|
These all seem like strange answers to me so far.
If a player suggests an NPC seems suspicious, they should ask to roll sense motive.
If a GM wants to convey that the NPC is suspicious, with or without a roll - that's the player sensing the NPC's motive.
The GM should never have to ask for a sense motive roll unless the player asks a question like "does he seem shifty?" which is just another way to ask "can I sense their motives?"
If the NPC Bluff's (As in, rolls the skill check) then the PC(s) get a Sense Motive. Its automatic and in the rules.
I do think having a primary PC get sense motive, and the others act to aid is a better way to play the party working together, instead of getting 4 checks and better chances to get a high roll.
As far as someone telling the truth? There isn't a sense motive check, unless they ask for a hunch. This takes a full minute, and only gives you "something is/isn't up" or "this guy is/isn't trustworthy".
If the DM asks the PCs to Sense Motive if and only if the NPC is bluffing, then the DM has as much as told the players that the NPC is lying.
I can't think of a worse way to run a conversation.
I've always thought sense motive and perception should both be rolled by the GM behind the screen.
PCs walking along into a warehouse who get told to roll perception, roll badly, and are told "you don't notice anything odd" can now pretty likely expect an ambush.
For this reason, both reactive skills should be rolled by the GM, who can then tailor descriptions to match how the rolls came out. If the PCs failed the Sense Motive, they think the guy is telling the truth, but if they spend a full minute talking to him, could roll a Hunch Sense Motive check to confirm it.
Likewise, with perception, the GM describes the warehouse as empty and shadowed, and if someone decides to specifically say "Watch out for an ambush." and asks to roll perception, they can without the +5 DC distracted modifier. Side note: Perception allows for try again, Sense motive does not.