I can't stand Sense Motive.

[Pigkappa]

This thread is not (only) about RAW; I'm looking for simple alternate ways to deal with Sense Motive checks.

I'm specifically going to make two examples.



1.)A person is speaking to you and tells a lie. For example, you could have just asked your son if everything was fine at school, and he says "Yes it was", while he didn't go to school at all this morning.

In the real world, you have absolutely no way to determine whether he's lying or not.
If you have reasons to be on your guard about what he's saying, and you are skilled in this (a detective could do this I guess), you can notice something's a little wrong in his behaviour; anyway you can't be certain he's lying.

In D&D, that person rolls Bluff and you roll Sense Motive. If you are both average people you have +0 to both skills and then you have 50% chance of determining whether he's lying or not. By the rules, you don't have the impression that something may be wrong; you just know that he lied. Sense Motive is extremely more effective in D&D than it should be.



2.)An NPC is affected by an enchantment, so the PCs have a Sense Motive check to determine if something is wrong. I roll secretly; one of them succeeds and I tell him that he notices this person is constantly touching his eyes in a strange manner.
They later find out that he was dominated and get (a little) angry at me because by the rules I just had to tell them they noticed an enchantment effect was going on, instead of giving them a weak clue.



How would you change the Sense Motive mechanics to solve this problem?

[The Boz]

Announce that you're using scaled results or something, and that your precision depends on your success. Warn them that failure may also give them bad weak hints, so they can doubt weak hints, but know for certain when someone is definitely lying about killing their wife while they're holding a knife in one hand and the wife's head in the other.

[ericgrau]

IMO mix common sense and RAW to handle social skills. In other words, the PC is rolling to see whether or not he can sense the target's motives (via facial expression, tone of voice, etc.).
1. He's uneasy about something. Maybe he's lying or maybe something else is bothering him. If there's no prior reason for suspision he gets a +5 on his bluff check because the answer doesn't affect the parent much in this example. Even if the parent does figure it out, noticing that his child is uneasy might not bother him much. Or he might ask a question or two and then drop the whole matter if the kid won't answer.

2. Give them a better clue. Say the PC is behaving unusually, not following his usually manerisms, standing there and doing nothing with a blank stare whenever he's not doing something specific, etc. The DC on dominate is especially low, lower than charm, specifically b/c the target's range of actions is so limited. Don't make it so hard that the player's real life sense motive has no chance.

[Curmudgeon]

For example, you could have just asked your son if everything was fine at school, and he says "Yes it was", while he didn't go to school at all this morning.

In the real world, you have absolutely no way to determine whether he's lying or not.
In the real world, there are lots of ways to corroborate or disprove such statements. Most schools auto-call parents when students don't show up. Tell your son to produce all the returned quizzes and graded homework received that day. Ask what was served in the school cafeteria at lunchtime, then go online to the school's web site to verify.

Sense Motive is the quick way to get to the important plot point, without having to drag out NPC conversations interminably, as in the examples I've given above.

[Urpriest]

1. You're looking at it the wrong way. Checks like Bluff don't just determine how you say something, they determine what you say. If the kid rolls poorly on Bluff they won't say "Yes it was." in deadpan, they'll say "Sure, nothing to worry about. Yeah, I totally went to school today. Why do you think I didn't?"

2. Touching one's eyes has nothing to do with enchantment. It means something is weird, maybe, but the clue should at least be related to what it's supposed to be a clue about. Saying that the NPC looks extremely stiff, or seems unused to their body, or something, would be more worthwhile than a hint that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

[Dr.Epic]

I considering doing something where I tell the PC if they want to sense motive, they can sense motive, like any time they want. I won't tell them when to make a roll as it might encourage metagaming and somethings they might not believe if I wouldn't otherwise tell them to sense motive. I haven't actually tried this out, but I think I might next campaign.

[Curmudgeon]

I considering doing something where I tell the PC if they want to sense motive, they can sense motive, like any time they want. I won't tell them when to make a roll as it might encourage metagaming
You could do what I always do: they "take 10" for passive checks outside of combat. Nobody does any rolling unless they decide to.

[Pigkappa]

Sense Motive is the quick way to get to the important plot point, without having to drag out NPC conversations interminably, as in the examples I've given above.

In many cases "dradding out NPC conversations" is important and may affect them. If you insist asking questions to someone, he will likely become upset very soon. If he is an important person (e.g. a teacher in RL, a king in D&D) you would never do this.



Checks like Bluff don't just determine how you say something, they determine what you say. If the kid rolls poorly on Bluff they won't say "Yes it was." in deadpan, they'll say "Sure, nothing to worry about. Yeah, I totally went to school today. Why do you think I didn't?"


Yeah, ok. But unless the boy (let's suppose age > 14) is really stupid, he won't say anything like that.



I won't tell them when to make a roll as it might encourage metagaming and somethings they might not believe if I wouldn't otherwise tell them to sense motive. I haven't actually tried this out, but I think I might next campaign.

Ofc I usually don't tell them to roll Sense Motive. I roll secretly if it's important, and they can roll whenever they want if they ask me to.

[Urpriest]

Yeah, ok. But unless the boy (let's suppose age > 14) is really stupid, he won't say anything like that.


Then he's got a decent Cha or ranks in Bluff. More to the point, he'd generally screw up enough to get caught in reality anyway. If the parent has reason to suspect that the kid skipped school then the kid generally seems sullen enough when asked that the parent will figure it out. If it's not a recurring thing, then as mentioned before the kid has circumstance bonuses.

[true_shinken]

1.)A person is speaking to you and tells a lie. For example, you could have just asked your son if everything was fine at school, and he says "Yes it was", while he didn't go to school at all this morning.

In the real world, you have absolutely no way to determine whether he's lying or not.

You are wrong. There are plenty of ways.

[OrganicGolem]

I generally don't even allow my players to roll skill checks on dialog shorter than 30 seconds. There simply should be no way to tell someone is lieing about something when they keep their answers short, which mirrors your real life situation.

[true_shinken]

I generally don't even allow my players to roll skill checks on dialog shorter than 30 seconds. There simply should be no way to tell someone is lieing about something when they keep their answers short, which mirrors your real life situation.

Not really, no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_to_Me).

[Curmudgeon]

I generally don't even allow my players to roll skill checks on dialog shorter than 30 seconds.
I guess that's within the rules, because you're allowed to vary the time depending on how elaborate the deception. But wouldn't it be simpler to just use their "take 10" numbers whenever appropriate, and bypass rolling? It's the whole "I don't believe that; I'm going to roll" business that wastes time, since in most circumstances there's no attempt at deception and thus no DC.

[OrganicGolem]

For me it its a matter of keeping the game going, and I also said generally... obviously (especially in a scripted show) there are times when you can easily tell if someone is lieing when they keep their answers short.

[true_shinken]

For me it its a matter of keeping the game going, and I also said generally... obviously (especially in a scripted show) there are times when you can easily tell if someone is lieing when they keep their answers short.

Just click the link. It's based on tactics used in real life.

Seriously, you guys never did this? You never caught someone lying, never felt something was off? :smallconfused:

[Telonius]

Then he's got a decent Cha or ranks in Bluff. More to the point, he'd generally screw up enough to get caught in reality anyway. If the parent has reason to suspect that the kid skipped school then the kid generally seems sullen enough when asked that the parent will figure it out. If it's not a recurring thing, then as mentioned before the kid has circumstance bonuses.

I think it's more of a template bonus. :smallbiggrin:

Sense Motive does not tell you the truth, except in a very narrow sense. Success vs. the bluff, "Yes, school was fine today," does not tell you that the kid wasn't in school. It just tells you that he's not being totally truthful - school wasn't fine today. That might be because the teacher yelled at him, or he got into a fight with his friend, or his girlfriend dumped him, or any number of other things.

As for how long it takes to Sense Motive, the skill description itself puts it this way:


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.

So in that situation, the initial interaction would be a simple bluff vs. sense motive. (Parent is the target of kid's bluff). If the parent succeeds, he knows something's wrong. Further sense motive checks would require at least a bit of further interaction. "That's nice. How was math class/theater practice/whatever?" (Kid is the target of parent's sense motive). If the kid fails, the parent gets a hunch that maybe he wasn't in school today at all. If the kid succeeds, parent can't tell what's wrong, but still knows the kid is being evasive.

[erikun]

1.)A person is speaking to you and tells a lie. For example, you could have just asked your son if everything was fine at school, and he says "Yes it was", while he didn't go to school at all this morning.

In the real world, you have absolutely no way to determine whether he's lying or not.
Actually, it is entirely possible to tell that someone is lying (or at least being untruthful) in a short sentence or two. Heck, it is possible to tell someone is being evasive just by watching their posture and habits. This is especially true if you are familiar with the person, or familiar with what to look for.

As for the example, just knowing that "Yes it was" is a lie isn't enough to know that the kid didn't go to school. Perhaps he is getting bullied? Perhaps he got a bad grade? Perhaps he asked a girl out, and doesn't want to tell his parents? The only thing the character would know is that school today was not just "fine". What they do determine depends on what they ask after that.


2.)An NPC is affected by an enchantment, so the PCs have a Sense Motive check to determine if something is wrong. I roll secretly; one of them succeeds and I tell him that he notices this person is constantly touching his eyes in a strange manner.
Touching and rubbing eyes in a strange manor indicates sleepiness or being drugged to me. Being under an enchantment would be a dazed, glazed look, being easily distracted, or easily missing things around you. If somebody nearby rubbed their eyes and acted normally otherwise when I asked if they were okay, then I wouldn't suspect they were suddenly planning to murder me in a few minutes.

I'd say the problem here is that you didn't give enough or relevant information. The players are right - someone who succeeds on a Sense Motive check is supposed to tell when someone is affected by an enchantment. You don't need to say "this character is affected by an enchantment", but you should make it quite obvious that something is going on.


How would you change the Sense Motive mechanics to solve this problem?
You'll probably want to consider that Sense Motive can and cannot do, first. Then inform you players that you are changing the skill (and how) and allow anyone with Sense Motive ranks to possibly retrain those skill points.

After all, if you're nerfing the skill into unusability, then players who otherwise rely on using it deserve the chance to put their points into something useful.

[NichG]

Considering that a Sense Motive check of 100 is needed to read thoughts (but can do so), you could implement situational modifiers based on lack of information. However, I'd keep them small - people who are very intuitive (i.e. good Wisdom) or trained can pick out a surprising amount from body language, how the person chooses to respond (giving a two word answer instead of a normal length answer could suggest that they're trying to conceal something), or even just changes in the person's behavior from normal. Because of this, if you give situational penalties for getting very little information, you should give situational bonuses if the person knows the target very well.

Lets take the 'how was school today?' example. If the kid pauses a half second before answering, that could tell you something. If the kid looks down, or to the side while answering, that could tell you something. If the kid says the first word slowly, as if giving himself time to think, that could tell you something.

I think the best way to make it so that Sense Motive is more interesting is if you avoid situations where it comes down to 'he's lying' or 'he's telling the truth'. Maybe he's lying for a reason that isn't what the party thinks. Maybe he's telling the truth as he sees it but is wrong, or has himself been deceived. Maybe its a lie of omission, so knowing that he's lying doesn't necessarily tell you what he's lying about.

Another thing you can do is you can explain what it is they picked up on with their check, so now they have to decide how to interpret that. For instance:

PC interrogating a captured prisoner: "Is the Tomeray bridge defended on Tuesday night?"
Prisoner: "No."
PC: I sense motive that for a 39!
DM: "You notice that he looked a bit surprised, then slightly smirked when he said that, and then quickly tried to hide it."
PC: So maybe he's trying to set us up for an ambush... but why did he look surprised? Okay, so I'll ask him: "What aren't you telling me?"
DM: He looks sullen and clams up.
PC: Hah, so he was hiding something. "Well, the dead don't lie. Cleric, prepare a Speak with Dead!"
DM: The prisoner looks panicked and says "Okay, okay, fine. The general moved out last night. The Tomeray bridge is undefended because he's sieging the capital as we speak."

[Larpus]

A good ruling is for the DM to never ask for the test, just throw in a quirk or two to get them wary (if it's important) or just allow if they randomly want to roll (but only trained for that) and the NPC gets a nice bonus, unless there's any reason to distrust him (and then anyone can roll).

Also, I as an occasional DM and the guys who DM to me would never allow a take 10 on a social test (both Sense Motive, Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate).

About roll vs. what happens, I (and the ones I play with) never considered the roll what you actually say (since it boils down to ridiculous levels of a long time street talker Rogue saying "derp" on a poor roll), so instead we consider it as being with how much conviction you say it, so a poor roll means the liar lets a clear indication slip, like his voice waving or something, while a good roll is a poker face.

And as a small tactic to use both as DM and player if the opposing party is wary of you: start with a good lie, if it sinks, nice, if it doesn't, possibly even nicer.

Now the opposing party truly has a reason to disbelieve you, so you start to pill on fat lies, the fattest you can get, so they're almost guaranteed not to sink and if they do it'll be so amusing it'll all be worth it.

And then, when there's absolutely no reason to believe a single word you say, so you simply tell the truth and make it look/sound like a lie (using Bluff) since by now you should have many bonuses to make everyone disbelieve you from lying so much, so the opposing party will be completely busy trying to sort out what is true and what is not...always fun to mess with the mind of someone who is too wary of something just to give them a lesson.

[OrganicGolem]

Just click the link. It's based on tactics used in real life.

Seriously, you guys never did this? You never caught someone lying, never felt something was off? :smallconfused:

I'm not saying it isn't possible to do, but someone who is even marginally good at lieing (and in the case of a kid who would skip school I imagine they know how to lie at least a little bit) who just responds with "yes it was" isn't going to show anything. That show, and those techniques require goading an answer out of someone, which as I go with requires more than a quick question.

[Killer Angel]

In the real world, you have absolutely no way to determine whether he's lying or not.


Someone should have told this to my parents, when I was young... :smallamused:



In D&D, that person rolls Bluff and you roll Sense Motive. If you are both average people you have +0 to both skills and then you have 50% chance of determining whether he's lying or not. By the rules, you don't have the impression that something may be wrong; you just know that he lied. Sense Motive is extremely more effective in D&D than it should be.


The person that wants to fool you, certainly rolls a bluff. The character rolls a Sense Motive only if the player declares it, otherwise, the character's not paying too much attention.
Trying to see through a bluff, comes with an effort, it's not for free. It's like the Search skill.



2.)An NPC is affected by an enchantment, so the PCs have a Sense Motive check to determine if something is wrong. I roll secretly; one of them succeeds and I tell him that he notices this person is constantly touching his eyes in a strange manner.
They later find out that he was dominated and get (a little) angry at me because by the rules I just had to tell them they noticed an enchantment effect was going on, instead of giving them a weak clue.


How would you change the Sense Motive mechanics to solve this problem?

You can use the mechanic you want (rolling secretly and telling "you're not sure about it"... who knows, maybe it was the truth, but the player failed the roll), even the one you'd described. Only, make it clear to your players before playing.

[Ernir]

I'm not saying it isn't possible to do, but someone who is even marginally good at lieing (and in the case of a kid who would skip school I imagine they know how to lie at least a little bit) who just responds with "yes it was" isn't going to show anything.

I don't know how many times I've had this conversation:

Me: "How was x?"
Some person: "Just fine."
Me: "OK, what's wrong?"

People you personally know make bad liars...

[Sir Enigma]

I don't know how many times I've had this conversation:

Me: "How was x?"
Some person: "Just fine."
Me: "OK, what's wrong?"


Or the dreaded

"What's wrong?"
"Nothing!"

conversation with a significant other, that lets you know straight away that you're in trouble...

Body language, tone of voice etc. carry a lot of information. Some people are good at controlling these things (high Charisma) or have learned to do so (ranks in Bluff - I've done this myself, and it really does take practice), but most people will give something away, and things like posture, tone of voice, facial expression, not looking you in the eye (if they usually would do) can easily come across in a very short conversation - you could even pick it up before anything is said.

[SilverLeaf167]

I think Sense Motive is handled pretty well in the example scenario on page 24 of the Dungeon Master's Guide II. A Sense Motive check to detect a lie should only be made if the character has an actual reason to doubt the truth of the other person's words. Changes in tone and gestures should probably be just roleplayed: the DM could describe the way that the liar speaks in, and how obvious the hints are could be based on the difference between the Bluff modifier of the liar and the Sense Motive modifier of the player.

Of course, this only works if you always describe the way NPCs speak in, or otherwise the very presence of the hints will immediately reveal the lie.


About real-life experience: when I was a kid, my dad always told me that my forehead wrinkles in a specific way when I'm lying. That's what you get for living with someone for a long time, especially if you're sort of paranoid.

[Tyger]

PC: Hah, so he was hiding something. "Well, the dead don't lie. Cleric, prepare a Speak with Dead!"

Awesome. I am so using this in game.

And yeah, I think the Sense Motive skill, as written, works quite well.

[Quietus]

I'm not saying it isn't possible to do, but someone who is even marginally good at lieing (and in the case of a kid who would skip school I imagine they know how to lie at least a little bit) who just responds with "yes it was" isn't going to show anything. That show, and those techniques require goading an answer out of someone, which as I go with requires more than a quick question.

Speaking as someone who's had reason to lie to his parents for most of his childhood, I can tell you straight up that while I got very good at passing things off when I wanted to (lots of practice), there ARE times when my parents would catch that something wasn't right from a simple "How was school?" "Fine", exchange. Parents get very used to their children's mannerisms, and can pick up on surprisingly small details - and there are some very common tells even among perfect strangers. If you ask a complete stranger a question along those lines, and they have something to hide, most people will have some kind of tell. Most often, they will look away, I've found, or will stumble over their words.

Will you know exactly what's wrong? No. But you can tell that SOMETHING'S up, if you're observant.

[Shpadoinkle]

How would you change the Sense Motive mechanics to solve this problem?

Situation 1: Circumstance bonus to the parent's SM check for being extremely familiar with the liar.

Situation 2: Uh... I'm not seeing the problem. Unless the problem is that the DM isn't following the rules of the game (specifically, the "if you roll above X on your SM check you can tell if someone is charmed, dominated, etc." rule). If you didn't want to announce it to everyone at the table you could have passed him a note saying "You can tell this guy's under an enchantment effect."

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what your problem with Sense Motive is.

[Tyndmyr]

They later find out that he was dominated and get (a little) angry at me because by the rules I just had to tell them they noticed an enchantment effect was going on, instead of giving them a weak clue.

How would you change the Sense Motive mechanics to solve this problem?

I wouldn't, since I don't see it as a problem. But no matter how you change it, tell your players in advance. You're much less likely to get annoyed players if you tell them about your changes before they decide what to play.

Now, on to why I don't view it as a problem.
1. I like viable skill monkeys. Magical means of detection are generally pretty certain. Often no chance of a failure unless someone has gone to lengths to cast specific countering spells(such as Nystil's Magic Aura). If you do not let sense motive actually sense motives, it doesn't compare.

2. Abstraction. D&D isn't about getting bogged down in the details. An attack roll is an abstraction, and a skill roll is an abstraction. You can give flavor text for either, certainly, but it is as silly to break the skill roll down as it would be to break an attack roll down("now roll to see at what angle you parry..."). Just get on with it.

3. Realism. Yeah. Some people are just terrible liars. I've looked at people and instantly gotten a vibe that they were lying, even if I couldn't tell you exactly why. People don't always consciously enumerate the actions of someone to figure out if they're telling the truth or not...a great deal of this happens at a subconscious level.

[Greenish]

Seriously, you guys never did this? You never caught someone lying, never felt something was off? :smallconfused:As someone who has negative bluff modifier, I can tell from experience that it's definitely possible. :smallwink:

[Pigkappa]

I really don't believe that you can understand whether someone is lying if they just tell you "Everything was fine".

You can have the impression that something's wrong. Maybe he paused 0.5 seconds more than normal before answering; the "time-he-pauses-before-answering" isn't likely to be a constant anyway and you aren't likely to be there with a chronometer to determine how long he paused. You may feel that something is going on if you already have reasons to be suspicious, but you can't really consider this a reliable method of determining whether he's saying the truth or not.

Also, if you pay attention to this sort of thing, I'm sure you will sometimes be wrong and become suspicious when there's really no reason to do so.


By the 3.5 rules instead, you just get to know whether he's lying or not.



Of course, this only works if you always describe the way NPCs speak in, or otherwise the very presence of the hints will immediately reveal the lie.

I think I will try even if my 8 Charisma makes this difficult...


What I don't like about the social skills (SM, but also Diplomacy and Bluff) is that they allow you to accomplish thing which are impossible in real life. With a +15 bonus to Jump checks you can easily have a 30 on your roll and jump 30 feet; this is hard but not so impossible in real life (the world record is more or less 30 feet). With a +15 to Bluff checks you can say "You might find this hard to believe, but I’m actually a lammasu who’s been polymorphed into halfling form by an evil sorcerer. You know we lammasu are trustworthy, so you can believe me" to the average person and there's a significant chance that person will believe you. With an easily achievable sense motive modifier you can always detect when someone is lying even if you have no reason to be suspicious and the lie doesn't affect you significantly.

[Veyr]

I don't know how many times I've had this conversation:

Me: "How was x?"
Some person: "Just fine."
Me: "OK, what's wrong?"

People you personally know make bad liars...
I have seriously done this on multiple occasions through Instant Message. I couldn't begin to guess how I knew something was off with so little information, but the few times it's happened, I've been right.

Of course, yes, always with people I know very well.

[Pigkappa]

When that happens, sometimes that person wants to speak about it and (almost) intentionally says "Just fine" in an unconvinced way. The same is true about the previous example:




"What's wrong?"
"Nothing!"

conversation with a significant other, that lets you know straight away that you're in trouble...


They are intentionally failing their Bluff checks here.

[Tyndmyr]

I really don't believe that you can understand whether someone is lying if they just tell you "Everything was fine".

And yet, I have suddenly understood someone to be lying when he has said such a short phrase. Hell, simple answers like "yes" or "no" can convey worlds of information based entirely on how they are said.


Also, if you pay attention to this sort of thing, I'm sure you will sometimes be wrong and become suspicious when there's really no reason to do so.

Not necessarily. You need not be paranoid to realize that someone is acting as if he's lying.


By the 3.5 rules instead, you just get to know whether he's lying or not.

So? Now you tell the players "He sounds like he's lying to you", or "you sense nothing wrong". Note that the not lying answer does sound remarkably like the answer when they roll too low.

There are other fun uses of the skill like hunches and what not, too. Those are a bit more vague(but has a static DC!) That is pretty much the use of it that does what you are asking for. If your players show no interest in it, making it the ONLY use of the skill is not going to be a popular move.


What I don't like about the social skills (SM, but also Diplomacy and Bluff) is that they allow you to accomplish thing which are impossible in real life. With a +15 bonus to Jump checks you can easily have a 30 on your roll and jump 30 feet; this is hard but not so impossible in real life (the world record is more or less 30 feet).

A shade over eight meters. It's quite possible to jump further than anyone on earth has ever jumped. At level one.

With the run feat, you can run a marathon dramatically faster than anyone on earth ever has. At level one.


With a +15 to Bluff checks you can say "You might find this hard to believe, but I’m actually a lammasu who’s been polymorphed into halfling form by an evil sorcerer. You know we lammasu are trustworthy, so you can believe me" to the average person and there's a significant chance that person will believe you. With an easily achievable sense motive modifier you can always detect when someone is lying even if you have no reason to be suspicious and the lie doesn't affect you significantly.

So? Have you read the histories and plotlines of most D&D settings? The adventurer telling tales of an evil sorcerer polymorphing him is quite possible.

Certainly more possible than breaking world records with ease.

[Shpadoinkle]

What I don't like about the social skills (SM, but also Diplomacy and Bluff) is that they allow you to accomplish thing which are impossible in real life.

...

Really.

.... REALLY?

Okay... here we go.


Originally posted by Merlin the Tuna on the WotC D&D boards

I mean, just look at skill totals at 9th level and above. You're doing some crazy **** on a regular basis, and most of the time you're not even thinking twice about it.This deserves an illustration, I think.

9th level Bard. He has 12 ranks of Perform, started with 16 Cha and increased it twice to 18 (+4). He also has a masterwork instrument (+2) and a Circlet of Persuasion (+3). His Perform modifier is now 12+4+2+3=+21. This means that, by taking ten, he nails a 31 every time. According to the PHB, this means that by playing on street corners, he will eventually attract the attention of extraplanar beings. Gimble will be sitting around drinking and playing his lute when a genie bamfs in and asks the gnome to perform at his kid's Bar Mitzvah.

9th level Rogue. He has 12 ranks of Balance, started with 16 Dex and boosted it twice to 18 (+4). He gets a +2 synergy bonus from Tumble ranks, for a total modifier of 12+4+2=+18. Taking 10, he will, every time, be able to move at full speed across a one inch wide marble-covered beam. (18+10-5=23 for the check, 20+2(scree) =22 for the DC.)

9th level Barbarian. 12 ranks of Climb, now has 18 (+4) Strength, for a final modifier of 12+4=+16. Taking 10, he gets a 26. He can now climb most mountains while raining, moving 40 feet every 6 seconds. (Check is 26-5=21 for accelerated climbing, DC is 15+5=20 for climbing a rough natural rock surface that's slippery.)

9th level Swashbuckler. 12 ranks of Jump, 12 (+1) Strength, +2 synergy from Tumble. His modifier is 12+1+2=+15. Taking 10 gets him a 25. The female world record for the long jump is (7.52 meters)*(3.28 feet/meter) = 24.7 feet. This character beats that every time he wants to. The men's record is 8.95*3.28= 29.3 feet, which his character could swing pretty easily if he so desired. When the character rolls instead of taking 10, he can hit as much as 35 feet, blowing past the world record by two yards.

9th level Beguiler. 12 ranks in Disguise, 14 (+2) Charisma, with a disguise kit (+2). Total modifier is +16, taking 10 gets him a 26. He can disguise himself as a woman's human husband (+10 for intimate familiarity) as long as she has a Spot modifier of 6 or less.
Because it's fun to pick on Fighters, let's say this woman is Fighter. We'll generously give her a Wisdom of 14 (+2), which means she needs 4.5 ranks to beat the spread and win the check with a 26.5 (again assuming taking 10). Since spot is cross-class, the soonest she could get that many is at 6th level.

May the gods help you if this guy uses Disguise Self to boost his check by another 10. Or if he's a Bard, kicking his Charisma up another couple notches.

9th level Monk. 12 ranks in sense motive, 16 (+3) Wisdom. Final modifier is 12+3=+15. Taking 10, he can instantly tell whether a person is under the effects of Charm Person or not, every time. (DC 25) And that isn't "I've a sneaking suspicion that something is wrong here" so much as it's "Hi, my name is Benedict Thelonious. Also, you're charmed."

9th level Bard again. 12 "ranks" in Speak Language nets him 12 languages, because Bards are awesome like that. There are only 20 of the things listed in the PHB, one of them is Druidic, and he starts with a few because of race and intelligence. He learns this from hanging out in bars, and in addition to everything else he can do. I don't think there are many people in the world that can boast that kind of repertoire, and finding one in his mid-20s that's also a competent in battle, magic (which we can approximate to some degree with science or technology), and whatever this guy is burning his other 5+Int skill points on is fairly definitely impossible.

9th level Ranger goes tracking. 12 ranks in Survival, 14 (+2) Wisdom, +4 from Search and Know: Nature synergy, and +2 from some manner of tracking kit. Modifier is 12+2+4+2= +20, which means he takes 10 to get a 30. To match this, the DC is going to look like this: 4+5+1+20. That comes from tracking a single Toad (+4 DC for being Diminutive) that is covering his tracks (+5) after an hour of rainfall (+1) over bare rock (20).


I also saw this one on /tg/.


So, giants get to walk around and dragons get to fly, but god forbid a player class be able to do anything that isn't strictly physically possible in the real world, even at 20th level.

[Doug Lampert]

A shade over eight meters. It's quite possible to jump further than anyone on earth has ever jumped. At level one.

You get three tries in competative long-jump, and the world record comes from the best that the best in the world has done in HUNDREDS of tries.

Level 1 Barbarian. Human because we're looking at the best that's humanly possible.

4 Ranks, 4 from strength, 4 from speed, 4 from Run feat, 3 from skill focus feat (human, remember). +19 check. I take 10 and ROUTINELY approximately make the world record. Then I roll a 20 one day and get a 39' long jump.

Over 3 yards longer than the world record. And I can do this on unprepared surfaces while wearing a chain shirt or other armor and in riding boots with a heavy pack for a total of 100lb of gear.

Modern althletic shoes are likely masterwork tools for jumping, and the track suit and prepared course are probably good for a circumstance bonus (unless your sense of "realism" tells you that 100lb of gear SHOULDN'T have an effect on jumping). So I'm probably making 33'+ on a take 10 if I'm actually at a competition rather than jumping a chasm in a dungeon.

Seriously, D&D skills aren't horribly unrealistic at low levels (say up to level 5), but it's still a fantasy game where you can do flatly impossible things at level 1. Arguing that "sense motive" is somehow LESS realistic because it lets you do what many people can do in the real world is just plain silly.

[Pigkappa]

Ok, you are right. Nearly all of the skills are broken and allow you to do things which make totally no sense at low levels.

However many of those aren't often a problem. Being able to jump more than the current world record is unlikely to significantly affect the plot, and so is being able to climb over an extremely difficult mountain. Skills as Diplomacy, Disguise, Bluff and Sense Motive can be easily used to affect the plot every session.

But yes, the whole skill system sucks.

[true_shinken]

Ok, you are right. Nearly all of the skills are broken and allow you to do things which make totally no sense at low levels.

However many of those aren't often a problem. Being able to jump more than the current world record is unlikely to significantly affect the plot, and so is being able to climb over an extremely difficult mountain. Skills as Diplomacy, Disguise, Bluff and Sense Motive can be easily used to affect the plot every session.

But yes, the whole skill system sucks.

I think the problem is here is not the skill system, it's that you underestimate what a human being can accomplish.
Take Bluff, for example. In my country, there is a dude called Marcelo Nascimento da Rocha. By lying alone, this guy spent years passing as other people, convincing other he was wealthy and stuff like that. His most infamous accomplishment was during Recifolia, a kind of festival, where he managed to through lying alone get a room in a 5 star hotel with all expenses paid, gave interviews broadcasted live in national television and spent the nights partying with the most beautiful actresses in the country (heck, in the world, there are no women like brazilian women).
He was arrested and they made a movie about him. When the producer went to talk with this guy, Marcelo bluffed the producer and became an associate of his.
VIPs, the movie, (http://www.vipsofilme.com.br/blog/)only in portuguese until Marcelo bluffs someone in Hollywood into releasing it.

EDIT: Heck, there is a Hollywood movie based on a true story about a guy that did almost the same thing. Catch me if you Can, with Leonardo diCaprio and Tom Hanks.

[Thespianus]

Seriously, you guys never did this? You never caught someone lying, never felt something was off? :smallconfused:
Yeah, it happens in actual, real life situations quite a bit.

Like in our last 3.5 session, I thought the player of our Sorcerer was lying about the number of rounds that had passed for his Haste spell... ;)

[Telonius]

EDIT: Heck, there is a Hollywood movie based on a true story about a guy that did almost the same thing. Catch me if you Can, with Leonardo diCaprio and Tom Hanks.


Frank Abagnale would have probably had stats something like:

CHA +4
Feats: Skill Focus: Bluff
Persuasive (human bonus feat)
4 ranks in Bluff
Total: +13

He also has maxed out ranks in Forgery, Gather Information, and Knowledge (Local), so he's probably working with the equivalent of a masterwork tool (forged document) or somehow gotten another circumstance bonus to help make his lie believable. So, let's say +15 altogether.

Some of his bluffs were the typical "con game" stuff - the target wants to believe you, for a -5 to the opposed Sense Motive. He's looking at (effectively) a +20 to his bluff check. His minimum result on that kind of bluff is a 21.

As a level 1 Expert.

Let that sink in for a minute. Take your average first level commoner, 10 Wis, no ranks in sense motive. It is literally impossible for the average person to know they're being bluffed by this guy. (And, in practice, that's basically what happened). Even on something where there's no particular reason to disbelieve, the commoner's going to need to beat a minimum of 16. You would need somebody like an obsessed expert FBI agent to track this guy down.

[Larpus]

What I don't like about the social skills (SM, but also Diplomacy and Bluff) is that they allow you to accomplish thing which are impossible in real life. With a +15 bonus to Jump checks you can easily have a 30 on your roll and jump 30 feet; this is hard but not so impossible in real life (the world record is more or less 30 feet). With a +15 to Bluff checks you can say "You might find this hard to believe, but I’m actually a lammasu who’s been polymorphed into halfling form by an evil sorcerer. You know we lammasu are trustworthy, so you can believe me" to the average person and there's a significant chance that person will believe you. With an easily achievable sense motive modifier you can always detect when someone is lying even if you have no reason to be suspicious and the lie doesn't affect you significantly.
Let's not forget that, not only the DM can rule 0 it as way too out of reality for anyone with half a brain to buy without proof, but it's also possible to stack penalties for such a ridiculous lie.

Sure, the base DC is 30 to tell something incredible, but if you turn it up to 11, then you start to stack -5s.


And worst comes to worst you as the DM can simply throw the exact same thing back to your players to teach them the valuable lesson that, if they're jerking you around, they're giving you the right to jerk them around.

In the exact example, have an NPC come to them and say that. Do they believe the NPC?

No? Well, too bad, dice says you just did...or roll with it and punish them for not believing such as turns out the NPC was telling the truth in a way to make it look like a lie and now the PC doesn't get goodies for not believing the NPC.

Yes? Well, punish them anyway, just to show how ridiculous that sounds.

[jguy]

What one issue about bluff and sense motive is that it involves Real Life abilities too.

I have a great ability to keep a straight face, not smile, and sound believable all the time. If I make an NPC lie, most of the time my players don't even think of rolling sense motive versus me. They take my word for it almost 100% of the time. Now I preroll my bluffs so I act out the result. High bluffs get my full effort, low rolls get my skeevy, ratty, nervous attempts to lie.

My DM has the opposite problem. He takes medication to keep him steady so if he has an NPC interact they all come off the same. Steady, monotone, and not surprised. Hell, I was holding the decapitated head of a Merchant Prince through the streets of the town once and no one noticed. I actually had to ask my DM how some of the NPC's were feeling since he couldn't act it out, he had to tell me. In this case I roll Sense Motive a lot just so I can get a read off these guys that I can't off of my DM.

[Doug Lampert]

Ok, you are right. Nearly all of the skills are broken and allow you to do things which make totally no sense at low levels.

However many of those aren't often a problem. Being able to jump more than the current world record is unlikely to significantly affect the plot, and so is being able to climb over an extremely difficult mountain. Skills as Diplomacy, Disguise, Bluff and Sense Motive can be easily used to affect the plot every session.

But yes, the whole skill system sucks.

No, actually the skill system is pretty good. Something like GURPS, famed among many for it's ability to model "actual humans" does it FAR FAR WORSE. And last time I looked at Hero it was laughably worse. (That was probably several editions ago, but I doubt it has really improved.)

Just having no auto-succeed or auto-fail and no fumble or open ended rolls on skills gives D&D a huge leg up on other games right there (realistic fumble rules are presumably possible, I've just never encountered a set in an actual game). The excessively high variance on a d20 roll is the biggest source of problems, but that's there because RPG players LIKE random, and the "take 10" rule goes a long way toward fixing that.

The problem you're having isn't that the skills aren't realistic (except for a dedicated diplomancer, that's just sick). It's that your belief about reality doesn't seem to be realistic, in the real world plenty of people have spotted lies even on short statements where the liar wasn't under any particular pressure, and in the real world plenty of people have gotten away with ridiculous lies. These are both things some people can be rather good at.

The exact ease of determining a lie by skills may well be off. But who cares? Magic still trumps skills, so have no fear about skills spoiling your adventures, if that's happening then it means at least magic isn't being used to render skills irrelevant, which is a substantial net plus IMAO.

DougL

[OrganicGolem]

When a friend responds with 'I'm fine' and you know something is up, it is because of all the time you have spent talking with them. If you just met someone at a party and asked how the party is and they responded with 'Fine' you wouldn't have any reason to doubt that answer unless it was a bangin party... but that represents one of those times when a skill check is appropriate.

[true_shinken]

When a friend responds with 'I'm fine' and you know something is up, it is because of all the time you have spent talking with them. If you just met someone at a party and asked how the party is and they responded with 'Fine' you wouldn't have any reason to doubt that answer unless it was a bangin party... but that represents one of those times when a skill check is appropriate.

You have obviously never worked as a salesman. You end up doing this to all of your customers.
EDIT: Teachers are good examples as well. You just happen to pick up lies out of thin air. Or do you really believe your teachers believed when you said them you couldn't meet the deadline because you had the flu? or that your dog ate your homework? We are goddamn teachers. We knoe everything. :smalltongue:

What I think is that you, as a person, is not very good at detecting lies and you want the D&D system to reflect it. Sounds weird.

[The Cat Goddess]

...

Really.

.... REALLY?

Okay... here we go.



I also saw this one on /tg/.

Awesomeness.

[OrganicGolem]

You have obviously never worked as a salesman. You end up doing this to all of your customers.
EDIT: Teachers are good examples as well. You just happen to pick up lies out of thin air. Or do you really believe your teachers believed when you said them you couldn't meet the deadline because you had the flu? or that your dog ate your homework? We are goddamn teachers. We knoe everything. :smalltongue:

What I think is that you, as a person, is not very good at detecting lies and you want the D&D system to reflect it. Sounds weird.

Teachers get to know their students, do that is right out. Usually the simple lie works the first time or two, assuming the teacher cares about excuses at all.

Also, I lie to salespeople all the time with simple 'yes' 'no' 'fine' answers, and I've never had them not believe those answers for any reason

[Tyger]

Teachers get to know their students, do that is right out. Usually the simple lie works the first time or two, assuming the teacher cares about excuses at all.

Also, I lie to salespeople all the time with simple 'yes' 'no' 'fine' answers, and I've never had them not believe those answers for any reason

There is a difference between them not calling you out on your lie (which would cost them the sale) and believing you.

As someone who's been a salesman, a lawyer and a mediator, you can develop the skills to very quickly and easily read a person, even someone you've never met. It takes a fair amount to fool someone who's trained in reading body language and behavioural patterns. If you've received any interrogation or interview training, you become VERY adept at reading people. To the point where people tell you that you're creepy. :smallcool:

So in short, while D&D is anything but a realistic game, the mechanics for both bluff and sense motive are not even close to the most game breaking. Diplomacy, now that is broken and doesn't mirror, even remotely, reality.

[erikun]

No? Well, too bad, dice says you just did...or roll with it and punish them for not believing such as turns out the NPC was telling the truth in a way to make it look like a lie and now the PC doesn't get goodies for not believing the NPC.
Terrible idea; never tell the players what their characters think. You can't tell a player that no, their character really did believe that outlandish lie.

A better idea would be to give some ridiculous explanation but inform the party that the NPC seems extremely confident that it is the case. And there is evidence that corroborates the story. And that the other NPCs believe him as well. It's rather hard for the party to murder the guy with the BBEG sign around his neck while he's protected by the royal guard and getting an award from the king for saving thousands of lives.

[Grendus]

I've always felt the giants diplomacy rules work better, though they're still messy. It's at least a partially opposed check, diplomancing the great red wyrm is way more difficult than diplomancing Joe the Farmer, and none of this "fanatical" crap. It's still abuseable (some TO builds can break +200 diplomacy modifier at 20, and getting a +18 check isn't hard by level 2), but at least the standard bard/rogue/paladin party face won't be able to convince the king to hand over his crown with a rushed diplomacy check.

[Etrivar]

Sense Motive does not tell you the truth, except in a very narrow sense. Success vs. the bluff, "Yes, school was fine today," does not tell you that the kid wasn't in school. It just tells you that he's not being totally truthful - school wasn't fine today. That might be because the teacher yelled at him, or he got into a fight with his friend, or his girlfriend dumped him, or any number of other things.

Another limitation inherent to the Sense Motive skill is: what constitutes a lie? Being a gay guy in the military, I frequently have to lead people to believe things about my sexuality that aren't true. However, I don't think I have ever actually lied about being gay, just used statements like; 'She's not my type' and 'No, I don't have a girlfriend right now' (the fact that I never have had one and never plan to, have no bearing on weather I have one right now) and 'No, I don't really want a girlfriend right now' (again, the fact that I never will has no bearing on weather I want one right now). Are the above statements true? Completely. Are they misleading? Certainly. Would those fall under a bluff check? It's not really lying, it's... presenting the facts in a manner conducive to misinterpretation.

This is a tactic that my DM would use all the time to deny us a Sense Motive check, because we always had one player who would invest heavily in it.

[Coidzor]

Who but the face has the skillpoints to afford it?


This is a tactic that my DM would use all the time to deny us a Sense Motive check, because we always had one player who would invest heavily in it.

That's a horrible tactic. He's forcing you to have no basis for judging intent of characters and to always go off of whether or not you trust the DM to be screwing with you and rather than just nixing the skill outright, he's causing those skillpoints to be wasted, further screwing you all over, since he could have put those points into spot or listen which would've benefited the party.

But then, taking this sort of thing to the logical conclusion would make spot and listen also go the way of the dodo so that the party couldn't avoid those pre-planned surprise rounds.

[Thespianus]

Also, I lie to salespeople all the time with simple 'yes' 'no' 'fine' answers, and I've never had them not believe those answers for any reason
You probably won't have a salesperson calling you a liar. They have too many ranks in Diplomacy to do that. ;)

[faceroll]

In the real world, there are lots of ways to corroborate or disprove such statements. Most schools auto-call parents when students don't show up. Tell your son to produce all the returned quizzes and graded homework received that day. Ask what was served in the school cafeteria at lunchtime, then go online to the school's web site to verify.

Sense Motive is the quick way to get to the important plot point, without having to drag out NPC conversations interminably, as in the examples I've given above.

Or you simply believe your son or don't care enough and suck up the -5 or -10 penalty or whatever.

[Killer Angel]

Yeah, it happens in actual, real life situations quite a bit.


Bluff Vs Sense Motive? yeah, in every single poker game. :smallcool:

(edit: BTW, there's a reason expressions like "poker face" exist, after all...)

[Tyndmyr]

What I think is that you, as a person, is not very good at detecting lies and you want the D&D system to reflect it. Sounds weird.

This is my conclusion as well. Nothing wrong with that, it's hard to be trained in all skills in RL too.

But while I, personally, can't disarm traps, I see no reason to believe that others can't, if they train at it. Sense Motive is no more unrealistic a skill than Disable Device is.

[Larpus]

Terrible idea; never tell the players what their characters think. You can't tell a player that no, their character really did believe that outlandish lie.

A better idea would be to give some ridiculous explanation but inform the party that the NPC seems extremely confident that it is the case. And there is evidence that corroborates the story. And that the other NPCs believe him as well. It's rather hard for the party to murder the guy with the BBEG sign around his neck while he's protected by the royal guard and getting an award from the king for saving thousands of lives.
Meant that as a counter to "Roll Players", you know the sort that says whatever, even the most ridiculous nonsense and expects you to eat up just 'cus he rolled a 19 on his Bluff and you blew a 3 on the SM.

If you have to suck up to the numbers, so do they.

The way I see it, being a jerk is a free pass so others can be jerks to you too.