| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I've heard the "exact wording" reasoning before. It just doesn't fly with me as a GM. Intent matters, not wording.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quickly, to the Dictionary!
3 lie play
verb \ˈlī\
Definition of lieliedly·ing play \ˈlī-iŋ\
intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
The argument of "It's true...from a certain point of view" might make the deception not a lie according to the first definition, but it fits the second to a tee. If you as the GM use the second definition or a combination of both definitions, then it's still a lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the above assessments, roll it. Sense Motive will detect minute fluctuations in vocal tone, facial microexpressions, and other such tells that belie the tilted intent of a silvery tongued PC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff is more than just what you say, it's any kind of deception. You can tell the absolute truth, and that would still call for a sense motive check. If you don't want to bluff there would be no check against the sense motive so I suppose then the NPC would auto-win. :p
However, if I remember right certain spells do revolve around what you say. I would allow PCs to avoid retribution by being technically true under the effects of such a spell. And it would definately be resonable to give a bluff bonus for telling the absolute truth in certain cases. Your ussual GM Fiat right of a bonus for random circumstances that are possitive.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally am a fan of this form of deception. It takes much more imagination, and skill to pull it off.
As a GM, I agree that the intent is to mislead, so a bluff check should be made, but I'd look at giving them a bonus (maybe along the lines of: the target wants to believe/you have convincing proof as per the CRB).
It's the line in court (not sure which court): I swear to say the WHOLE Truth and nothing but the truth.
Alot of this method of deception is based on missing information.
I'd also add one caveat: If it's not their initial intention to mislead and their point of view (although ambiguous) is known (you've played with them before and this is a normal train of thought/speech pattern for the character/player), then it doesn't call for a bluff check.
Of course an NPC might then want to clarify any ambiguity.
Following this line of thought leads me to another question:
Can you use bluff instead of any diplomacy or intimidate check if your intent is to mislead the "target"? (i.e. you really aren't his new best friend; a balor is not on speed dial for back up.)
Sorry for the slight derailment, but we do appear to have answered your question.
I always thought truth was dealt with very well in The Wherl of Time series where Aes Sedail have an unbreakable oath against lying. They are described as being able to make truth spin like the head on a coin. Ages Sedai cannot lie but the truth isn't always what you think you hear.
Lies by omission or answers to questions other than the one asked could still confound a truth spell. However I would still allow a sense motive - just maybe not sgainst bluff. I might allow such a character who uses logic to lie by omission to use diplomacy. The lawyeristic approach. 5th ed lets you substitute Stats so instead you could use a a Bluff with Int to lie this way. I like that.
Q " did a blonde girl just run past"
A "do you honestly think I have the time to sitand around in the street looking for your women"
Q. "You helped me earlier, if I help you get out are we even." (She hadn't helped)
A. "All debts to me are ended when you see me safe outside the wall"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For simplicity's sake I rule that any attempt to mislead is a straight bluff vs sense motive check regardless of the tactic employed.
Most people really struggle to tell a blatant lie, so the usual tactic employed by people when questioned is to say something that is true but avoids answering the actual question asked. For example:
Question: did you steal that money?
Answer: you can ask anyone here and they will vouch that I am not a thief.
Against real world interrogators that is one of the worst approaches to use because they are trained to spot that tactic and it will only make them more suspicious. There is a really great book on the topic written by an FBI interrogator. I have forgotten the name, if it comes to me I will post it here.
The Bluff skill is used whenever you want to make someone believe something, whether it's a truth or not. Declaring your undying love for a person is a Bluff check too, no matter your intentions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Bluff skill is used whenever you want to make someone believe something, whether it's a truth or not. Declaring your undying love for a person is a Bluff check too, no matter your intentions.
Where does it say that?
*goes off and reads the Bluff and Sense Motive skills*
...ah, I don't think it does.
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
There is something which kind of approaches that(Suggest Course of Action, from the Giant Hunter's Handbook), but it uses both Bluff and Diplomacy.
You want to deceive? So you roll for Bluff.
Technicalities only help you when dealing with Contract Devils.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Bluff is whenever you're trying to mislead the other person, technically a lie or not.
Depends on the technicality really. Your example I would label a lie since that would still be "finding" the item.
Now if someone comfronted them on stealing the item and the player hired someone else to acquire the item and they denied it with " 'I' didn't steal anything.", I'd give them that. Besides, not rolling bluff isn't as safe as some people think. If they choose not to roll bluff, the other character/NPC can still roll a DC 20 Sense Motive to get a "hunch" that something is off about the persons story. So I don't see a problem with technicalities when option always exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting a Hunch takes a minute, which makes it impractical. Far too big of a hit for mere basic word choice.
And lies of omission are still lies. That is what Sense Motive is for, detecting when someone is being shifty.
Those quotes you put around 'I' represent a tonal shift. You can hear it in your head right now.
Sense Motive's entire purpose is picking up on those vocal stresses and facial tics.
Remember, it is for detecting "falsehoods and false intentions", not just outright blatant lies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bare in mind: some designers have tried to pull this same stuff. If the module lets the NPCs get away with it, it is blatantly unjust to pull out double standards - otherwise there's no reason to pretend a similarity in rules between PCs and NPCs.
As an example, there is a module,
Or then there's the Sharran who "avoids making bluff checks" and avoid allowing sense motive checks by talking as little as possible and avoiding the topic of the god he's suppose to worship. Despite the fact that he's actively deceiving the PCs (and everyone else) into thinking he worships a different deity entirely.
That... is uncool. It actively invalidates the PCs' abilities only because the module writers want to, with absolutely zero benefit to having those abilities - even penalties, because abilities they've been able to rely upon in the past they suddenly can't and the NPCs are literally getting special powers for free.
A more classic example Kve discovered lately was the Mindflayer. All that talk about thralls, and I realized recently: they only have charm and suggestion, with a high bluff and diplomacy check. The heck?! How do they make thralls, exactly?
It's similar with Paizo, sometimes, too.
The thing is: Indont mind, but for me it either needs to be consistent, or you need to specify it's a different or weird ability and how the NPC got it. Either charm person can do that sort of thing, or it can't. Either you don't make bluff checks when you omit ludicrously important details, or you do. Either it requires a prestige class to get your thoughts to lie to detection magic or it doesn't.
That's my opinion as a GM as well as a player, and it is not a happy time when they're playing by different rules masquerading as the same.
For the record, I generally require bluff checks, based on how "unlikely" the lie is... and I hold both groups to equal standards. Sometimes I do it the other way... such as when the module requires it. But then that's a new campaign-wide rule and it applies to everyone and I tell them. Otherwise I'm a jerk or a poor GM (which I've been before).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your players are trying to lawyer their way out of a roll, don't forget you can just out-lawyer them:
PCs are asked to turn over an item they got in a dungeon and one responds with, "We didn't find the (insert here)!"
"Roll a Bluff check."
"Well I'm not lying, we didn't find it, we were given it by the ghost of the high priest. So its not a lie."
"Well, the ghost was in the dungeon, and you found the item in it's possession. So if you wanna play with technicalities, you absolutely did 'find' the item in the dungeon, so roll your bluff."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think saying something technically true would avoid a Sense Motive roll, but it would be a good way to dodge certain magic, like discern lies or zone of truth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is a 'bluff and not lying' thread, I might as well bring this up: A worshipper of Ragathiel... that hangs out in Calistrian temples/"massage parlors".
Calistrians tend to be big on revenge, and Ragathiel is too. So if you are look to help people seeking revenge (for a nominal fee)... well, Calistrian temples are probably not a bad place to look. You can wait until you find someone with a decent sob story that has a vendetta against someone clearly evil.
But obivously, people assume you are Calistrian assassin. Is it a bluff to never correct them? "It isn't any of your business, so start talking about things that are my business." "What I am is a professional. Are you looking for my services?". Is this bluff? Disguise?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen our GM make us roll Bluff or Bluff-like skills in games to convince someone that we were telling the truth at times. This does make sense ... after all, sometimes you do need to put the right spin on what you say. Especially when what you're saying is 'I didn't do it!', and it's the truth and not just technically so.
That said, I'd allow other social skills to cover if available for this purpose.
A lie by omission is still a lie.
But this is not a lie by ommission it is an explicit statement of a falsehood.
find
verb (used with object), found, finding.
1. to come upon by chance; meet with:
He found a nickel in the street.
2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:
to find an apartment; to find happiness.
3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):
I can't find my blue socks.
If someone gives you what you're looking for you found it. No matter how you come upon something you're looking for, it is always finding it.
The only way that they could possibly have the item and still rightly said they haven't found it, is if they already had known where it was when tasked with retrieving it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the Aes Sedai do not have an oath "against lying", they have an oath "against speaking untrue words". That's a drastic difference and basically allows Aes Sedai to lie at will with careful wording.
The dictionary definition of lying is "the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness" That isn't a dramatic difference at all. I am aware of the oath against telling untruths - it ammounts to the same thing.
"An Aes Sedai never lies, but the truth she speaks may not be the truth you think you hear."
—Tam al'Thor, The Eye of the World
What you are talking about is misleading people. A lie by omission is not a lie it is a figure of speech. It is a method of deceiving someone but is not an outright lie. The description of the Discern Lies spell explains this.
"You know if the target deliberately and knowingly speaks a lie by discerning disturbances in its aura caused by lying. The spell does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies, or necessarily reveal evasions."
This is identical to the restrictions on Aes Sedai.
I think a good sense motive check should also reveal when someone is holding back or evading. Evasion could still use the bluff skill as you are trying to cover your body language and speak confidently with authority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you are talking about is misleading people. A lie by omission is not a lie it is a figure of speech. It is a method of deceiving someone but is not an outright lie. The description of the Discern Lies spell explains this.
Depending on your source, a lie by omission is most definitely a form of lie.
Oddly enough, there is no consistent definition of lie. Some dictionaries (e.g. oxford) define it only as deliberately telling a falsehood. Other dictionaries (e.g. cambridge, collins) define it also as conveying information with intent to deceive.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to say an Aes Sedai is still lying when they omit the truth to deceive, quote be damned.
"Technically" telling the truth will not save you in IRL court, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have missed some words out of the Cambridge Dictionary definition Blakmane. The Cambridge English dictionary says...
lie verb (SPEAK FALSELY)
B1 [I] (present participle lying, past tense lied, past participle lied) to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone.
Key words "not true", and "in order to deceive". A lie by omission may fulfill the second part but not the first.
I may say "I haven't placed a trap on that door", someone else might have done but you would not call the statement a lie if they had. A lie by omission is not a lie by the definition. That's why is has to be qualified with the figure of speech "lie by omission". Aes Sedai tell the truth - therefore they cannot lie. (Unless Black Ajah). That is supported by multiple quotes in the book and the dictionary but we can agree to disagree on it if you like.
In court you swear to well "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.." Hence misleading the court by omissions being a problem.
As I said the Discern Lies and Zone of Truth spells explain sufficiently for me what qualifies and what doesn't.
Back to the original question, I try and avoid dice rolls based on morality if possible. These are better left to roleplay. However if a person made a case for a character that would try and twist a person in circles with logic to deceive them a bluff check using Int seems reasonable to me. Though I do accept that swapping skill stats is not RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have missed some words out of the Cambridge Dictionary definition Blakmane. The Cambridge English dictionary says...
lie verb (SPEAK FALSELY)
B1 [I] (present participle lying, past tense lied, past participle lied) to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone.Key words "not true", and "in order to deceive". A lie by omission may fulfill the second part but not the first.
I may say "I haven't placed a trap on that door", someone else might have done but you would not call the statement a lie if they had. A lie by omission is not a lie by the definition. That's why is has to be qualified with the figure of speech "lie by omission". Aes Sedai tell the truth - therefore they cannot lie. (Unless Black Ajah). That is supported by multiple quotes in the book and the dictionary but we can agree to disagree on it if you like.
In court you swear to well "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.." Hence misleading the court by omissions being a problem.
As I said the Discern Lies and Zone of Truth spells explain sufficiently for me what qualifies and what doesn't.
Back to the original question, I try and avoid dice rolls based on morality if possible. These are better left to roleplay. However if a person made a case for a character that would try and twist a person in circles with logic to deceive them a bluff check using Int seems reasonable to me. Though I do accept that swapping skill stats is not RAW.
By bad, I put cambridge in the wrong brackets. However:
Collins dictionary:
Verb:
2. (intransitive) to convey a false impression or practise deception
Noun:
3. an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead
Mirriam Webster dictionary:
Intransitive verb:
2: to create a false or misleading impression
Noun:
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
1b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives
What Aes Sedai do can 100% correctly be called lying, regardless of how Robert Jordan would like to sell it to you. Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a lie by omission to still require a bluff check.
In your above definitions do any apply to the phrase "I haven't put a trap on this door" when someone else has? That is a lie by omission but it doesn't apply to those definitions.
Like I said, agree to disagree on Aes Sedai lying, I'm happy sticking with Oxford and Cambridge but I can see how you drew your conclusion.
In Pathfinder terms I agree that a bluff check could be required to mislead someone whether by omission or not, opposed by sense motive. I do think sense motive could be overused. There can be too much variance if both get to roll. I like to presume the NPC takes 10 in either case. If the PC is bluffing the NPC takes 10 on sense motive. If the NPC is bluffing they take 10 on the bluff roll. Otherwise the PCs actions can have no impact on the outcome.
Not the Discern lies spell - that is specific and does not reveal evasions or incorrect knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In your above definitions do any apply to the phrase "I haven't put a trap on this door" when someone else has? That is a lie by omission but it doesn't apply to those definitions.
Yes, it does. That is creating a misleading impression. You are misleading the person into believing there is no trap on the door by telling the "technical" truth but omitting the entire truth.
Regardless, this is 100% pure grade A pedantry, and completely worthless in this context.
The devs have said on many, many occasions that the rulebook is written in colloquial English, not purely "proper" English. It is not meant to be parsed as a technical text.
The colloquial definition of lie includes half-truths, lies by omission, and other attempts to deceive, hence the colloquialisms "The best liars always tell the truth" and "Every lie has a grain of truth".
These are commonly understood to be the case by the majority of people.
You're entitled to your opinion Rynjin as is everyone else. I don't believe there is any such thing as 'technical' truth, something is either true or it isn't. What you are talking about is the context and that is a totally separate thing.
The use of the bluff skill (and therefore the pathfinder core rulebook and its syntax is not in dispute as far as I can tell.) We were discussing lying in the context of the wheel of time series and for the purposes of that I don't believe people have picked up the nuance of the story. Nor understood that it is possible to totally mislead someone without telling an untruth and actually lying.
There may well be colloquial definitions that doesn't make them correct, and there has already been a thread about how useless it is to claim a 'majority' opinion without any evidence whatsoever. I was challenged that Aes Sedai can and do lie and I have disputed that with evidence.
As I have said I respectfully agree to disagree about what constitutes a lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're entitled to your opinion Rynjin as is everyone else. I don't believe there is any such thing as 'technical' truth, something is either true or it isn't. What you are talking about is the context and that is a totally separate things.
Context is not entirely separate from the truth at all, or anything involving this language.
Context is the ENTIRE FOUNDATION of English. That's why we have so many homonyms and homophones yet it leads to only rare confusion among native speakers.
"Agreeing to disagree" doesn't work when you don't just hold a contrary opinion, you're working against the very language you're speaking.
Your "opinion" is not that at all. A half-truth is not the truth. It's in the name. It is only half of a truth. Made with intent to deceive, it constitutes a lie.
You are correct on one thing: Something is either true or it isn't. If it's only partly true, or true out of context, it is not truth.
Nobody is missing any nuance of the story, except maybe you. A good part of it is spent exploring how Aes Sedai are completely capable of lies and deceit despite being unable "to speak no word that is not true". Despite claims that they cannot "outright lie" unless they're Black Ajah, it's clear that they CAN by simply choosing their words carefully, which is the point Jordan is making. Even an "honest" person cannot be trusted completely, because a lie can be told without saying a single untruth.
You are equating liying with misleading/deceiving - they are different words with two different meanings of subtly so. If you can't appreciate the difference and argue they are the same then there is little point continuing this discussion.
If I say I have not placed a trap on the door that is the entire truth - it is a factually true statement to a specific question. It is not a half-truth, it is not a lie.
I'm pretty gobsmacked that you refuse to allow me to have a different opinion on a meaning of a word when I have provided several (the majority given in this thread) respectable definitions that require lying to contain 'untrue' statements. I have accepted that you see it differently, I put that down to language difference as I am in England or colloquial uses
I think Jordan is making the point that you can mislead, deceive and confound someone while still telling the truth. Not that they can decisive you while lying - I have provided quotes confirming this. "Aes Sedie do not lie" to support my assertion of Jordan's opinion. There are many more.
Of course "Honest" people absolutely can be trusted because they don't try to mislead/deceive you. That is part of the definition of honest - trustworthy.
EDIT: Some additional quotes
“Bound by the Oath against lying, Aes Sedai [carry] the half-truth, the quarter-truth and the implication to arts.”
― Robert Jordan, Lord of Chaos
"An Aes Sedai never lies, but the truth she speaks may not be the truth you think you hear."
- Robert Jordan, The Eye of the World
Men may look at what we say from six sides, but when a sister says, 'This is so,' they know it's true, and they trust.
- Robert Jordan, Path of Daggers
Will you now allow me to have my own differing opinion or are you insistent on forcing your point of view?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two definitions of lies: "untruth" and "deceit." Which definition is meant is indicated through context.
"I never lied, I merely misled you" uses the first definition.
"The best liars tell the truth" uses the second definition. In fact, its rhetorical impact partly derives from knowledge of the first definition and how that definition would produce paradox in this context.
The Bluff skill includes all forms of deceit within its mandate, including those that are not strictly untrue:
Deceive or Lie
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).
Retry? If you fail to deceive someone, any further checks made to deceive them are made at a –10 penalty and may be impossible (GM discretion).
I do agree that using misleading truths would fool certain truth-detecting spells, but it would still require Bluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth detecting spells ALL explicitly say IIRC they only account for literal truth, not contextual truth. At least, Discern Lies and Zone of Truth do state they don't account for evasive answers.
I must say I was stumped by the definition given in a few dictionaries defining the word lie as conveying a false impression or deception. Then I looked at the examples.
"the camera does not lie"
"all their married life she had been living a lie"
"driving a fast car go appear wealthy meant he was living a lie"
These are the examples of giving a false impression or practicing deception. These are not through conversation or use of words. It seems to be conveying a false impression through something other than words.
Weirdo: I accept that there can be multiple understandings of the same words. Thats one of the reasons I love the English Language so much. Definately agree on the Bluff skill.
Kazaan: Lol, I didn't cherry pick I looked at the OED. lol. By followin an ever widening chain of definitions you have become lost from the original words. In Verin's quote above neither statement was untrue, inaccurate or wrong. It is still misleading.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best lies are built around the truth. Just because a statement has truth in it, does not mean it isn't a lie. In the OP scenario I would present the PC's with 2 choices for social skills:
a) use Bluff to convince the target they don't have the item
b) use Diplomacy to convince the target that they shouldn't have to turn it over
They could also use Bluff for B if they wanted, by creating some imaginary reason why they need to keep it. If the item were small enough to be hidden and they wanted to smuggle it, I would allow Sleight of Hand, bypassing the Bluff "We don't have it, you can search us." They would get out of the immediate situation with the item, but whoever had searched them would still be suspicious (unless a Bluff check was passed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Verin's quote above neither statement was untrue, inaccurate or wrong. It is still misleading.
When Verin is interrogating Aes Sedai prisoners and the prisoner asks why she fainted. Verin says "It is hot outside" and then "several times today I've felt faint". Both these statements are factually true. Verin felt faint from handling so much of the power. Neither statement is a lie. However when put together it misleads the prisoner into thinking she fainted from being hot."
Oddly enough, this is a really bad example, because Verin is lying by both definitions. She didn't answer the question that was directly asked to her but instead gave an answer that was wrong.
By Verin's logic if you asked me 'have you eaten today' I could say 'I have not eaten' but actually I was making an unconnected statement about about whether I had eaten in the last 5 minutes instead of today so I 'technically haven't lied'. Even worse, I could just say an unconnected 'no' using this logic. This is nonsense as my answer in context is false and thus I have outright lied (and so has Verin). Blame a bit of poor writing there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Bill Clinton
|
Getting a Hunch takes a minute, which makes it impractical. Far too big of a hit for mere basic word choice.
And lies of omission are still lies. That is what Sense Motive is for, detecting when someone is being shifty.
Those quotes you put around 'I' represent a tonal shift. You can hear it in your head right now.
Sense Motive's entire purpose is picking up on those vocal stresses and facial tics.
Remember, it is for detecting "falsehoods and false intentions", not just outright blatant lies.
It is not "a 1 minute question", it is "1 minute or more of conversation".
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did I say it was a 1 minute question?
|
|
In your above definitions do any apply to the phrase "I haven't put a trap on this door" when someone else has? That is a lie by omission but it doesn't apply to those definitions.
Like I said, agree to disagree on Aes Sedai lying, I'm happy sticking with Oxford and Cambridge but I can see how you drew your conclusion.
In Pathfinder terms I agree that a bluff check could be required to mislead someone whether by omission or not, opposed by sense motive. I do think sense motive could be overused. There can be too much variance if both get to roll. I like to presume the NPC takes 10 in either case. If the PC is bluffing the NPC takes 10 on sense motive. If the NPC is bluffing they take 10 on the bluff roll. Otherwise the PCs actions can have no impact on the outcome.
Not the Discern lies spell - that is specific and does not reveal evasions or incorrect knowledge.
What is the question to which you are replying?
If it was "There is a trap on that door?" you are surely trying "2: to create a false or misleading impression "| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one I've seen a lot from players. Usually it is something simple:
Example:
PCs are asked to turn over an item they got in a dungeon and one responds with, "We didn't find the (insert here)!"
"Roll a Bluff check."
"Well I'm not lying, we didn't find it, we were given it by the ghost of the high priest. So its not a lie."
-----
Lying is not the issue here. The questioner suspects or has great reason to believe the PC's have an item he wants. The PC's are either trying to misdirect or flatout deceive the person into believing that they don't have it, or don't have what he is referring to. So it's still the standard opposed Bluff vs. Sense Motive check.
|
|
When did I say it was a 1 minute question?
Getting a Hunch takes a minute, which makes it impractical. Far too big of a hit for mere basic word choice.
When you said that a reply of a few words isn't enough. As I read it you were implying that inserting a single untruth while speaking with someone isn't enough to allow the other person to roll Sense motive to get a hunch.
If the context was:
Whole conversation:
"You have seen a blonde girl running?"
"Yes, she went that way" Point north.
"Thanks."
I agree that it isn't enough to get a hunch about the honesty of the person.
If, as in the example discussed, the context is someone trying to know if you have found item XX in a dungeon and he speak with you for a minute or more, even if the only untruth is that you haven't found the item he is allowed to roll to get an hunch.
If successful he may notice that you are nervous, or trying to close the conversation and leave or that you grab possessively your bag.
The untruth being only a few word long don't make you immune to being noticed in that situation.
Yes, however in the context of the larger conversation you'll notice I was speaking against the Hunch check even being required at all.
The man is lying. That calls for a Bluff check. Which calls for a Sense Motive check as a reaction.
What the other poster was suggesting is that the man is "no technically" lying (even though he was, by most definitions) and therefore it requires a minute of sustained conversation just to get a single Sense Motive check that tells you he MIGHT BE untrustworthy.
Which I find to be unreasonable. Simple word choice does not bypass the whole opposed skill check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have said on many, many occasions that the rulebook is written in colloquial English, not purely "proper" English. It is not meant to be parsed as a technical text.
While it's true they've said this, they themselves often don't follow their own advice. It's hard to get more "technical" than nested sources and hands vs 'hands'. Add to that the fact that if you actually follow their advice, you'd actually expect all weapons in the thrown and monk weapon groups to actually be thrown and monk weapons but that's untrue. Pretty much it's good advice until it isn't: this makes it fairly worthless advice. In fact, THAT advice should require a bluff check... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, though that set DC 20 sense motive will likely be easier unless the liar isn't trained in bluff.