto-resolve" certain potential issues and then its up to the DM if they give a bit of leeway, alot of leeway or almost no leeway.
Situation:
PC has no reason to suspect NPC is peeved. They talk for a moment, then the NPC snaps and punches the PC.Mechanically, what should occur here? The PC perhaps gets a perception check to notice peeved body language? Assuming PC fails, the NPC gets a surprise round to attack, then it's initiative as normal?
Thanks
This brings up an older question, namely, should the dm tell the pcs what checks to make, and always ask relevant checks be made, or should the pcs direct what checks they make?
If they do not say they are paying attention at all, should they be able to make perceptions to pick up a tail or a stealthing enemy?
If they trust npcs and do not scrutinise, should they be given a free sense motive.
DM: you weren't really on task here, but this person is clearly lying and probably the grand conspirator!
Player: naaaani?
Now if you go for the latter, players have the option of picking up sneak attacks of their own accord. It is up to them to stay alert. It raises the difficulty a little, it doesn't just let them off. If they stay alert, if they always say, I make this check, I make that check, then little is going to get by them. If they give no impression that they are suspicious or checking or ready, it's a surprise.
This sounds like it happened very quick, and my take, is if it is so quick that the pcs have no real chance to make a sense motive then the surprise attack will occur. Now if they see an assassin approach, it is possible they could suss out the body language. If they are facing a really hostile opponent, sense motives to pick up an attack is coming.
You could also go with the sense motive on some penalties (haven't got much time to think about it here). If the players gave no indication of being cautious or ready, I might just go straight to the surprise attack. It is their job to use their skills after all.
Guess it is one good use of quick draw, to get the weapon out as quick as possible and carve up someone. Start fight with un-prepared person, quick draw, slice. I've done that in games. Or, with weapons out, diplome a villain, launch into an attack mid-sentence.
It's a good question actually.
Also that's a damn good name Count Rugen, my favourite princess' bride character. How is the definitive treatise on pain coming along?
Addition: not a fan of dms taking away dice rolls. Seen a dm try to take it very far. If the player is really suspicious, let them roll, or learn to roll with the punches!
Suspicious of the npcs motives and actions, not suspicion leading to metagaming.
It's not about metagaming, it is about roleplaying. If they think something is up, make the sense motives, all is good. Otherwise, getting blind-sided is possible.
Eddard Stark should have been more cautious, not just walk in with the guards without a serious bit of questioning. If he doesn't doubt and question them, then he doesn't see, to use a Game of Thrones example.
Making a sense motive is a long way from metagaming, it is to act within the game.
Indeed you're right kryt-ryder. Giving the roll to the player will probably make them suspicious. The DM rolling such a check would be more appropriate to prevent that sort of thing. As for the level of detail, it comes down to a matter of taste. If you're not used that level of detail or its not really your preference, I can see how it would be interpreted as "I probe this nook and that cranny with my 10 foot pole, does anything happen?" To prevent that sort of thing would be to make the relevant checks and that would probably exemplify a paranoid character. I admit its not a mentally healthy thing for characters. However, if they are not always attempting to make the checks, then they are vulnerable to dodgy assasins and con-men potentially getting the better of them through deception and surprise. I personally wouldn't try to cram as many of such encounters as possible into my campaign since the game should be mainly about fun and not the DM abusing his power at the expense of the players. Occasionally though, throw in one or two of them. If the character is making the relevant check and picks up on it, good for him/her. If not, lets just say any big bright and pink naive ideas about the realm of golarion being all hugs and kisses will evaporate real quick.
Dnd needs more con-men. They could be a real danger to a party.
Golarion is pretty dark, there are darker realms, but it's pretty vicious, insane or tyrannical in parts. Which is why it needs heroes. Sometimes though, talk can go violent real quick, and the players not paying attention could get knifed in the throat.
Yeah all good kyrt.
|
This kind of situation becomes quite funny if your PC has an ability allowing him to always act in the surprise round.
If you get the initiative, your PC-sense is tingling but you have no idea what shape the threat will take, nor where it will come from :-)
In a case like that, the player could declare a readied action, or try to slip that concealed dagger into their palm (Sleight of Hand), or simply take a step back and be on their guard.
The latter could be blatant ("Woah, now everyone, can we stop crowding each other? Let's respect my personal space", etc), or subtle ("Well, I think it's about time for a break. Who's up for a drink? They're on me." <reaches for 'purse', ie dagger...roll Sleight of Hand/Bluff vs NPC>).
Like it Kauffmann.
What they do is up to them. What comes after them is up to you.
Toss me on the sense motive caravan. If the person isn't trying to hide the fact that they're going to punch you in the face, make it a DC 5
Its an initiative check, pure and simple.
Two people are standing face to face, and one takes a swing at the other. Is the defender fast enough to respond? Is the attacker quick enough to catch the defender off-balance? Those are questions initiative is designed to answer.
Ever been sucker punched? You have a split second where you see it coming and can react. Its a question of how fast you respond to the sudden influx of information. And that means initiative.
However, if the attacker is intending to deceive the defender such that he doesn't realize an attack is coming, such as trying to casually reach for something on the shelf beside the defender and OH BAM KNIFE IN THE FACE! In that case I'd make it a feint check, at the least bluff vs sense motive.
Fact is, its really hard to get the jump on somebody when the two of you are standing right in front of each other. The "oh i'm going to act all nice and stuff and then I'll get a free shot" routine really doesn't work that well.
The "oh i'm going to act all nice and stuff and then I'll get a free shot" routine really doesn't work that well.
Works ok if you have a good poker face and the other person isn't paying attention.
Saw it plenty in nightclubs.
Put me down in the 'Sense Motive to see who goes in the surprise round' camp.
GM asks for a Sense Motive...
If you don't you have the danger of the players (not unreasonably) asking for a Sense Motive everytime they interact with an NPC "just in case". Subtle clues to discern a punch to the face from the GM isn't really all that fair
Unless you're doing a full-on LARP, I find that unfair. The player is not getting anywhere near the amount of cues the character is, and such a rule would reinforce paranoid play, calling for sense motive checks constantly to avoid missing something.
But if they don't want to be missing something, they should be making sense motive checks. Not one each sentence of course, but one per interaction. I use sense motive so players can... sense the motives of those they encounter, is there something off, why are they doing what they are doing.
But for players to get this side of the game, they have to ask for it, they have to roll for it. If a player has a really low sense motive (or just never makes a check) there is a lot of the game they are missing out on. I like getting into the heads of npcs, I once described the regional geo-political situation entirely through the look of a commoner's eyes. The player rolled that 20 and was curious, so blamo, there you go son.
"Works ok if you have a good poker face and the other person isn't paying attention.
Saw it plenty in nightclubs." Yep
"Fact is, its really hard to get the jump on somebody when the two of you are standing right in front of each other. The "oh i'm going to act all nice and stuff and then I'll get a free shot" routine really doesn't work that well." Disagree, if it didn't work, dodgy folks wouldn't use it. I've got plenty of surprise jabs on friends, when they are unexpected and we are just getting along. Make sense motive or do not, but what is your AC? ;)
Getting blind-sided really happens. And the players should be asking for the checks. Because if they don't, if they really don't start a conversation looking closely, looking for the cues and information, they will miss a lot in the first few seconds. Such as, how does this person view me? Is there something behind their greeting? Can I trust them? Who are they really? What sticks out about them?
The more I look at this, the more it seems like a search for traps issue. You can go down the corridor (and the corridor of interaction) and say you don't search for traps, or you can look for them. If they aren't looking they can bumble right into something. The pcs shouldn't have an added layer of protection over anyone else, the characters are paying as much attention as the pcs, because the pcs are the characters. Giving something hidden to the pc who didn't say he was looking for it, mmmm, not my style.
I'll say what they look like, their words, their seeming intent, but not giving the look in their eyes and any notes on aggressive posture unless they give me a sense motive. If you are having a relaxing ale at the bar and someone approaches from the side, you've got to divert your attention to stake stock of them and the situation. Or you can just idly chat away and trust to chance. No one gets attacked or killed in a public space in dark feudal times right?
"GM asks for a Sense Motive... "
Gives it away, gives it right away.
"A character with a point investment in Sense Motive should have the chance to benefit from that investment, as a character without that investment should be given the chance to not benefit from it."
Yeah, it is their character though, they can try and sense as much of what is going around them, or they can just chill out and do whatever else it is they want. Ha, a good way to not get unarmed attacked in a bar, would be to take sword out and keep it well cleaned. Iys be fighter in bar relaxing, don't be dildos.
Free sense motives when the character gives no mention of paying attention feels like some "the powers that be offer some protection" gimmick. That is, unless all o them have the destined bloodline. "We are all destined for greatness." So you all say. Lets find out.
Giving free sense motives does seem a tad safe. I'd certainly do it for beginner players, absolutely. For players who have played the game a while, and know how to roleplay, naaaa. Being surprised is the risk players take for letting their guards down.
A free sense motive?
http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/280x280/10013903.jpg
|
'Free' checks? What does that even mean?
What I'm hearing is that I need to call for Sense Motive checks every five minutes so I don't miss something. If you don't mind that as a DM, great. Me, I find that distracting and wasting game time when I DM.
Also, in the context of this thread, there is nothing to 'give away' by asking for a Sense Motive check. Combat is going to start anyway. It's not like players are going to be tipped off to some hidden knowledge, the knowledge is going to be apparent six seconds later when they get punched in the nose.
Yes but do they see before they get punched? Are they looking and trying to crack the truth of the situation open?
If they aren't then it's surprise, and then we go initiative.
By free, I mean the assumption that the player is making sense motives all the time, and doesn't have to declare them. It really comes back to the trap issue. When a player walks down a trapped corridor, or into a situation that is soon to go bad, do you ask the player to make the checks? Or does the player entirely control their character? Tell the dm and make a roll. E.g. "I think this is fishy, I will make a sense-motive... 22."
"You sense he is a disturbed fish-monger and about to swing his gaff-hook."
See in my games (except with beginners which I do help and suggest courses of action) the players make whatever checks them want. Out of combat they can do them whenever they want to. They can befriend, they can try and work out who is lying. For the guy about to swing, the player could also have jumped into a rushed diplomacy check. If we force them to make checks, we force their hand. If the player instead opted to draw steel and attack, on a whim or because they thought it was dangerous even without the sense motive, then it's initiative. Two people suddenly go at each-other, to the surprise of on-lookers.
If however, the player really stopped doing anything and didn't act, or just kept talking, but didn't make any checks, then it certainly sounds like surprise to me. Mid-sentence or caught while considering options, in the specific example given.
|
|
Yes but do they see before they get punched? Are they looking and trying to crack the truth of the situation open?
If they aren't then it's surprise, and then we go initiative.
Which is why I roll Sense Motive. Because the character can detect a lot more non-verbal clues than the player can, because the character is actually there. The player is just being told/shown second-hand.
Do you also not give Perception checks to notice an ambush? Do you require the players to say 'I'm looking for enemies' in each room or every five minutes of travel time?
Me, and anyone who has ever been a bouncer call tell you this: It is easy to read when angry people are going to move on you, and if you have any semblance of training (PCs being marvel super heroes) you are always prepared to move back.
My ruling as a GM in this scenario: Bluff vs Sense Motive.
Anything else is a bullsh*t "would YOU be able to do such and such in real-life?". Bullsh*t because no heroic PC is ever as slovenly and useless as any of us modern pudgy noncombatants.
Personally, the only time I allow surprise actions is when you are unaware of an enemy. I think this is in accordance with the rules as well.
Typing "Anything else is a bullsh*t" is not conducive to a good discussion and an exchange of opinions.
"if you have any semblance of training (PCs being marvel super heroes) you are always prepared to move back."
No one is always ready. A bouncer on the job, is staying alert and looking for anything that could be trouble. They are making the checks. In the coffee room, their guard lowers. If one is relaxing or not looking, they are not. What a character is doing, is up to the player. If they are sitting around doing nothing, or shooting the breeze, that's what they are doing. We wouldn't give them free craft checks when they are not crafting would we?
"because no heroic PC is ever as slovenly and useless as any of us modern pudgy noncombatants."
There is quite a difference between a high sense motive and well-played character that is alert to new threats, and a low or without sense motive character giving no indication of paying attention at all. If they are reading a book, or getting drunk, or expressing their opinions, their attention is elsewhere. I am sure bouncers are told to do their job, and not spend their time talking to the staff or chatting up the customers? Would you agree Tyrgrim?
Separately,
"Do you also not give Perception checks to notice an ambush? Do you require the players to say 'I'm looking for enemies' in each room or every five minutes of travel time?"
Toz that depends on the scene. If you are checking for traps you do have to make a new trap check for each room or area. How well is each room or corridor searched? Do they find this trap with this dc, or that trap with that dc? If the players are really looking to uncover an ambush, that is going to take some time. There are a lot of different cues to look for, and track would also help. Not just, is there someone in the bushes, is that a trap in front of us, what do the tracks say? Have individuals met here, and then gone into the bushes left and right? That sure is odd.
Stealth is opposed by perception, that is true. Simulating someone closing hidden with a knife is very simple; an ambush gets more complicated. When players try to cover a lot of ground, they should specify what they are doing, how fast they are going. The faster and less careful they are, the more problems for their perception. You can ride hard and try and keep an eye for movement in the trees, but I want the players to tell me that. Consequentially, they are not checking tracks. No one should spot an evil ranger, hiding amongst the trees, in a cloak of elvenkind (ghillie suit) without really looking, or the ranger rolling a 1 (love those). For ambushes, when players aren't looking, give no indication of being alert, I roll the stealth, and some perceptions on some massive penalties. They'll spot a botch, but that is generally it.
Saying, yep I stay alert, and rolling a perception for a scene or fast travel, telling the dm what you got, does wonders. Or, we give the information to them that it is an ambush "ah he is asking for a perception again, looks like an ambush", and ruin the suspense. I don't use ambushes much, personally vary the types of encounters, but if they walk around without caution, arrows will loose on the unready.
There is an ambush in the fourth book of carrion crown that is quite deadly. If you go into it without caution, without making your checks, you are in very deep and can get killed very quickly. It can however, be actually quite easy to respond to, if the players stand back a bit and make some sense motives and perceptions, ask a few questions. Otherwise the eagerness to help can be their end.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Toss me on the sense motive caravan. If the person isn't trying to hide the fact that they're going to punch you in the face, make it a DC 5
Agreed.
From the skill description:
Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness.Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
...
Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.
Try Again: No, though you may make a Sense Motive check for each Bluff check made against you.
I would say that most check are automatic and reactive.
Unless the guy is insane, under the effect of some strange compulsion or there is some other reason why the attack come "out of the blue" the DC of the sense motive should be relatively easy.Naturally if he is some kind of assassin trying to get a free attack the DC should be based on his full Bluff score.
"if you have any semblance of training (PCs being marvel super heroes) you are always prepared to move back."No one is always ready. A bouncer on the job, is staying alert and looking for anything that could be trouble. They are making the checks. In the coffee room, their guard lowers. If one is relaxing or not looking, they are not. What a character is doing, is up to the player. If they are sitting around doing nothing, or shooting the breeze, that's what they are doing. We wouldn't give them free craft checks when they are not crafting would we?
If someone is relaxing at the coffee machine and someone rush in and punch him it is a normal perception roll or even a straight initiative roll.
There is nothing about "reading the guy intention", is it simply "Notice him coming".
Got another difficult situation to call. Failed intimidate.
Character makes an intimidate on an npc, that is the only check they make. They are confident of success and scaring the npc.
Npc is not intimidated, and according to their personality/code/position they will attack immediately. No frills, no delay.
What do we think?
The aggressor pc isn't making sense motives, and the npc sours quickly and lashes out. It seems too quick for a sense motive, some things are; and the pc gave no indication of making a sense motive. They were on the intimidate attack after all.
The original example we are talking about also seems to go quick to the punch, without player caution.
The punching situation would just be a normal initiative roll. If the PC beats the NPC then he sees the NPC raising his fist but acts before he can swing.
If the NPC was trying to be sneaky and surprise the PC with an unexpected attack, it would be a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive (or possibly a Perception opposed by Stealth or Slight of Hand). The PC would not have to declare that he intended to use the skill because the opposed check is an automatic reaction to the Bluff attempt, which in turn is the game mechanism for resolving the NPC's attempt at a surprise attack.
What if he doesn't raise a fist though? What if he doesn't go into stance and then attack (with honour!).
What if it comes up under the chin? A kick in the groin? This type of person seems a bit dangerous and unhinged, and not at all concerned with etiquette or fair-play.
I agree sense motive opposes bluff, but there are attacks so sudden, there isn't craftiness before them--attacks without bluff on an unprepared opponent.
If a bandit pc walked into a bar and quick-drawed sword and attacked someone, I wouldn't give the npc a sense motive unless they were watching the door and everyone who came through it. Chatting away, surprise attack, damn adventurers!
To kyrt, you can streamline a search for traps roll.
About to enter dungeon
Player: I'm searching for traps in every area of this dungeon, yep I know it takes time, I'll just tell you the search check number I got when we enter a new area. If opponents, we'll search when they are dead... and loot.
DM: agreed.
DM: description of room.
Player: 31.
DM later describes a hallway.
Player: that's a 28.
DM: it's a toilet, in a small room.
Player: 50. I search thoroughly.
Smooth as silk. Got to be in it to win it.
You have to tense up your body and pull back your leg or arm for any of those. It's very difficult to hit someone without showing some sign of it before the blow is on its way - if you're intentionally trying to mask it, that's where Bluff etc comes in, and if the attack was too sudden to react to, that's high initiative. Declaring that the attack was too fast or too sneaky to respond to without those rolls skips the game mechanics which exist specifically to resolve those situations in favour of freeform roleplaying and DM fiat.
As to the bandit example, the NPC might notice the violent intent in the bandit's eyes or simply be the type of person who keeps an eye on what's going on around them and can react very quickly. The character's awareness of their surroundings is defined by how high their Perception is, not by how often they state that they look around suspiciously.
What if he doesn't raise a fist though? What if he doesn't go into stance and then attack (with honour!).
What if it comes up under the chin? A kick in the groin? This type of person seems a bit dangerous and unhinged, and not at all concerned with etiquette or fair-play.
I agree sense motive opposes bluff, but there are attacks so sudden, there isn't craftiness before them--attacks without bluff on an unprepared opponent.
If a bandit pc walked into a bar and quick-drawed sword and attacked someone, I wouldn't give the npc a sense motive unless they were watching the door and everyone who came through it. Chatting away, surprise attack, damn adventurers!
Oh really? Describe to me a situation where someone makes a sudden NON-premediated attack on another. Anyone who is planning to attack someone, however quick, has telltale signs that a careful observer can detect.
You want me to run that example by the rules:
- Bandit comes in, makes no attempt to hide: Perception DC0. People with low perception scores CAN fail it, as "distracted" is a -5 to perception. If he tries to blend in, he gets a stealth check, which is then opposed by the REACTIVE perception check. Not paying attention? -5. It is in the rules.
- He moves up to the PCs to quickdraw and attack: Bluff, as he is trying to advance on someone with murderous intent. Sense motive is REACTIVE when someone uses bluff.
- Failure to succeed in these skill checks: Surpise action.
Anything else: Breaking the rules/houserules.
I read the rules as such: PCs, who face death on a daily basis, NEVER have their guard totally lowered beyond the -5. These are not the guys who shrink away from the monsters that skulk in the dark. These are the guys who boots in their face, hacks off their heads, peels off anything that might be useful for later monster-murder, then carts away their loot. They are not bouncers, they are not mere special ops elite soldiers. They are heroes of legend.
So in summation: Do you want to be a slick guy that can stab someone unexpectedly as you are standing right in front of someone, talking to them? Invest heavily in bluff. Want to approach someone without their notice? Invest heavily in stealth.
So far, there has not been a single example where either of these two skills do not apply. And both of there skills are opposed by REACTIVE checks in perception/sense motive.
And yes, you ARE aware of your surroundings, even when otherwise occupied. Some people are able to get completely absorbed into what they are doing, and in game mechanical terms, I would say those are the people with very low perception scores... Sometimes I miss the old "unattentive" flaw from 3.X
"Oh really? Describe to me a situation where someone makes a sudden NON-premediated attack on another. Anyone who is planning to attack someone, however quick, has telltale signs that a careful observer can detect."
That's easy, someone insults someone and the insulted person backhands them immediately. Without a lot of build-up, there is usually a lot for sure, gathering of courage, working up the sense of being offended, insulting back, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes it goes straight to attacks. Some people will go straight into attacks, or stance, and start the fun.
Imagine an old west game. A setting in harsh times, where lead flies real quick.
Thug to old gunslinger: I'm going to rape your pretty wife!
Old gunslinger draws and shoots. No pre-meditation, just puts the would-be intimidator down. Later justifies it as "he had it coming."
Or another non-premeditated attack. Armed guard is watching prisoner. Prisoner draws a shiv. Guard quickly shoots prisoner. Following training not emotion there, not pre-meditating it out.
Or one that happened in game. Shaman hit the knight in the party with an area spell effect. Knight gets up, salutes and just starts attacking. Absolutely no bluff, walks up, just starts breaking bones on his turn. Shaman player was completely surprised (not flat footed in this instance though, knight did inform him he would be slain, it was just so confusing). Men of honour don't take friendly fire so well. His code threw him straight into it. No real thought about it.
"I read the rules as such: PCs, who face death on a daily basis, NEVER have their guard totally lowered beyond the -5."
But fighting a lot of combat, being veteran isn't the same as sense motive or reading people. It also isn't the same thing to kill monsters and to be careful around city folk. In the current game, there is a fighter who is on a -1 as a base and very rarely makes sense motive checks (wis 9). She knows she won't pass them, but can get some basic details. I had one character who was on -2 no matter what he did (wis 7). He got to high level, killed some great monsters, but could never figure people out. If he wasn't paying attention and someone ran it at -5, he'd be on -7. Combat prowess is not the same as paying attention and trying to figure people out.
That's easy, someone insults someone and the insulted person backhands them immediately. Without a lot of build-up, there is usually a lot for sure, gathering of courage, working up the sense of being offended, insulting back, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes it goes straight to attacks. Some people will go straight into attacks, or stance, and start the fun.
Imagine an old west game. A setting in harsh times, where lead flies real quick.
Thug to old gunslinger: I'm going to rape your pretty wife!
Old gunslinger draws and shoots. No pre-meditation, just puts the would-be intimidator down. Later justifies it as "he had it coming."
Implying the gunslinger does not have high dex and likely improved initiative and win the initiative?
Also, if you go up and insult people and DON'T expect there to be consequence... wow. Then you must be pre~etty oblivious. Like, wis3-4.
Or another non-premeditated attack. Armed guard is watching prisoner. Prisoner draws a shiv. Guard quickly shoots prisoner. Following training not emotion there, not pre-meditating it out.
Intending to shoot the guy if he breaks protocol is not premeditated? I fail to come to the same conslusion.
"I read the rules as such: PCs, who face death on a daily basis, NEVER have their guard totally lowered beyond the -5."
But fighting a lot of combat, being veteran isn't the same as sense motive. It also isn't the same thing to kill monsters and to be careful around city folk. In the current game, there is a fighter who is on a -1 as a base and very rarely makes sense motive checks. She knows she won't pass them, but can get some basic details. I had one character who was on -2 no matter what he did (wis 7). He got to high level, killed some great monsters, but could never figure people out. If he wasn't paying attention and someone ran it at -5, he'd be on -7. Combat prowess is not the same as paying attention and trying to figure people out.
He still GETS the check, and while he might not figure out that the hot barmaid is actually an assassin, his attentive cleric friend who can tell if your brother is cheating on his wife merely by looking at how you pick your teeth, will likely so. Surprise action, everyone who makes the check gets to act, those who do not, do not.
The gunslinger example surely has initiative within it, but it is an example of no pre-meditation, which you asked for. Being attacked mid-sentence talking to an npc is being caught surprised. And some players don't realise when they are being offensive, or make the checks to check!
On seduction, hot ladies. If a character chooses to make a seduction in response to a seduction, or select "go" then I don't think there is a sense motive there either. They aren't asking questions, sussing out what's up, is this person an assassin, or are they getting back at their husband? Do they think my +2 sword is awesome?
People can ask questions, they can doubt, but if they don't they shouldn't be given answers. People do go through life without being inquisitive or trying to work out the truth. The key thing is attentiveness, the cleric seems to be paying attention and has the skills to suss such things out. If a character has the skills but doesn't use them, they don't get used.
Such is the way I and others run games anyway. Got to be in it to win it, no freebies.
In other words: House rules.
If someone moves to attack you mid-sentence, they are moving to attack. And it is not binary; attacking, not attacking. The insulting comment need to sink in, anger build up, and then strike in affect. That is usually more than a second long process, unless said person has brain damage and does not act like normal people. And a second is plenty to get in the reactive sense motive that "sh*it is about to go down, yo!"
Then the faster person wins. The offended gunslinger wishes to shoot you, but you won initiative? His hand is on the holster, but you were quicker, and win.
The surprise action should ONLY come into play when one side is unaware of the other. Someone in plain sight CANNOT surprise someone else. Except if you are playing 3.0 and your character is a Iaijutsu Master, wherein one of his high-level special prestige class abilities was to strike mid-conversation.
If the player is not paying attention, feel free to penalize the awareness skills with -5 as per the rules. You don't get to stab someone in the face for not remembering to question everything and roll dice every 6 seconds. At least not in my games.
I absolutely agree the gunslinger is a case for initiative, it was however a response to you saying there is never an attack without pre-meditation. The knight macing the team member was a better example of no pre-meditation. It was smoother.
You say unaware, and this brings up the question of awareness. I too think being aware of threats is important, but they have to focus to find those answers, and in game call a sense motive and roll it. Just like traps, no free detection chance if you don't ask for it. After all, anything can be trapped, but players don't look for traps all the time, their travel speed would be very slow and days filled with looking under desks, checking doors of inns, examining flagons for exploding bead of force mouse traps. I describe from their view, no one sees all around them at once. I cannot see behind me as I type this looking forward.
Moglun talks about the look in a bandit's eyes, well to pick up a small detail like that, especially in-doors with a lot of distractions, you really have to pay attention and be skilled in such tells. In the descriptions of my game, players don't see everything around them in omniscient top-down either. They see where they look, from their perspectives, e.g. standing in front of a bar, you can't see what is behind the bar and obscured from your point of view. You could hop the bar and have a closer look though, open drawers or latches. Your placement is key, how alert you are saying you are is also key.
Say you are breaking into a house, well checking for traps, being careful and steady is quite different to smashing doors, barging in, making a lot of noise. Interactions can go a lot of different ways too, and they should choose what checks they make.
I understand some dms will always say, roll sense motive, roll perception, but as a part of role-playing I want players to choose what they roll, what they look for--if they look for anything out of the ordinary.
That is just how I roll.
You must make the check to win the check. You as playing the pc direct your character to try and achieve something. The basics.
Sometimes there are bluffs, tricks, all sorts of things. Sometimes it gets a bit fuzzy and what the player decides to do is very important.
To the original example, yeah the player could declare a sense motive on this guy to see what they are up to. Or they could go seduction--kinky. If they declare no actions, they are going to have a swing thrown at them, and then can realise, plain as day, ah, combat is afoot. Roll initiative.
Course, in my games there is a real chance players can be caught surprised. Some don't like this though, they play it as if characters see all and can make checks against all incoming possible threats. It's up to them I say.
Unless your playing in a VR simulator or LARPing you can't expect the players to know when to make such checks short of Sense motiving/ Hey hows the DETECT EVIL weather today every time they speak with any one other than a trusted friend.
If you moving ahead on a trail and theres an ambush ahead even if your just half ass watching the road your intuition might pick up on clues to allow you to roll Perception (which by the way is a reactive skill meaning you roll in response to something such as approaching an ambush)