|
Quick question, from a rules standpoint (not a 'ask your GM' standpoint)
So, is sense motive an active skill (such as, 'you have to declare you are using it') or a passive skill (GM just calls for you to make checks when appropriate.)
If the answer is "It Depends" then here are a few scenarios.
1) A spy comes over and talks to you, and you have no reason to suspect he's a spy. Do you get a free sense motive check (with all applicable bonuses/penalties) or do you have to declare: "That guy seeks a bit shifty, Sense Motive."
2)A spy under 'Charm Person' comes up and talks to you, and you have no reason to suspect he's a spy. Do you get a free sense motive check (DC 25) in order to determine that he's mentally manipulated?
3)Two spies are at a party you are happening to attend, and you don't expect either of them as spies. Do you get a free sense motive check to intercept a secret message sent between them using bluff, or do you have to declare "While At the party, I'll keep my ears peeled for secret messages.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those three examples look like active uses of Sense Motive.
Passive: Defense against bluff.
Active: Get a hunch and interpret secret messages.
Spy comes to you and in the process of chatting tells a lie. Even if you don't know he's a spy, you get a SM check against the Bluff. What modifiers apply depend on game specific circumstances.
Example: Spy walks up to you and says, which isn't true, "Hi, I'm Jon Snow the emissary from Snowland." Character passes his SM so the GM tells the player that Jon appears to be deceitful.
I think Sense Motive is almost always "passive."
The skill is representing things the character perceives about the world around him.
Just like Knowledge checks and many Perception checks, the character doesn't have to try to perceive if someone seems untrustworthy, is acting strangely and possibly under mental manipulation, or is lying to him; anymore than you can try to know what that monster is or if you notice that person sneaking up behind you.
Either you do or you don't. These are just things he does or does not perceive about the situation he is in as they happen, their is no effort involved on the character's part.
Since they should happen automatically as part of the character perceiving his surroundings, the DM should call for a roll (or make the roll in secret) when necessary.
Could you use Sense Motive "actively?" Maybe. Just as there are times when making an active Perception check makes sense, making an active Sense Motive check could be called for at times. But I think the majority of uses would be "passive."
It depends.
1) It depends, what is the spy doing? Is he lying to the PC, or is he asking him how the weather is?
2) Yes you get a free passive sense motive.
3) Yes you get a free passive sense motive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd almost always run it as a passive skill. The alternative quickly teaches your players to always ask to use it. Which has the exact same gamewise effect but takes time and energy around the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players always ask for it so I let it be something they ask for if the NPC is directly lying to them.
If the NPC is trying to pretend to be confident when he is really scared I ask them to roll the dice.
Unless Ultimate Intrigue has some clarification I don't think the rules cover it. What I typed above was just how I do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the rules cover it.
What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive
If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.
If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the rules cover it.What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive
If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.
If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).
I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.
Where is the rules text that says it's passive?I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the rules cover it.What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive
If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.
If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).
I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.
Where is the rules text that says it's passive?
I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
In the case of bluff, it's because it's an opposed role initiated by somebody else. So it's not actually passive, it's active for somebody else.
I don't think the rules cover it.What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive
If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.
If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).
I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.
Where is the rules text that says it's passive?
I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
I would question why the question in the first place. You should be using Sense Motive in any and every social interaction you take part in. It's also considered pseudo-standard practice to declare certain actions the norm in certain situations. I.E. if you aren't being chased by something, the party Rogue always takes 10 to stealth up to each door, performs a Perception check to listen at each door, and then checks out the lock after making a perception check to find any traps. I KNOW 3.5 had this in their DMG (not as a rule, but as a strong suggestion), and while I don't recall seeing anything on it in the CRB, I think it might have been assumed here. Thus, Sense Motive would be active, if it wasn't considered 'good practice' to let your GM know that you want to use it as often as you can. They're the ones who are going to be rolling it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I don't think this should matter. You should be using Sense Motive in any and every social interaction you take part in. It's also considered pseudo-standard practice to declare certain actions the norm in certain situations. I.E. if you aren't being chased by something, the party Rogue always takes 10 to stealth up to each door, performs a Perception check to listen at each door, and then checks out the lock after making a perception check to find any traps. I KNOW 3.5 had this in their DMG (not as a rule, but as a strong suggestion), and while I don't recall seeing anything on it in the CRB, I think it might have been assumed here. Thus, Sense Motive would be active, if it wasn't considered 'good practice' to let your GM know that you want to use it as often as you can. They're the ones who are going to be rolling it anyway.I don't think the rules cover it.What? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/sense-motive
If an NPC is lying, it's a free, passive SM roll vs. Bluff.
If you're trying to get a hunch about a situation, determine if someone is enchanted, or interpret a secret message, it takes an action (usually 1 minute per the rules).
I already knew where to find the skill just like everyone else does.
Where is the rules text that says it's passive?
I will rephrase that. Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
Stealth slows the party down so many people only stealth at certain times. Basically there is no pseudo-standard for every group that I know of. Every group and sometimes every campaign for the same group has different standard.
I believe you have missed my point. Yes, every group and every campaign has a different standard. But they do have a standard. Things that are assumed each and every time. GMs will use this so that every room with cobblestone floor, wooden doors, and masonry walls that smells damp and moldy doesn't have to be described, and the GM can focus on the interesting elements that differentiate each room. They might also assume that the party only leaves town when they are fully rested, that they've refilled their waterskins, component pouches, and ate a good, healthy breakfast before setting out to the mouth of the dungeon.
As for stealth, I was assuming the standard "we're not really on the clock, and none of us want to die unnecessarily" situation. Of course, if you've got buffs, or must rescue the princess, or must stop the lich Xykon from opening a portal to a previous dimension, then sure Stealth goes out the window. But there's still an assumption, usually. Either the GM assumes the party bum-rushes the door unless otherwise told, or else the GM assumes that they take their time all stealth-like.
The time necessary to make a Sense Motive check is mostly up to the GM. The roll is made by the GM. It doesn't particularly make sense not to use sense motive when you've got time to, and it doesn't make sense to have the players ask "Have we talked long enough to use Sense Motive NOW???" over and over again. Thus, it is usually simpler for the GM to assume the players use Sense Motive as often as possible.
Fair point, but most groups I have been in require you to actually call for the roll or say "when this happens I do _____" to avoid telling the GM every time.
Outside of that agreement, and even still inside of it, it would be nice to know the actual intent.
As an example I always tell my players when to roll certain knowledge checks since I think they are passive, but many GM's still make you call for them. If Paizo specifically said they were passive more people might get some use out of them.
I think I understand where you are coming from. To be honest, I've only gamed with a relatively small number of people, and certain skills were always assumed reactive in those games. It never really occurred to me that a player had to declare he was going to attempt to think through what type of dragon he was fighting (Kn. Arcana), much less attempt to determine if someone was trustworthy or under an enchantment.
I don't think we're going to find a specific ruling in the books that outright states that Sense Motive is an active or passive skill. I do see potential for both uses. You could actively attempt to spend more time around a person so as to get a read on whether they can be trusted. But a player calling for a roll to determine if a character is enchanted strikes me as rather Meta. You don't bother with that call unless you are paranoid, or if you've already got reason to suspect.
This becomes an issue when you have a crafty GM and a slightly unperceptive player playing a Snake Style Monk (Sense Motive 9 ranks, class skill, +5 Wis, +2 feat, +5 competence from an item = +24 Sense Motive) who has a guarantee of noticing if any NPC he interacts with is under an enchantment. From a verisimilitude standpoint, anyone whose made it through a world full of assassins, dragons, evil soul-snatching outsiders, and enchanters long enough to make it to 9th level is also going to be at least slightly wary of anyone whom they interact with, even their closest friends. The very idea that said player must "call for a check," indicating that they're already suspicious, isn't the issue. The issue, to me, is the idea that the charmed NPC that the players all inherently trusted (say a cohort or familiar) wouldn't be discovered by the Monk because the player didn't call for a roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Passive. The nine foot tall orc cannot just say "I am a halfling" and be believed by 99% of the populace because people don't go around questioning everything someone says.
Passive. The nine foot tall orc cannot just say "I am a halfling" and be believed by 99% of the populace because people don't go around questioning everything someone says.
That'd be a bluff, the response to which is responsive.
The question is more towards the idea that 95% of the population be unable to determine that the other orc is actually a trustworthy individual.
Is that because they don't make a sense motive check, or because the DC is 20?
And if it is a case of people not getting a sense motive check, is it because they aren't holding minute long conversations with the orc, or what?
Passive. The nine foot tall orc cannot just say "I am a halfling" and be believed by 99% of the populace because people don't go around questioning everything someone says.
I think most people are actively calling BS on that on, with regard to the very tall halfing.
Now someone saying they are a noble, while actually dressed for the part is a more ambiguous example.
Passive. The nine foot tall orc cannot just say "I am a halfling" and be believed by 99% of the populace because people don't go around questioning everything someone says.I think most people are actively calling BS on that on, with regard to the very tall halfing.
Now someone saying they are a noble, while actually dressed for the part is a more ambiguous example.
They don't need to actively call bs. The situation calls for it, just like someones tone of voice, mannerisms, word choice etc are constantly under subconscious scrutiny. Its what taking 10 is designed to emulate.
Could you quote the rules text that says it's passive?
Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill.
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.
First use refers back to Bluff. It's a reactive roll to someone's lie.
Alternative uses are given in the second sentence and defined in the rest of the skill's text. These uses are active and generally require 1 minute of observation or conversation.
People (NPCs) go around failing their SM checks because a) story and b) special modifiers on Bluff. If Jon Snow from Snowland looks the part and you've never been to Snowland and have no ranks in Knowledge (Geography or Nobility) and he's at an invitation only party for foreign dignitaries, then he may have anywhere from +0 to +20 on his Bluff plus however many ranks and his Charisma bonus. If Jon Snow from Snowland is dressed in rags and in a sleepy bar when he introduces himself, he's probably got up to -10 on his Bluff.
Fair point, but most groups I have been in require you to actually call for the roll or say "when this happens I do _____" to avoid telling the GM every time.
Exactly. So at the start of a new campaign I state "when I talk to someone, I try to judge their character" i.e. use Sense motive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Intrigue page 188:
Active and Automatic Sense Motive: Most uses of Sense Motive are active and require a character to spend a minute or more interacting with someone with the intent of using Sense Motive for a particular purpose. The only time that Sense Motive happens automatically is when it opposes Bluff, as it says in the Core Rulebook that a character attempts a Sense Motive check for every Bluff check attempted against him.
If I may opine slightly off-topic here,
This is an interesting (and somewhat problematic, imo) issue that leads to discussion on the way skills in Pathfinder function, especially when compared to D&D 5e's skill rules, or more specifically, 5e's notion of "passive perception".
As a GM I don't particularly love that players get a Perception check each and every time a hidden enemy comes there way. That is essentially saying that a character has an equal chance to notice in the stalking tiger when they're actively looking for it and when they're gathering firewood while whistling zippety do da. That to me seems like a disconnect. In play it boils down to 4-5 party Perception checks vs my hidden bad guys, ending almost always in the party finding the hidden bad guys by virtue of statistical chance as opposed to character investment in the Perception skill.
5e has no "take a 10" rule for skills with the notable exception of Perception. Each character has a "Passive Perception" score = to 10 + their perception modifier, meaning that when they're actively looking they would get a roll, but otherwise they are only so aware of their surroundings, IE their Passive Perception score. I find myself wishing Pathfinder had a similar rule for Perception. *I feel I should note that Pathfinder bad guys can "take a 20" on their stealth checks where 5e bad guys cannot, so there is somewhat of a mitigation there.
This relates to the OP's question in that I have occasionally felt somewhat uncomfortable with the Pathfinder skills rules, as to whether any given skill would be/should be/is a passive or active check.
-----------
edit - I'm sure many of you couldn't care less about D&D 5th, but I thoroughly enjoy both PF and 5e and I can't help but contrast and compare things that I like/dislike about one another. I apologize if this was unhelpful to the discussion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I may opine slightly off-topic here,
This is an interesting (and somewhat problematic, imo) issue that leads to discussion on the way skills in Pathfinder function, especially when compared to D&D 5e's skill rules, or more specifically, 5e's notion of "passive perception".
As a GM I don't particularly love that players get a Perception check each and every time a hidden enemy comes there way. That is essentially saying that a character has an equal chance to notice in the stalking tiger when they're actively looking for it and when they're gathering firewood while whistling zippety do da. That to me seems like a disconnect. In play it boils down to 4-5 party Perception checks vs my hidden bad guys, ending almost always in the party finding the hidden bad guys by virtue of statistical chance as opposed to character investment in the Perception skill.
5e has no "take a 10" rule for skills with the notable exception of Perception. Each character has a "Passive Perception" score = to 10 + their perception modifier, meaning that when they're actively looking they would get a roll, but otherwise they are only so aware of their surroundings (IE their passive awareness = their Passive Perception score) I find myself wishing Pathfinder had a similar rule for Perception. *I feel I should note that Pathfinder bad guys can "take a 20" on their stealth checks where 5e bad guys cannot, so there is somewhat of a mitigation there.
This relates to the OP's question in that I have occasionally felt somewhat uncomfortable with the Pathfinder skills rules, as to whether any given skill would be/should be/is a passive or active check.
Actually, UI has a variant a few pages after Slithery D's quote that uses Passive/Active like you mention here to cut down on opposed skill checks. So we also think that's a great idea Zedth!
Those three examples look like active uses of Sense Motive.
Passive: Defense against bluff.
Active: Get a hunch and interpret secret messages.
Spy comes to you and in the process of chatting tells a lie. Even if you don't know he's a spy, you get a SM check against the Bluff. What modifiers apply depend on game specific circumstances.
Example: Spy walks up to you and says, which isn't true, "Hi, I'm Jon Snow the emissary from Snowland." Character passes his SM so the GM tells the player that Jon appears to be deceitful.
All you do by forcing the party to declare usage of Sense Motive is set up a play style where the players preface every single interaction with every single NPC with a list of skills they are using. (Perception, Sense Motive, Knowledge: Local, Knowledge: Nobility, Appraise - just in case they are carrying anything exceptional, etc.)
It becomes Rollplay, not Roleplay.
The best way to handle interactions like this is to have the player roll a die and you, the DM, compare the result without telling the players what you are checking.
Toss in the occasional random roll when nothing is going to, just to play mind games :P