Is Sense Motive necessary to believe, or at least suspect, that someone is misleading you?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Let us imagine our character, Thogg, has long been the companion of Eldris, the Bard who's pants may never be doused for such is the bonus to and frequency of his Bluff skill use.

Around the campfire one night, Eldris attempts to convince Thogg that no, he is not in fact a Tiefling, but rather an Elf with a terrible skin malady. Thogg rolls Sense Motive, Eldris rolls Bluff. After applying any circumstance modifiers you like (-5 to bluff for being a known liar, etc.) Eldris still beats Thoggs Sense Motive by about 15.

At this point most GMs I encounter tell me essentially that I have no reason to doubt him. But Thogg here knows that Eldris tries to trick him all the time, and knows that he usually falls for it. He knows that he never catches a facial tick, reasons around the lie, or hears a nervous catch in Eldris' throat. So, while he does not explicitly know that Eldris is in fact lying this time, there is really no reason he would believe him either.

I've been told that this is me as a player metagame thinking, but it seems to me more like a character using meta-cognitive thinking.

TL;DR - Can a character believe someone is lying to them despite a low Sense Motive check? (This includes cases where the character believes someone is lying though he rolled low, but in actuality the Sensed character is telling the truth)


The rules of bluff say that a modifier is applied depending on how believable the lie is. The modifiers range from +5 if it's a lie the target wants to believe to -20 if the lie is impossible.

Said situation falls, to me, under the category of "far fetched", which would apply a -10 penalty to the bluff. Beating it by 15, though, would mean you still believe it.

It kinda is metagame thinking to ignore your terrible sense motive and still think it's a tiefling. YOU may be wary of this, but given your character's low sense motive, he is a gullible pushover.

For PC to PC interaction, many GMs dump the bluff/sense motive, since supposedly they're not meant for interplayer interaction. So, part of it also depends on if this is PC to PC interaction, or NPC to PC interaction.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

To me as a GM, Sense Motive makes much better sense (ha!) when the players aren't in a situation where the bluff is necessarily obvious, like the situation you describe.

Also, as a GM, when I'm feeding info to my players through an NPC or other device and they call for a Sense Motive check, I roll their check behind the screen so they don't know the numerical result of the di or the check. I simply tell them whether or not they believe the source is bluffing.

-Skeld

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is an issue as you're looking at more of an interaction with Disguise and Perception/Knowledge(Planes). If you want to know that they are a tiefling that's handled by a knowledge check roll with a reasonably static DC. If they want to pretend to be an elf the GM rolls a secret disguise check and compares that to a perception check to see through it.

You might be able to be bluffed into thinking that they think themselves to be an elf in your example but without actually disguising themselves it'll be just words.

Also saying that your character is very well aware that they are a known liar there is a special part under the Try Again section.

Bluff, Try Again wrote:
If you fail to deceive someone, further attempts to deceive them are at a –10 penalty and may be impossible (GM Discression).


Le Petite Mort wrote:
Let us imagine our character, Thogg...been told that this is me as a player metagame thinking, but it seems to me more like a character using meta-cognitive thinking.

I had a PC beat my cleric's +27 sense motive with a bluff to convince me someone had stolen an item from him. My character then proceeded to follow the matter to it's logical conclusion "Did you at least Arcane Mark it?" "No." "Then how am I supposed to prove to the guards it's yours?"

This seems like a great opportunity for Thogg to tell the guards that Eldris is an elf with a special evil disease (which will probably immediately convince them he's a drow). In fact, Thogg may get so worried about the contagious horrible disease that he has Eldris quarantined, for example.

On the other hand, if Eldris previously told Thogg that he was a Tiefling, you can simply tell the GM "Nope. He said he was a tiefling earlier. Thogg doesn't really care what race he is; Thogg is very worried about the horrible disease Eldris said he has. Eldris needs to see a priest and have that cured."

And yes, if someone tells you "I killed three cats" and then "I did not kill three cats" it doesn't require a sense motive check to know they lied. Determining which of the two is true, however, does.


I would say as a GM if he lies a lot anyway, he would always take -5 to almost anything he say's to you. If you have knowledge (planes) and have made a DC 10 or 11 check then you know that he is a Tiefling and so he would take -10 on top of the always lying -5. If you don't have Planes then you are stuck with him only taking a -5.

As much as you obviously are bothered by this though, since the GM only gave him a -5, and he beat you by around 15 or so, sorry to say that you are going to need to play it I think. But think about your characters mannerism, personality, compassion, and self centeredness, and from there decide how your character will handle traveling with someone like Eldris, with that condition. Maybe ask in town if their are any healers that can do something about your terribly disfigured friend, while he is trying to chat up a pretty girl.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bluff vs Sense Motive is not for player vs player, it's for player interaction with NPCs - you decide who Thogg believes, you decide if you want to roleplay the outcome - if either Thogg or Eldris was an NPC, then the dice decide. this kind of bullying/teasing is as useful to the game as one player attacking another - if it's all fun and games between the two PCs, it's fine - even enhances the play experience - but at the end of the day nobody can tell you how to play your character!

...nice name btw...

if this bothers you i'd pull the DM aside and tell him straight up

Grand Lodge

Okay, maybe the example I gave was more distracting than clarifying. To rephrase my question more explicitly, are characters railroaded into believing everything said to them at face value if they fail a given Sense Motive check?

It seems to me that a character who is bad at sense motive would be aware that they are bad at it, much in the same way that someone with low Knowledge (planes) knows that they know little about the workings of the outer planes and their denizens. Do low SM characters automatically believe that what is said to them is true all the time, or do they merely gain no additional information from the GM about the motivations of those they speak with?

The latter interpretation seems more sensible to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Le Petite Mort wrote:
Okay, maybe the example I gave was more distracting than clarifying. To rephrase my question more explicitly, are characters railroaded into believing everything said to them at face value if they fail a given Sense Motive check?

Yes.

Le Petite Mort wrote:

It seems to me that a character who is bad at sense motive would be aware that they are bad at it, much in the same way that someone with low Knowledge (planes) knows that they know little about the workings of the outer planes and their denizens. Do low SM characters automatically believe that what is said to them is true all the time, or do they merely gain no additional information from the GM about the motivations of those they speak with?

The latter interpretation seems more sensible to me.

Gullible people are not aware that they're gullible. Gullible people in fact believe themselves to be really good at detecting lies. It's what makes them gullible.

In your example Thoggs response could be "Ha knew you wren't half devil, that ain't even a thing. Who would have sex with devils anyway?"


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Could go either way: gullible, or aware of the inability to detect lies.

You could house-rule it as an effect of the bluff die roll, maybe CR+20= gullible effect.

Then again, this should never be an issue between PCs, who can choose to ignore or respect an interpersonal reaction die roll as they see fit.

<shrug>


In my case I'd say sense motive is your "gut feeling", reading their body language, etcetera ... You can still intellectually deduce someone must be lying even if they sound really believable.

"Yeah, the guy sounds smooth, convincing,not a twitch on him .... But I know several Tieflings and I'm not buying it."


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:

In my case I'd say sense motive is your "gut feeling", reading their body language, etcetera ... You can still intellectually deduce someone must be lying even if they sound really believable.

"Yeah, the guy sounds smooth, convincing,not a twitch on him .... But I know several Tieflings and I'm not buying it."

This.

Sense Motive in a poker game to tell if someone is bluffing. Knowledge of the game to understand the odds that they have a better hand than you.

Even if you fail the check, that doesn't equate to automatically believing everything said. You just can't find any signs that they are lying.


Sense Motive doesn't mean you believe everything said to you. In fact the problem lies with the way bluff is written.

If someone tries to bluff you and tell you the sky is purple you're going to think something is wrong with them. You're not going to believe them, but you might believe that they believe.

Further, bluff isn't something that should be used against player characters. It removes player agency and ability to make decisions. It's not okay, and verges on player versus player in my opinion.


I'd use bluff vs sense motive to see if there is anomobvious hint to the player that deception is going on ...


We also play no bluff or sence motive rolls for PC to PC interactions. Just not allowed, there's too much silliness involved when allowed at the table. These should be used to PC to NPC interactions only.


At my table, if character A tells a lie to character B, and A wins the Bluff / Sense Motive contest, then B believes that A is being frank. B doesn't necessarily believe in the lie.

In other words, if character A says to B, "The world is actually a giant potato and I am the potato king.", and A wins the contest, then B might conclude A is crazy, because B believes A is being frank when he says those words.

But that's just my table.


When you replace a player's ability to role play a character by substituting a mechanical die roll effect for the character's thinking capacity, you may as well not be playing a role playing game at all.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sense Motive does include a clause that you can always attempt a DC 20 Sense Motive check to gain a hunch that something is wrong with a current situation. So theoretically, no matter how good of a bluffer you might be, a good Sense Motive check might still set a character ill at ease.


Weird , i dont understand why people keep saying that what is written in bluff is that you believe what you are saying is true.

"Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your
opponent’s Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool
someone, with a successful check you convince your
opponent that what you are saying is true.
Bluff checks
are modif ied depending upon the believability of the
lie. The following modif iers are applied to the roll of
the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some
lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince
anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."

Seems to me that if you pass the test , the person believe that what you are saying is true :P.

Still like others said here , it is better to not have players use anything "negative" on one another unless they are ok with it.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This can be a sensitive issue since the GM does have discretion. On the one hand, you don't want to depower a skill to become meaningless. On the other hand, you don't want a single use of a glibness spell suddenly forcing NPCs into believing very outlandish things every time it is used.

Possible ways to make bluff useful, yet reigning it in include the following -

If the success is outlandish (+30 or +40 or more success of bluff), the bluffed individual may suffer a dissolution of reality, where they begin to question everything in their life. (If the sky really is purple, what else have I been wrong about all my life? Maybe everything I think is blue is really purple? What is the meaning of life?) Once this person gets their head on straight, either they will be VERY angry with the bluffer in the future, or believe the bluffer is dangerously insane (since sense motive shows the bluffer actually believes their own story).

Having cause to disbelieve a bluffer on reputation (he/she has lied before, and lied to others) may impose a large enough penalty that said bluff should only succeed if the person being bluffed would actually desire to believe the lie.

The one bluffed might not actually believe the bluffer literally, yet might give the benefit of the doubt just enough to believe something similar might be the real case. (He claims that he is an elf that has a disease, not a tiefling. What if he was reincarnated from elf to tiefling, and this is the way he thinks of it?) Such people are intelligent, and use their own imaginations to fill in the gaps in such a way as to fall for the bluff enough that it works.

A lone individual might be swayed and convinced of a great many things. A group could aid another to sense motive and poke holes in the bluffer's story. Of course, this could also work in reverse if the entire group fails and fall for the lie hook, line, and sinker (think of how pyramid schemes recruit an audience).

Consequences. Once the bluffed party learns the truth (and the more outlandish, the sooner the truth is found), the bluffer has added one or more enemies to their list. The bluffer might know to avoid the bluffed person, yet would the bluffer know what the friends or family members of the bluffed look like? The bluffer might be attacked or hassled by seemingly random people without ever knowing why.

Worse consequences. What happens if the bluffed believes the lie so strongly that they act on it in particularly unexpected, and maybe troublesome ways? The bluffed person believes you are an elf with a horrid disease, rather than a tiefling. The bluffed person then makes the logical leap that you might be contagious, and soon word spreads throughout town that you are to be shunned and avoided, lest they catch your illness.

Just food for thought.


I didn't think social skills were enforced between players, though at my table we usually still role them against each other and play the results.


d20pfsrd wrote:


Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).

RAW if you fail sense motive you beleive it, unless your DM decides it's unbelievable. Whether interactions between PC's should be handled with roleplaying or rollplaying is one matter, but as to whether you believe it if it's handled via rollplay, the rules dictate yes.


I do agree with what most of you are saying, Bluff vs. SM should not be allowed to do what the original poster has said it is doing. Although every table, GM, game group may do something a little different than everyone else. Because he made this original post they obviously do use Bluff vs Sense Motive, at least to some extent at his table PC vs PC.

It seems like you did try to make the argument against this being able to work as it did in your OP, and the GM pretty much said that it will. At this point, unless you can find some loophole, maybe via these posts, you are going to have to leave the game or play along with it... Albeit begrudgingly.

I think that maybe the best one was what voideternal said, you believe that the Tiefling believes he is an elf, which could also make you think he's mentally handicapped.

Are you playing pathfinder society (PFS right? I only play home-brew games, and as of about 16 months ago, pathfinder material, but still at home, or friends home and always with some house rules) or home-brew using pathfinder material, in home-brew games you can try to talk to the GM and try to make him see your sense of the situation, and sometimes can change their opinion but in the end you simply stop playing their game or go with their ruling. In PFS I would guess you pretty much are required to go by the rules as set out with very little or no interpretation. Maybe your GM will allow you to go with you thinking he thinks he is an elf, but you know better.

Good luck with this situation Le Petite Mort.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Everything you know is wrong!

Firesign Theatre wrote:
"Dogs flew spaceships! The Aztecs invented the vacation! Men and women are the same sex! Our forefathers took drugs! Your brain is not the boss! Yes! That's right! Everything you know is wrong!"

To the OP: your character is being asked to turn upside-down one of the most fundamental aspects of his being, who he is, deep down. What's more, who his *father* is. If it was a PC-NPC interaction, a fair DM might allow the victim of such a prank to be confused for a while, but no amount of fast-talking should be able to cast doubts on deeply-held beliefs like who you are and who your parents were, unless the victim is suffering from amnesia or a similarly debilitating condition.

YMMV.


Landerk wrote:
you believe that the Tiefling believes he is an elf

This actually isn't a great loophole...

d20pfsrd wrote:
with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.


Wheldrake wrote:

Everything you know is wrong!

Firesign Theatre wrote:
"Dogs flew spaceships! The Aztecs invented the vacation! Men and women are the same sex! Our forefathers took drugs! Your brain is not the boss! Yes! That's right! Everything you know is wrong!"

To the OP: your character is being asked to turn upside-down one of the most fundamental aspects of his being, who he is, deep down. What's more, who his *father* is. If it was a PC-NPC interaction, a fair DM might allow the victim of such a prank to be confused for a while, but no amount of fast-talking should be able to cast doubts on deeply-held beliefs like who you are and who your parents were, unless the victim is suffering from amnesia or a similarly debilitating condition.

YMMV.

Wait, is thogg the tiefling? I thought the other guy was lying about being an elf, not lying to thogg and telling him he was an elf. If that's the case it seems incredulous enough a DM in his right mind should probably rule it can't be bluffed.

Scarab Sages

VM mercenario wrote:
Le Petite Mort wrote:
Okay, maybe the example I gave was more distracting than clarifying. To rephrase my question more explicitly, are characters railroaded into believing everything said to them at face value if they fail a given Sense Motive check?

Yes.

No. The bluff skill does not negate intelligence, common sense or information obtained from other sources.

You may believer the person using bluff believes what they are saying, but you do not becomes a drooling idiot.


Artanthos wrote:


No. The bluff skill does not negate intelligence, common sense or information obtained from other sources.

However, it can convince someone that they're actually a wallaby.


Le Petite Mort wrote:

Let us imagine our character, Thogg, has long been the companion of Eldris, the Bard who's pants may never be doused for such is the bonus to and frequency of his Bluff skill use.

Around the campfire one night, Eldris attempts to convince Thogg that no, he is not in fact a Tiefling, but rather an Elf with a terrible skin malady. Thogg rolls Sense Motive, Eldris rolls Bluff. After applying any circumstance modifiers you like (-5 to bluff for being a known liar, etc.) Eldris still beats Thoggs Sense Motive by about 15.

At this point most GMs I encounter tell me essentially that I have no reason to doubt him. But Thogg here knows that Eldris tries to trick him all the time, and knows that he usually falls for it. He knows that he never catches a facial tick, reasons around the lie, or hears a nervous catch in Eldris' throat. So, while he does not explicitly know that Eldris is in fact lying this time, there is really no reason he would believe him either.

I've been told that this is me as a player metagame thinking, but it seems to me more like a character using meta-cognitive thinking.

TL;DR - Can a character believe someone is lying to them despite a low Sense Motive check? (This includes cases where the character believes someone is lying though he rolled low, but in actuality the Sensed character is telling the truth)

I have NEVER played it like this, and I would leave a game that did. Players can have their characters think whatever they like. As a GM I'll often roleplay my NPCs lying, and if the players think the character is lying (without a check) fine, or not, but generally they can't tell. Because I'm a good GM. So they will often ask for a Sense Motive- to get a little hint. And THAT is when it comes into play.

But to have a GM tell a player "... uh... oh, you have to act like you believe the barkeep's story," when the GM might not have earned that via characterization, plot or roleplay (because the GM might have scribbled +20 Bluff on an NPC's sheet) is ridiculous to me. Players should be given options, not straightjackets.

My two cents.


Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Le Petite Mort wrote:

Let us imagine our character, Thogg, has long been the companion of Eldris, the Bard who's pants may never be doused for such is the bonus to and frequency of his Bluff skill use.

Around the campfire one night, Eldris attempts to convince Thogg that no, he is not in fact a Tiefling, but rather an Elf with a terrible skin malady. Thogg rolls Sense Motive, Eldris rolls Bluff. After applying any circumstance modifiers you like (-5 to bluff for being a known liar, etc.) Eldris still beats Thoggs Sense Motive by about 15.

At this point most GMs I encounter tell me essentially that I have no reason to doubt him. But Thogg here knows that Eldris tries to trick him all the time, and knows that he usually falls for it. He knows that he never catches a facial tick, reasons around the lie, or hears a nervous catch in Eldris' throat. So, while he does not explicitly know that Eldris is in fact lying this time, there is really no reason he would believe him either.

I've been told that this is me as a player metagame thinking, but it seems to me more like a character using meta-cognitive thinking.

TL;DR - Can a character believe someone is lying to them despite a low Sense Motive check? (This includes cases where the character believes someone is lying though he rolled low, but in actuality the Sensed character is telling the truth)

I have NEVER played it like this, and I would leave a game that did. Players can have their characters think whatever they like. As a GM I'll often roleplay my NPCs lying, and if the players think the character is lying (without a check) fine, or not, but generally they can't tell. Because I'm a good GM. So they will often ask for a Sense Motive- to get a little hint. And THAT is when it comes into play.

But to have a GM tell a player "... uh... oh, you have to act like you believe the barkeep's story," when the GM might not have earned that via characterization, plot or roleplay (because the GM might have scribbled +20 Bluff on an NPC's...

But you are not you character, so if a character is good at lies but the player as a person is not, why penalize him? Should Thogg's player arbitrarily say that the character does not believe Ealdrin "because yes", or worse, because it's written on the character sheet that he's a Tiefling?


Entryhazard wrote:
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Le Petite Mort wrote:

Let us imagine our character, Thogg, has long been the companion of Eldris, the Bard who's pants may never be doused for such is the bonus to and frequency of his Bluff skill use.

Around the campfire one night, Eldris attempts to convince Thogg that no, he is not in fact a Tiefling, but rather an Elf with a terrible skin malady. Thogg rolls Sense Motive, Eldris rolls Bluff. After applying any circumstance modifiers you like (-5 to bluff for being a known liar, etc.) Eldris still beats Thoggs Sense Motive by about 15.

At this point most GMs I encounter tell me essentially that I have no reason to doubt him. But Thogg here knows that Eldris tries to trick him all the time, and knows that he usually falls for it. He knows that he never catches a facial tick, reasons around the lie, or hears a nervous catch in Eldris' throat. So, while he does not explicitly know that Eldris is in fact lying this time, there is really no reason he would believe him either.

I've been told that this is me as a player metagame thinking, but it seems to me more like a character using meta-cognitive thinking.

TL;DR - Can a character believe someone is lying to them despite a low Sense Motive check? (This includes cases where the character believes someone is lying though he rolled low, but in actuality the Sensed character is telling the truth)

I have NEVER played it like this, and I would leave a game that did. Players can have their characters think whatever they like. As a GM I'll often roleplay my NPCs lying, and if the players think the character is lying (without a check) fine, or not, but generally they can't tell. Because I'm a good GM. So they will often ask for a Sense Motive- to get a little hint. And THAT is when it comes into play.

But to have a GM tell a player "... uh... oh, you have to act like you believe the barkeep's story," when the GM might not have earned that via characterization, plot or roleplay (because the GM might

...

Pretty much.

People tend to be really biased when it comes to this , even more when you start to enter attributes and such.

Your char has its sheet and such sheet says what it is good or not at.

When a player got out of the curve wis/int/char not everyone manages to RP their char perfectly.

Can you RP how a person with "int 20+" acts all the time? Tons of players will never actually be able to play PCs with "char 20+" that is for sure.

Add that to certain skills you see the same gap. A player not be a diplomatic genius , but his sheet says he rolls+30 , what now?

With all that said , it is still trully best to not allow players to roll against each other unless all of them really dont mind , which clearly isnt the case here.


I've always played that a character's skills are who they are rather than letting the player metagame it.

If you ignored SM but now don't want to be fooled so you're using information that you as the player knows, but that your character doesn't, that's bad RPing in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure we've had it come up in the not too distant past in our games and we basically make the roll then RP the consequences. Player's still choose what their characters do, but they don't automatically get SM +40 just because they don't want to believe a lie is true.

This, to me, works much better than dumping important skills but then trying to play around it. In real life if someone convinces you about something, you don't suddenly get the option to disbelieve them. Certainly later actions/information can convince you they were lying, and you may seek retribution in some form, but if you believe them, you believe them.

Obviously the DM needs to keep everything on the up and up and use their discretion as to what's believable, maybe add some bonuses or whatnot if a character would already be suspicious.

Just how I see it.


Sense Motive is necessary for you to KNOW the person is lying.

It's still completely possible that you don't believe them, just with no basis for that decision.

If you properly Bluff, you convey no sign that you are lying, however, so it's very possible others will see you as paranoid, or out to get the other person.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would like to point out that you don't have to "ignore sense motive" to have someone succeed in bluff by more than 15. It just takes someone focusing on that skill. It is fairly easy to get a single skill up extremely high, and dice come into it.


Rynjin,
Per the Bluff description:

"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."

Per RAW, a successful Bluff vs SM means they're convinced.


Krith wrote:

Rynjin,

Per the Bluff description:

"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."

Per RAW, a successful Bluff vs SM means they're convinced.

As has been repeatedly stated by the devs, the rules are meant to be read with your brain engaged.

It doesn't explicitly need to be stated that Dead people can't act.

Likewise, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated that people can disbelieve something even when a convincing argument is presented, evidence brought up and shown, and so on. Because that's just common sense.

My uncle is a damn good liar. I never believe a word he says because of that fact. Can I always tell when he's lying? No.

Doesn't mean I need to believe him when he seems sincere? Not at all.

Which, by the way, doe snot contradict the rules.

The rules say a SUCCESSFUL check convinces the opponent. If someone is mistrustful of you, the rules also say that you eithe rtake a penalty, or the lie is flatly impossible. That is, you did not succeed, even if you passed the DC.


If you want to play that Bluff doesn't work as described in the rules, by all means do so, I'm just pointing that's what the rules say (and for the record, dead people can act, look at skeletons and whatnot).

In your example, and in game terms, you'd have a bonus for how often you've been tricked in the past. Either way, it doesn't change what the rules state.

The game goes to crap quickly if you start ignoring abilities; I certainly would have a problem with a DM who tells my rogue who focused on Bluff that even when he succeeds, the target of his attempt just chooses not to believe him. To me, ignoring the skill and the roll, is the same as if you did it in combat: players don't have the option to discount attack rolls against them and say "I know the dragon succeeded in hitting me, but I'm choosing that it didn't" any more than they should be able to discount a bluff check.


Rynjin wrote:
Krith wrote:

Rynjin,

Per the Bluff description:

"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."

Per RAW, a successful Bluff vs SM means they're convinced.

As has been repeatedly stated by the devs, the rules are meant to be read with your brain engaged.

It doesn't explicitly need to be stated that Dead people can't act.

Likewise, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated that people can disbelieve something even when a convincing argument is presented, evidence brought up and shown, and so on. Because that's just common sense.

My uncle is a damn good liar. I never believe a word he says because of that fact. Can I always tell when he's lying? No.

Doesn't mean I need to believe him when he seems sincere? Not at all.

Which, by the way, doe snot contradict the rules.

The rules say a SUCCESSFUL check convinces the opponent. If someone is mistrustful of you, the rules also say that you eithe rtake a penalty, or the lie is flatly impossible. That is, you did not succeed, even if you passed the DC.

Which is not the case.

The GM allowed the roll and gave the players the proper bonus , the guy passed the test , he was succeful , the DM didnt say it was impossible or anything like that at all. Apparently the DM even said that is metagaming.

Well each DM will read the way they want to read , personally i find that there was no point in even having the roll in the first place other than to benefit the guy that wants to roll sense motive.

DM: Hey he passed the test on bluff.
Player: Ok , but i dont believe in him anyway.

DM: Hey he didnt pass the test.
Player: Aha now i know he is lying for sure now.

If the DM follow this logic i expect him to do a really good check and talk to the player asking a explantion about where the knowledge about the subject comes from and so on.


Krith wrote:
(and for the record, dead people can act, look at skeletons and whatnot).

Skeletons are Undead, not Dead. Dead is a condition, which creatures that can act do not have.

@Nox: And the GM is free to rule that way if he chooses. As the skill says, it's up to GM interpretation.

However, the people saying "By RAW, he would have to believe him" are incorrect.

Quote:
talk to the player asking a explantion about where the knowledge about the subject comes from and so on.

You're a rabbit. If you disagree with me, I'm going to ask you where your knowledge on that subject comes from.


Rynjin wrote:
Krith wrote:
(and for the record, dead people can act, look at skeletons and whatnot).

Skeletons are Undead, not Dead. Dead is a condition, which creatures that can act do not have.

@Nox: And the GM is free to rule that way if he chooses. As the skill says, it's up to GM interpretation.

However, the people saying "By RAW, he would have to believe him" are incorrect.

Quote:
talk to the player asking a explantion about where the knowledge about the subject comes from and so on.
You're a rabbit. If you disagree with me, I'm going to ask you where your knowledge on that subject comes from.

Well RAW to me is:

Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).

Thus yeah , until i see any reason why what i read is not RAW , i will keep my opinion that how i think this work is RAW. If there was a roll and the guy passed , "you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true".

About his example, i might be reading it wrong apparently.

The way i read it , the guy is lying about his own race , saying he is not a tiefling , but an elf.

The way you read it , the guy is trying to make a tiefling believe he is an elf.

Which indeed would ask for quite different approaches, to begin with if the guy is doing the way you read it , then there should never even have been a roll , it should have been impossible unless the OP got a very unique story there.


You need to take it all in context as well. For example, I'd hardly consider a party member an "opponent" in the first place.


Pink Dragon wrote:
When you replace a player's ability to role play a character by substituting a mechanical die roll effect for the character's thinking capacity, you may as well not be playing a role playing game at all.

Then why does the sense motive skill exist, at all?


I'd say the acting character gets to choose who he sees his opponents as, whether another player or an NPC.

If the DM has a "no PvP rule" in effect, I'd probably agree that it would make sense to curb PvP bluffing as well, but those would all fall under house rules.

Also, just because you believe something, doesn't mean you don't get to act as you usually would; that's not what Bluff does. A very convincing liar may tell the police he's innocent of a murder he just committed, but they're still going to do their job and investigate said crime. They believed him and still acted as they usually would. Perhaps in trial the police officer states something like: "I believed the guy, but then we found his prints all over the murder weapon..."


Le Petite Mort wrote:


TL;DR - Can a character believe someone is lying to them despite a low Sense Motive check?

Yes. THe player is at control of what their character thinks and act. Even if he can not detect the lie he is in his right to be distrustful.


Believing what the person says, and acting on that belief are two different things.

If Thogg has a standard operating procedure of "don't ever use anything that liar tells me, because it's gonna bite me in the butt", because of prior history of watching him lie to practically everyone he talks to, or even past lies he's fell for, then it won't matter if he's convinced what he said is true.

"You've convinced me, but the last time I went around telling folks that typing google into google will crash the internet, I was humiliated. So I'm just going to keep calling you a Tiefling, if that's alright with you."

Scarab Sages

thegreenteagamer wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
When you replace a player's ability to role play a character by substituting a mechanical die roll effect for the character's thinking capacity, you may as well not be playing a role playing game at all.
Then why does the sense motive skill exist, at all?

Sense allows you to gather information that might not be otherwise be available and to detect lies that you would otherwise find believable and consistent with expectations.

Scarab Sages

Bluff has always been one of 'Those' skills, especially after glibness was invented and it really does have game-breaking properties.

If Steve is known as a consummate liar, and lies at every opportunity, and has been found out several times by Frank, it's not unreasonable to assume that Frank treats EVERYTHING Steve says with a grain of salt, including vital information on how an in usable stalker is sneaking up on them. Steve might CONSIDER that Frank is an elf with a skin condition, but after being lied to so many times, it's not unreasonable to think that, he knows in the back of his head, anything that guy says could be a lie.

But seriously, I draw the line at bluff abuse. I had a PC cast glibness and walk into a demon fortress IN HELL and declare that he was their new boss. -40 on the bluff check and he still made it. Entire encounter was almost ruined (luckily he didn't have the rumormonger ability. He picked it up later). He tried to basically use it to get out of every encounter with a sentient creature, including tricking a dragon out of his hoard.

Scarab Sages

Sense motive is about what can be "sensed", not what is "believed".

So if an NPC is lying, the PC's sense motive may be low, and therefore they can detect nothing untruthful. That does NOT mean the character must believe everything the NPC says.

And same goes for NPCs talking to PCs. We have a Bard with insanely high bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. But the NPCs don't just believe everything the PC says, instead they only sense the impression the player wants to give. The NPC can still not trust the player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krith wrote:

Rynjin,

Per the Bluff description:

"If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true."

Per RAW, a successful Bluff vs SM means they're convinced.

Epistemologically speaking, when someone says "I am an elf," what they're really saying is "I believe I am an elf." If you are certain they are not an elf due to other information, the bluff skill won't change that, but you may be convinced that they believe what they're telling you.

If they use a different lie, such as "I am an elf polymorphed into a human," then the evidence that they are human is not necessarily contradictory of this. However, if you happen to remember seeing that person born from a human mother, that still may only be enough to convince you that the person believes that. True seeing and other effects that allow you to detect polymorph magic would also allow you to discover that the person is not actually a polymorphed elf, but you'd still believe that they believed it.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is Sense Motive necessary to believe, or at least suspect, that someone is misleading you? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.