Is there any reason to put ranks into Sense Motive?

[Extra Anchovies]

Specifically, do player characters ever really need the skill, from a metagame perspective? It's generally a good idea to not entirely trust anything an NPC tells you, and with sufficient out-of-character recordkeeping and in-character information access (whether through knowledge checks or through research), it should be easy enough to tell if someone's lying to you (or at least get enough of a hunch that they're lying to verify what they're telling you, which you should be doing anyways). If the skill gave you some way to force a liar to tell you the truth when you beat their Bluff check, then it would be useful, but I don't see many situations where making a check would be more useful than actually thinking about what you're being told.

Also, from a game-enjoyment perspective, a Sense Motive-focused character would probably want to use it frequently, which A) slows down gameplay by adding more dice rolls and B) takes the fun roleplaying challenge of figuring out if someone's lying and reduces it to a die roll.

[Sacrieur]

I feel bad for your DM.

[ace rooster]

Improved feint. Insightful feint. Sneak attack to the face. :smallbiggrin:

Other than that, not really.

[PsyBomb]

Really depends on the game. I always drop a rank in there on classes which have it as a class skill, it's basically social Perception depending on the DM.

[Troacctid]

Let me answer your question with a question. Would you rather guess someone's hidden motivations, or know their hidden motivations?

[OldTrees1]

You can use a bunch of different skills together to replicate Sense Motive, but that is true for many skills. It only costs 1 skill's worth of points to have the correct skill. It takes 2-3 times as many points to take the detour.

Personally, I would take it since it cuts down on the amount of skills I would need to cover.

[Geddy2112]

One of the most useful things sense motive can do is sense if somebody is under the effect of a mind controlling enchantment. The DC is fairly low and knowing that enchantments are in play can drastically change how players go through an encounter.

While it is good if players take good notes and figure out how and when NPC's are lying, it is also helpful to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an NPC is telling the truth, or how/why they are lying. Another use is to determine secret messages being passed, which could be happening in a conversation or in ways that the player can't know out of character.

Sense motive should always be rolled in secret by the DM, so players don't know if they got false information or the wrong read. Even people who are good at reading others might get it wrong from time to time. Even if the players know what they are hearing is true or false, there is still plenty of roleplay challenge as to what to do with that. Having constant dice roles replace roleplaying is certainly not great, but taking away the mechanical ability to determine truth or falsehood is the opposite extreme. If you do away with sense motive, might as well take out discern lies and any other divination magic.

Some other mechanics run off sense motive. For example, the snake style feat chain uses sense motive to avoid attacks and confirm critical hits.

[Elricaltovilla]

I love Sense Motive, not just because I'm playing a Zweihander Sentinel Warder (Dat Scarlet Throne). As a player it's great for social situations where you don't want to mess up. As a DM I like it when my players use it as a "gimme a clue here" skill, sometimes one extra roll is better than having the party sit and stare at three statues for 15 real world minutes not doing anything because they're arguing over how to solve the puzzle.

[Twilightwyrm]

I find it is helpful specifically from a non-metagame perspective. Sure, if you are always going to play the suspicious type and never trust anything anyone says, then it suppose it is a tad unnecessary, but a successful sense motive check doesn't just let you know someone is lying, but gives you a (further) justification that someone is lying.
Additionally, you can make the check against a base DC of 20 to get a reading on any social situation, to ferret out imposters, or just to tell if someone is trustworthy in general. Even if you fail the opposed roll, you can at least get a read on whether a person seems generally trustworthy.
Finally, see page 102 of Complete Adventurer for the "Assess Opponent" use of the skill. As a standard action (there is a feat that reduces this I believe) you can make a Sense Motive Check opposed by your opponents Bluff check (assuming they choose to make one) to determine their CR in relation to you. From an in game perspective this is often helpful with a monster your character doesn't know much about, and even from a meta-game perspective this is handy when you are potentially facing something with class levels.

[OldTrees1]

Finally, see page 102 of Complete Adventurer for the "Assess Opponent" use of the skill. As a standard action (there is a feat that reduces this I believe) you can make a Sense Motive Check opposed by your opponents Bluff check (assuming they choose to make one) to determine their CR in relation to you. From an in game perspective this is often helpful with a monster your character doesn't know much about, and even from a meta-game perspective this is handy when you are potentially facing something with class levels.
As a DM, I Love this usage. It makes it easier for me to signal when the PCs are in over their heads if I failed to provide enough warning signs earlier.

[Killer Angel]

As DM, I love characters with Sense Motive. It gives me the chance to throw some additional hints, if they're in trouble.

[Extra Anchovies]

I feel bad for your DM.

This is a purely theoretical discussion.


Let me answer your question with a question. Would you rather guess someone's hidden motivations, or know their hidden motivations?

Except it doesn't tell you what their hidden motivations are. All it tells you is that they're lying to you. Catching secret messages would be useful but is very situational.


One of the most useful things sense motive can do is sense if somebody is under the effect of a mind controlling enchantment. The DC is fairly low and knowing that enchantments are in play can drastically change how players go through an encounter.

Hm. You have a point here. The DC is only low (15) for dominate effects; everything else mind-affecting is DC 25. Still low enough to be useful.


While it is good if players take good notes and figure out how and when NPC's are lying, it is also helpful to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an NPC is telling the truth, or how/why they are lying. Another use is to determine secret messages being passed, which could be happening in a conversation or in ways that the player can't know out of character.

The issue here is that to catch every lie/secret message, you need to roll Sense Motive for literally everything your PC hears, which would make you seem more like a paranoid weirdo than sticking to purely roleplaying and recordkeeping to catch lies.


Sense motive should always be rolled in secret by the DM, so players don't know if they got false information or the wrong read.

And that's one of my issues with the skill. You can't ever know if your Sense Motive check was successful, nor can you even know if there was a bluff check for it to oppose.


I find it is helpful specifically from a non-metagame perspective. Sure, if you are always going to play the suspicious type and never trust anything anyone says, then it suppose it is a tad unnecessary, but a successful sense motive check doesn't just let you know someone is lying, but gives you a (further) justification that someone is lying.

What do you mean by this? I want a rules quote if possible so I know what you're talking about.


Additionally, you can make the check against a base DC of 20 to get a reading on any social situation, to ferret out imposters, or just to tell if someone is trustworthy in general. Even if you fail the opposed roll, you can at least get a read on whether a person seems generally trustworthy.
Finally, see page 102 of Complete Adventurer for the "Assess Opponent" use of the skill. As a standard action (there is a feat that reduces this I believe) you can make a Sense Motive Check opposed by your opponents Bluff check (assuming they choose to make one) to determine their CR in relation to you. From an in game perspective this is often helpful with a monster your character doesn't know much about, and even from a meta-game perspective this is handy when you are potentially facing something with class levels.

Hm. Both useful. I'll keep them in mind next time I'm in a situation where I'm indecisive between Sense Motive and another skill.

[Geddy2112]

The issue here is that to catch every lie/secret message, you need to roll Sense Motive for literally everything your PC hears, which would make you seem more like a paranoid weirdo than sticking to purely roleplaying and recordkeeping to catch lies.

And that's one of my issues with the skill. You can't ever know if your Sense Motive check was successful, nor can you even know if there was a bluff check for it to oppose.

If players rolled every time a skill check was required then players would be rolling almost every moment at the table, and most of these skill checks have a DC of 10 or less. Perception checks alone would make the game a nightmare, and all of the strength/dex skills come up very often. This is why take 10 is a thing-so players and DM's don't have to roll for every little check, particularly when the results either way are trivial. Players are assumed to be aware of things and reasonably competent at basic living when not under duress. Understanding if the bartender is lying that ale is 5 copper instead of 4 is not as big of a deal than the BBEG lying about a major plot point.

For most things, I let players roll sense motive openly. I have never had a player who wanted to roll sense motive just because-most of the time the players had other evidence/hunches and are using sense motive to confirm.

[Extra Anchovies]

If players rolled every time a skill check was required then players would be rolling almost every moment at the table, and most of these skill checks have a DC of 10 or less. Perception checks alone would make the game a nightmare, and all of the strength/dex skills come up very often. This is why take 10 is a thing-so players and DM's don't have to roll for every little check, particularly when the results either way are trivial. Players are assumed to be aware of things and reasonably competent at basic living when not under duress. Understanding if the bartender is lying that ale is 5 copper instead of 4 is not as big of a deal than the BBEG lying about a major plot point.

For most things, I let players roll sense motive openly. I have never had a player who wanted to roll sense motive just because-most of the time the players had other evidence/hunches and are using sense motive to confirm.

Hm. Forcing a take 10 on Sense Motive certainly resolves the issue of rolling for everything. Then the DM only needs to roll the bluff checks, with the Sense Motive take 10 setting the DC. I like this.

[Troacctid]

Except it doesn't tell you what their hidden motivations are. All it tells you is that they're lying to you. Catching secret messages would be useful but is very situational.

No, a flat DC 20 check gives you a general assessment of their character, even if they never attempt a Bluff check.

[Geddy2112]

Hm. Forcing a take 10 on Sense Motive certainly resolves the issue of rolling for everything. Then the DM only needs to roll the bluff checks, with the Sense Motive take 10 setting the DC. I like this.

You can speed it up even faster and have non important NPC's take 10 in bluff as well. I keep stats on hand for sense motive, perception etc. and assume they take ten(with all appropriate modifiers) unless they ask for a roll(which they are happy to give). I assume adventurers are savvy enough to know their own strengths and weaknesses; the sorcerer is a better liar than the monk, but not as good at reading people(generally).

[Chronos]

Suppose you talk to ten different nobles about the plot against the king, and their ten different accounts aren't all entirely consistent with each other. You know someone's lying, and you're probably going to investigate all of their stories... But wouldn't it be nice to know who to investigate first?

[Gnaeus]

5 ranks gives +2 diplomacy. Diplomacy is so good it is broken.

[Shining Wrath]

Like Perception, Sense Motive is something that ought to be "always on". Since lying is pretty common in most worlds, most people are somewhat sensitive to "tells" that someone is lying.

If you're trying to buy an item from a merchant, a Sense Motive check to know that he is actually selling you what he claims he's selling you might be useful. Of course, there's always Identify (at 100 GP a pop), or various Knowledge skills - or, you can know he's lying to you.

Is the peasant giving you accurate directions? SM.
Is the king sending you to certain doom when he asks you to rescue the princess? SM.

On and on.

[Twilightwyrm]

What do you mean by this? I want a rules quote if possible so I know what you're talking about.


In retrospect I seem to have phrased that a bit weird. Allow me to elaborate: Getting a success on Sense Motive means that your character has figured out this NPC is likely lying. Therefore, if player knowledge vs. PC knowledge is at all a factor in the role-playing of your games, and assuming your PC isn't just naturally suspicious of everyone, a successful sense motive allows you to better justify acting on your suspicions as a player. It's not so much a rules thing, as an advantage in a specific style of role-playing.

[icefractal]

and with sufficient out-of-character recordkeeping and in-character information access (whether through knowledge checks or through research), it should be easy enough to tell if someone's lying to you (or at least get enough of a hunch that they're lying to verify what they're telling you, which you should be doing anyways).Citation needed. I mean sure, if by "in-character information access" you mean "unlimited scrying on all locations simultaneously", then yes. But otherwise, only some of the time.

A man (who you've never met before) runs up to you while you're on the road, tells you that a wagon up ahead is teetering on the edge of a ravine, and begs you to hurry with him and help pull it back to solid ground before those inside plummet to their death. Legitimate emergency, or empty wagon with bandits hiding nearby to surround you once your back is to a cliff? Without Sense Motive, how will you 'easily' tell if he's lying?

[Afgncaap5]

Hmm... if a player making a character asked me this question, I would let them know that they're welcome to try running the game without it.

Seriously, though, this is one of those skills where I invent usage. In addition to the regular uses of the skill listed, I'll let a character figure out if they're being watched to commit some sort of costly faux pas (which usually leads to a Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) check), to get a quick sense for how much of the tavern bruiser's talk is just swagger and how much is actually backed up, and, of course, bluffing during gambling.

This isn't a skill that a typical Fighter needs, but it may well be a skill for an atypical Fighter who's getting ready to impress me.

[Honest Tiefling]

I somewhat house rule this skill to also give an impression of other people's reactions as well as their trustworthiness. I have never really written it up, but perhaps I should one day.

The idea being that perhaps you know the barkeep is lying, but hints as to the reason why would be in how they react. Someone lying while seeming fearful will hopefully lead to different conclusions then if they did so angrily or tiredly.

Also, diplomancers can roll it in my games to judge how people are taking things, and rolling it at the right time could lead to them getting a chance to correct their approach.

Not to mention, even without this house rule, time and sticking together will often be an issue, so fact checking may not be possible in all cases.

[Darth Ultron]

Also, from a game-enjoyment perspective, a Sense Motive-focused character would probably want to use it frequently, which A) slows down gameplay by adding more dice rolls and B) takes the fun roleplaying challenge of figuring out if someone's lying and reduces it to a die roll.

Well, remember not every has the real skill and ability to really role play being smart, clever or careful. So they need the dice roll to help them out and tell them what is going on. That is why the skill exists, to aid game play.

[PaucaTerrorem]

The skills importance depends heavily on the DM and game.

A mostly combat focused game, probably not. Unless the DM likes to use feinters.

A heavy social game, hell yeah I'm taking it.

It's all case by case.

[ryu]

Citation needed. I mean sure, if by "in-character information access" you mean "unlimited scrying on all locations simultaneously", then yes. But otherwise, only some of the time.

A man (who you've never met before) runs up to you while you're on the road, tells you that a wagon up ahead is teetering on the edge of a ravine, and begs you to hurry with him and help pull it back to solid ground before those inside plummet to their death. Legitimate emergency, or empty wagon with bandits hiding nearby to surround you once your back is to a cliff? Without Sense Motive, how will you 'easily' tell if he's lying?

Considering the sheer anti-likelihood of the story as compared to the relative likelihood of the alternative hypothesis? Present evidence or I don't believe you. If you had time to run all the way here for help you've time to present evidence or at least explain the situation better.

In the even that the wagon falls and actually did have innocents in it we've a cleric with relevant raise dead and a host of flying spells.

[Kazyan]

It's generally a good idea to not entirely trust anything an NPC tells you, and with sufficient out-of-character recordkeeping and in-character information access (whether through knowledge checks or through research), it should be easy enough to tell if someone's lying to you (or at least get enough of a hunch that they're lying to verify what they're telling you, which you should be doing anyways).

Also be sure to assume a spherical party in a frictionless vacuum.

[Darth Tom]

Sense motive also allows you to move beyond the typical Monty Python references to Deanna Troi.

When your character has an arrow sticking out of their chest, roll Sense Motive, then say, "I sense... hostility".

[Andezzar]

Specifically, do player characters ever really need the skill, from a metagame perspective? It's generally a good idea to not entirely trust anything an NPC tells you, and with sufficient out-of-character recordkeeping and in-character information access (whether through knowledge checks or through research), it should be easy enough to tell if someone's lying to you (or at least get enough of a hunch that they're lying to verify what they're telling you, which you should be doing anyways). If the skill gave you some way to force a liar to tell you the truth when you beat their Bluff check, then it would be useful, but I don't see many situations where making a check would be more useful than actually thinking about what you're being told.I get that it is sometimes necessary to write down plot points but the amount of OOC record keeping necessary to reliably verify most of what NPCs say seems a bit metagamey to me, unless there also is IC record keeping, which could be witnessed and reacted upon by the NPCs.


Let me answer your question with a question. Would you rather guess someone's hidden motivations, or know their hidden motivations?(Un)fortunately Sense Motive does not divulge the NPC's hidden motivations. It merely reveals whether he leaves clues to be lying (sweating, twitching, pupil dilation etc.) Those clues are most valuable when you cannot verify the NPCs claims. It's rather pointless to look for a twitch while the NPC is telling you that there is trewasure behind the door, when you know that the room behind it is empty.

[Amphetryon]

Considering the sheer anti-likelihood of the story as compared to the relative likelihood of the alternative hypothesis? Present evidence or I don't believe you. If you had time to run all the way here for help you've time to present evidence or at least explain the situation better.

In the even that the wagon falls and actually did have innocents in it we've a cleric with relevant raise dead and a host of flying spells.

Is 'present evidence or I don't believe you' the default response you or your Character has every single time with each and every new NPC who ever speaks, or are you merely nitpicking at this particular scenario for reasons?

Also, 'present evidence or I don't believe you' sounds suspiciously like another way of saying 'I roll Sense Motive.'

[Gnaeus]

A man (who you've never met before) runs up to you while you're on the road, tells you that a wagon up ahead is teetering on the edge of a ravine, and begs you to hurry with him and help pull it back to solid ground before those inside plummet to their death. Legitimate emergency, or empty wagon with bandits hiding nearby to surround you once your back is to a cliff? Without Sense Motive, how will you 'easily' tell if he's lying?

With sense motive, how can you tell if he's lying? Sense motive takes 10 rounds (Generally takes at least a minute). By the time you used it, they are dead.

[Uncle Pine]

As a standard action, you can use Sense Motive to ascertain how tough a challenge a visible target within 30 ft. poses for you. This is really useful in countless situations. Here are some examples:
- you can use it to discover if the drunk hobo is really just a commoner or a powerful adventurer/quest giver/villain in disguise;
- you can use it to reasonably point the DMPC in a crowd;
- you can use it to discover whether or not your DM put Invincible City Guards in the capital city without recurring to metagame;
- you can use it to valuate foes if your DM commonly uses highly customized creatures but doesn't give enough clues to figure out their real threat (i.e. paragon Tiny fluffy bunny);
- you can use it the intended way to know whether or not the Wizard needs to go nova for the current encounter.

I admit that this use of Sense Motive particularly shines with bad DMs, but it's useful in every situation to gather additional infos in an unobtrusive way.

EDIT: Source - Rules Compendium 68.

[Aldrakan]

Considering the sheer anti-likelihood of the story as compared to the relative likelihood of the alternative hypothesis? Present evidence or I don't believe you. If you had time to run all the way here for help you've time to present evidence or at least explain the situation better.

In the even that the wagon falls and actually did have innocents in it we've a cleric with relevant raise dead and a host of flying spells.

I'm sorry, but this response just makes no sense to me at all. What kind of evidence do you think they're going to bring that their wagon has run off the edge, a picture on their phone? Also you seem to be assuming that you have a ninth level cleric and many thousands of gold to spare, which is kinda a stretch in a scenario where you're still worried about getting lured into a bandit trap.
Finally, from a role playing perspective, you're saying that you would refuse to go help until they somehow present evidence of it (a cargo manifest and the wheel that broke off?), but if they're on the level and they die you'll feel so bad about it that you'll raise them all from the dead. Oh and this is not some catalyzing event that makes you change your ways because your distrust got a bunch of people killed and since they probably don't have class levels their health permanently damaged, but your standard response.

Gnaeus - If the person is lying then they should be using Bluff, and have to make an opposed skill check against your Sense Motive to trick you. It happens in conversation without requiring a minute long gap while you analyze their words. Different usage of the skill.

[Andezzar]

EDIT: Source - Rules Compendium 68.Awesome, I always looked for a threat assessment skill. Reading up on the rules, a BSF type with 4 more HD than the user of the skill is probably less of a threat to the user than a wizard with HD equal to the user if the user himself is a wizard. The checks would indicate the opposite.

[Uncle Pine]

Awesome, I always looked for a threat assessment skill.

There's also a feat in Complete Adventurer (Combat Intuition) that lets you do it as a free action with a +4 bonus, but it's less awesome because threat assessment, while useful, isn't something everyone would be glad to spend a feat on.

[Andezzar]

The possible bonus is not the issue, but that HD is a poor way to measure power. A level 20 monk isn't even in the same game, let alone the same league as a level 20 wizard.

[Kazyan]

The possible bonus is not the issue, but that HD is a poor way to measure power. A level 20 monk isn't even in the same game, let alone the same league as a level 20 wizard.

It's not a perfect estimate, but I'd love to get a chance to know that a monster is significantly advanced in Hit Dice or what the general level of that humanoid you're staring down is. "Oh, fewer HD. Cleric, save your buffs; I got this." OOC chat there, but you know what I mean.

[falloutimperial]

Hey. One of your DMs here.

Even if Sense Motive was only useful for detecting lies, it would still be a useful skill. Deception is common in D&D, and much of the detail that the real world presents for finding falsehood is gone in the information-lean format of acting out scenes. You can't really trust the DM's body language or tone unless it's clearly affected. You're looking at someone pretending to be someone who is lying to you. You cannot rely on your out-of-game sense motive score.

Using information and fact-finding is a great way to catch an NPC in a lie, but you usually have to suspect that they're untrustworthy. When we play tomorrow, I guarantee that you aren't going to investigate the claims of every NPC you come across. It's just not worth it. Except for the one time it is. That's the value of Sense Motive-- immediate investigation. It's attentive and deliberate, and it can save a lot of time.

[Extra Anchovies]

Hey. One of your DMs here.

He found me! *vanishes in puff of smoke*


Even if Sense Motive was only useful for detecting lies, it would still be a useful skill. Deception is common in D&D, and much of the detail that the real world presents for finding falsehood is gone in the information-lean format of acting out scenes. You can't really trust the DM's body language or tone unless it's clearly affected. You're looking at someone pretending to be someone who is lying to you. You cannot rely on your out-of-game sense motive score.

Using information and fact-finding is a great way to catch an NPC in a lie, but you usually have to suspect that they're untrustworthy. When we play tomorrow, I guarantee that you aren't going to investigate the claims of every NPC you come across. It's just not worth it. Except for the one time it is. That's the value of Sense Motive-- immediate investigation. It's attentive and deliberate, and it can save a lot of time.

Hm. You make some very good points. Sense Motive is worth using so you know whether to go to the trouble of fact-checking, which is an angle I hadn't thought about.

[Andreaz]

Sense Motive has more uses than just figuring it someone is lying to you. And it doesn't serve to tell if someone lied to you, only to tell if someone thinks they lied to you.

Sense Motive lets you feel the context of some interaction. It lets you figure if someone is nervous or calm, deceitful or honest. It lets you know whether someone is about to explode. I use sense motive on just about any meaningful interaction, as well as first interactions with recurring npcs (like that errand boy you just hired and will use for a few messages).

[Forrestfire]

With sense motive, how can you tell if he's lying? Sense motive takes 10 rounds (Generally takes at least a minute). By the time you used it, they are dead.

Using sense motive to tell if someone's lying actually is a non-action. You piggyback on the person's bluff check, as lying is an opposed bluff vs sense motive roll. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm)

The three uses of sense motive that require a minute or more of action are hunches, sensing Enchantment spells, and catching a secret message. Personally, my groups generally houserule those to also be non-actions, but even without that, the biggest use of the skill doesn't require any time.

[Gnaeus]

Using sense motive to tell if someone's lying actually is a non-action. You piggyback on the person's bluff check, as lying is an opposed bluff vs sense motive roll. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm)

The three uses of sense motive that require a minute or more of action are hunches, sensing Enchantment spells, and catching a secret message. Personally, my groups generally houserule those to also be non-actions, but even without that, the biggest use of the skill doesn't require any time.

Disagree. You can use Sense Motive to oppose bluff, but Bluff doesn't clarify how long sense motive takes to operate. This isn't a separate use of Sense Motive, it is clarifying how hunch works. Many bluffs take more than a minute, so sense motive works fine. It does work for free against feinting in combat.

If the princess comes up to you and starts telling you her story of how her father was kidnapped, she will use bluff, and you will use sense motive, as described in bluff. You are looking for clues that she is lying, like breathing, eye movements, pauses in conversation, etc. If someone runs up and shouts that people are in a falling wagon, you don't have the time to do that. They don't even get to make a bluff check. A bluff check requires interaction, and is at least a full round action. Speaking (like shouting, Help my friends, they're in the falling wagon), is a free action, so no bluff, no sense motive, unless the party stops to chat.

[Andezzar]

The roll opposed to a check (bluff in case of any lie) takes the same time as the check and does not take an action:
Some skill checks are instant and represent reactions to an event, or are included as part of an action. These skill checks are not actions.

It does not matter whether it is a neatly crafted story by the princess or a short shout, if there is verbal deception involved the deceiver rolls bluff, which is opposed by sense motive. Such a reactive check is not an action.

[ryu]

Is 'present evidence or I don't believe you' the default response you or your Character has every single time with each and every new NPC who ever speaks, or are you merely nitpicking at this particular scenario for reasons?

Also, 'present evidence or I don't believe you' sounds suspiciously like another way of saying 'I roll Sense Motive.'

Every single time an NPC asks me to believe something I consider unlikely, especially if they're also begging me to do something based on that belief yes.

Also it's very different from sense motive. Namely I don't care how twitchy you are, or how well you deliver your story. It either has evidence to support it or it doesn't, and that's entirely separate from the things sense motive even tracks.

As to moral quandaries involving how bad I should feel about the unlikely scenario? I compare to the scenario where I was never involved to determine my moral contribution to situations. Would the hypothetical peasants in the unlikely scenario still be dead if I hadn't been there to offer spellcasting? If so, while I consider them within their rights to be angry about my cavalier attitude, I refuse to actually feel bad in that scenario.

[Amphetryon]

Every single time an NPC asks me to believe something I consider unlikely, especially if they're also begging me to do something based on that belief yes.

Also it's very different from sense motive. Namely I don't care how twitchy you are, or how well you deliver your story. It either has evidence to support it or it doesn't, and that's entirely separate from the things sense motive even tracks.

As to moral quandaries involving how bad I should feel about the unlikely scenario? I compare to the scenario where I was never involved to determine my moral contribution to situations. Would the hypothetical peasants in the unlikely scenario still be dead if I hadn't been there to offer spellcasting? If so, while I consider them within their rights to be angry about my cavalier attitude, I refuse to actually feel bad in that scenario.

NPC: I have a brother across the Perilous Sea in prison that I'd like you to rescue. . .
ryu: Present evidence or I don't believe you!

NPC: I have just baked a delicious ham, and I'd like to share it with you folks if you'll come to dinner after the meeting. . .
ryu: Present evidence or I don't believe you!

Sounds like fun.

[Story]

If a PC will just eat things offered by an NPC like that, they're not being paranoid enough.

[ryu]

NPC: I have a brother across the Perilous Sea in prison that I'd like you to rescue. . .
ryu: Present evidence or I don't believe you!

NPC: I have just baked a delicious ham, and I'd like to share it with you folks if you'll come to dinner after the meeting. . .
ryu: Present evidence or I don't believe you!

Sounds like fun.

The first could very legitimately be a trap or similar. At the very least I'd ask for a name for divination purposes.

The second is either not unlikely due to having a standing relationship with the NPC, or suspicious enough that I covertly cast detect poison when they aren't looking. Paranoid wizard remember?

[balegar]

Sense motive makes appraise obsolete, just my 2 cp.

[Gale]

Although one could certainly manage to get by without Sense Motive in my experience not having it tends to be problematic. I feel at least one party member should have it, otherwise any NPC can deceive the group into doing a wide variety of things; and it’s kind of hard to justify being suspicious of them when you’ve neglected to make any sense motive rolls or simply failed them. I’ve also found it annoying when other player characters abuse bluff, which can be another reason to put points into it.
There is a trait in Unearthed Arcana called “Suspicious” which gives a character +1 to Sense Motive in exchange for a -1 in Diplomacy. In my opinion this a better way to represent paranoia. Give the character a bonus to tell if someone is lying, but not give them an excuse to distrust everyone’s word without hard evidence. A character like that is borderline insane. In my opinion a bluff or diplomacy roll represents how well you can convince someone to take your word seriously. Even if your character is naturally suspicious of others it doesn’t give you an excuse to ignore game mechanics and not trust anyone; hence why Sense Motive is important.

[With a box]

Can someone use Sense Enchantment usage of sense motive on oneself to check is there a enchantment that effect his mind?
I don't think that will fly at table, but anyway

[balegar]

Can someone use Sense Enchantment usage of sense motive on oneself to check is there a enchantment that effect his mind?
I don't think that will fly at table, but anyway
For rp reasons I would allow that, you would know your killing your friends you just couldn't stop.

[nyjastul69]

Sense motive makes appraise obsolete, just my 2 cp.

How does it do that?

[balegar]

If I sense motive a shopkeeper when I sell off a gem or a piece of art. Any jeweler should have appraise.

[Extra Anchovies]

How does it do that?

Lets you know if someone's lying about an item's value. Doesn't fully replace Appraise, though, because it doesn't let you look at an item and determine its cost.

[balegar]

Doesn't fully replace Appraise, though, because it doesn't let you look at an item and determine its cost.
I agree with that. I take obsolete back, but I never put ranks into appraise. That's just me though.

[Ettina]

Lets you know if someone's lying about an item's value. Doesn't fully replace Appraise, though, because it doesn't let you look at an item and determine its cost.

Also, what if the guy doesn't actually know how much the thing is worth?

The shopkeeper honestly believes he's got a diamond, but it's actually a worthless piece of cut glass. Sense Motive tells you he's being honest, Appraise tells you it's a worthless piece of cut glass.

[nyjastul69]

Lets you know if someone's lying about an item's value. Doesn't fully replace Appraise, though, because it doesn't let you look at an item and determine its cost.

That's what I thought. It replaces nothing in regards to appraise. Appraise is an underated skill.

[balegar]

You've convinced me my next character will have appraise and sense motive.

[nyjastul69]

You've convinced me my next character will have appraise and sense motive.

That is an excellent combination for item evaluation. Detect Magic has been cast already of course.

[Andezzar]

That is an excellent combination for item evaluation. Detect Magic has been cast already of course.Buying an artificer's monocle is also a good idea. Identify at the cost of a detect magic spell, yes please.

[nyjastul69]

Buying an artificer's monocle is also a good idea. Identify at the cost of a detect magic spell, yes please.

Yes indeed. My DM recently let us choose a magic item worth 'under 2k gp's'. I suggested, and we chose, an artificer's monocle. It's a very nice item for its price.