Bluff, Sense Motives and the different ways to lie

[drmy]

I'd like to know how some of you veterans rule the bluff mechanics when players or npcs use half-truth or lying by omission to bluff. As per RAW, I think it should be like a normal bluff check against a sense motive check, but i feel the character relying on those tricky lies should have an advantageous check, heck sometimes, it wouldn't be possible to spot an actual lie since it's not one.

A good example that popped in my last session is one of my player trying to leave an ennemi to die, while a npc with them wanted to save as many as he could, some sort of chivalry code. The ennemi was bleeding out (-4 hp) but i decided since it was a pretty weak concussive blow that took him down, he was only bleeding internally. Assessing the situation while looting him, my player answered to the worried pally-like npc's question "Is he dead ?" with "No, he's unconscious".

Personally i feel like if a character manage to phrase his statement in a concise and quick way, without a lie, a sense motive check wouldn't apply, which i think is acceptable for the player-side of the table since springing those intelligent answers quickly requires a good mastery at roleplaying. I don't think it's fair from the other side if npc can abuse players like that, but i'm still biased by how half-truth and lying by omission should affect bluff/sense motive

[Venger]

I'd like to know how some of you veterans rule the bluff mechanics when players or npcs use half-truth or lying by omission to bluff. As per RAW, I think it should be like a normal bluff check against a sense motive check, but i feel the character relying on those tricky lies should have an advantageous check, heck sometimes, it wouldn't be possible to spot an actual lie since it's not one.

A good example that popped in my last session is one of my player trying to leave an ennemi to die, while a npc with them wanted to save as many as he could, some sort of chivalry code. The ennemi was bleeding out (-4 hp) but i decided since it was a pretty weak concussive blow that took him down, he was only bleeding internally. Assessing the situation while looting him, my player answered to the worried pally-like npc's question "Is he dead ?" with "No, he's unconscious".

Personally i feel like if a character manage to phrase his statement in a concise and quick way, without a lie, a sense motive check wouldn't apply, which i think is acceptable for the player-side of the table since springing those intelligent answers quickly requires a good mastery at roleplaying. I don't think it's fair from the other side if npc can abuse players like that, but i'm still biased by how half-truth and lying by omission should affect bluff/sense motive

Well, was he dead?

Then your PC didn't lie, not even by omission. Your instinct is correct and that's how the actual rules work. bluff is for when you tell lies.

[Deophaun]

bluff is for when you tell lies.
If it's for when you tell lies, then why isn't "lie" mentioned anywhere in the skill?

It's for making someone believe what you want them to believe. And that's the question: what do you want the target to believe? Well, in the example given, you want the target to believe that the downed man is not in danger of dying without assistance. You make the check. Clever wording just means you aren't imposing a penalty on yourself.

[Venger]

If it's for when you tell lies, then why isn't "lie" mentioned anywhere in the skill?

It's for making someone believe what you want them to believe. And that's the question: what do you want the target to believe? Well, in the example given, you want the target to believe that the downed man is not in danger of dying without assistance. You make the check. Clever wording just means you aren't imposing a penalty on yourself.


You can make the outrageous or the untrue seem plausible, or use
doublespeak or innuendo to deliver a secret message to another
character. The skill encompasses acting, conning, fast talking,
misdirection, prevarication, and misleading body language. Use a
bluff to sow temporary confusion, get someone to turn and look
where you point, or simply look innocuous.

wording (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) has nothing to do with it. the only two factors are believability and risk to the person you're talking to.

if it's for convincing people of things, by that token of logic, if you're trying to tell someone something that's factually true, you'd have to roll bluff depending on the circumstances (e.g. when visiting someplace and showing a guard credentials, if they're legitimate and he's suspicious for some reason, you want players to roll bluff to convince him?)

I definitely understand the impulse to try to lock down a player who's good at thinking on his feet, but in this specific example, there's really no RAW to fall back on to oppose the OP's instinct.

the character was asked if someone was dead. he wasn't, so the pc said no.

if they'd been asked "will they be okay?" and the pc had responded "he's unconscious," I can understand the impulse to force a bluff since they are not actually answering the question and trying to change the subject in such a fashion that misinformation is contributed even if they're not saying anything untrue.

[Benthesquid]

I would say that Sense Motive senses the motive- IE, the intent to deceive. It's not a magic truth-or-lie detector (those exist, and you can get around them with clever wording- it's reading the person and seeing that they're trying to lead you in the wrong direction.

[Deophaun]

wording (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) has nothing to do with it.
Notice how what you quoted includes a lot more than lying. The best con artists never lie, yet by what you quoted Bluff explicitly covers it.

if it's for convincing people of things, by that token of logic, if you're trying to tell someone something that's factually true, you'd have to roll bluff depending on the circumstances (e.g. when visiting someplace and showing a guard credentials, if they're legitimate and he's suspicious for some reason, you want players to roll bluff to convince him?)
Yes. There is simply no other skill for it: Intimidate makes them afraid. Diplomacy makes them friendly. Only Bluff talks about making someone believe you.

the character was asked if someone was dead. he wasn't, so the pc said no.
To con him into leaving the character to die. What does Bluff cover again?

The skill encompasses acting, conning, fast talking, misdirection, prevarication, and misleading body language.
So yes, you need to use Bluff.

[Venger]

Notice how what you quoted includes a lot more than lying. The best con artists never lie, yet by what you quoted Bluff explicitly covers it.

Yes. There is simply no other skill for it: Intimidate makes them afraid. Diplomacy makes them friendly. Only Bluff talks about making someone believe you.

To con him into leaving the character to die. What does Bluff cover again?

So yes, you need to use Bluff.

It was clear from the context "you use bluff to tell lies" meant "you don't need to roll it every time your character speaks, including true statements," since we're all aware of bluff's other uses, such as feinting, and not "bluff is used only for telling lies and nothing else"

Right, but I could hardly quote two random words from that entire block, it wouldn't have made any sense.

You could just let your pcs have a conversation without rolling dice for every statement. If you apply bluff this way, do your pcs ever converse with your npcs without rolling? If bluff applies for every statement true or false when they're trying to get the npc to act in some way, or be convinced of something (many interactions between npcs and the party)

maybe it would be better to ask it this way:

what way could the character have responded to the question and not been required to make a bluff check under your interpretation of the skill, since "yes," "no," and "he's unconscious" all force bluff checks

[Geddy2112]

At my table, we have always ruled that knowingly lying by omission or telling a half truth can be pinged by a sense motive check.

We also play pathfinder-in which, it is very clear bluff is used to tell a lie, or lie/deceive, and some other uses(secret messages, feint).

When sense motive beats a bluff check to detect a half truth or lie by omission, it reveals that the statement is part true, or that the person is leaving out information.

In the particular scenario, the character was asked a question "Is he dead?" to which the answer was no. He answered truthfully, therefore was not bluffing. The question did not ask "is he dead/dying/mortally wounded/how bad is he?" It was a simple yes or no, and the truthful answer was no. No bluff or sense motive check was needed.

Just because you don't volunteer all relevant information does not mean that you are lying by omission. Lying by omission means leaving out details to make a false statement true or deceive somebody by leaving out incriminating information that their question would ask for.

[Venger]

At my table, we have always ruled that knowingly lying by omission or telling a half truth can be pinged by a sense motive check.

We also play pathfinder-in which, it is very clear bluff is used to tell a lie, or lie/deceive, and some other uses(secret messages, feint).

When sense motive beats a bluff check to detect a half truth or lie by omission, it reveals that the statement is part true, or that the person is leaving out information.

In the particular scenario, the character was asked a question "Is he dead?" to which the answer was no. He answered truthfully, therefore was not bluffing. The question did not ask "is he dead/dying/mortally wounded/how bad is he?" It was a simple yes or no, and the truthful answer was no. No bluff or sense motive check was needed.

Just because you don't volunteer all relevant information does not mean that you are lying by omission. Lying by omission means leaving out details to make a false statement true or deceive somebody by leaving out incriminating information that their question would ask for.

well said.

in the case of actual half-truth/omission vs actual lies, that houserule seems like a good middle ground.

[Deophaun]

It was clear from the context "you use bluff to tell lies" meant "you don't need to roll it every time your character speaks, including true statements,"
False Dichotomy.

Right, but I could hardly quote two random words from that entire block, it wouldn't have made any sense.
And it still doesn't, because the words that you quoted say you are wrong: Bluff covers more than direct lying. Lying is a sufficient condition to prompt a Bluff check, but it is not necessary. You would need to quote a passage that says you do not need to Bluff for truthful statements. No such passage exists. So, you're wrong.

You could just let your pcs have a conversation without rolling dice for every statement. If you apply bluff this way, do your pcs ever converse with your npcs without rolling? If bluff applies for every statement true or false when they're trying to get the npc to act in some way, or be convinced of something (many interactions between npcs and the party)
If they need to convince an NPC of something, then they will make a roll even if the statement is true. Again, it's the only skill that covers how to deal with another character's disbelief.

Of course, if they don't care whether the NPC believes them or not, they don't need to roll. The NPC will believe what the NPC wishes to believe without character interference.


what way could the character have responded to the question and not been required to make a bluff check under your interpretation of the skill, since "yes," "no," and "he's unconscious" all force bluff checks
"He's bleeding out." Since the character is relaying information without intent to convince the recipient of anything one way or another, Bluff doesn't apply.

The beginning of a basic pyramid scheme:
"Give me your money, and I will double it in a month."
The above is a true statement. It is also a con. Bluff covers cons. Ergo, you must use Bluff, even though this is a true statement.

[Crake]

I would say that Sense Motive senses the motive- IE, the intent to deceive. It's not a magic truth-or-lie detector (those exist, and you can get around them with clever wording- it's reading the person and seeing that they're trying to lead you in the wrong direction.

Honestly, this is how I've always run it. It has nothing to do with flat out truth or lie, the skill is not "sense truth" or something. I much prefer the name it got in 5th edition (despite many of the flaws of that system). Insight is a much more understandable name for it.

[Troacctid]

Sense Motive isn't limited to sensing lies. See the skill description:

Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.
This is the relevant check when there is no opposed Bluff roll. It is a flat DC 20, and it is rolled actively, so they do not automatically get to roll—they have to consciously choose to use the skill. It also generally requires 1 minute of interaction.

[drmy]

Thanks a lot for all the answers !
It opens my eyes on the fact that bluff is really more about all types of cons and misleading acts than just lies. I do understand how sense motive isn't a magical knowledge to assess if someone is lying, but rather about tracking someone's quirk, his nervousness and so on to confirm whether or not he's lying.
Now a bluff check would still apply for half truth and the likes, but wouldn't someone using such cons be in an advantageous position, giving less body language to interpretation since "he's not lying" ? Not as per RAW, it would seems.

Something else caught my eye reading through your answers.



If they need to convince an NPC of something, then they will make a roll even if the statement is true. Again, it's the only skill that covers how to deal with another character's disbelief.

Of course, if they don't care whether the NPC believes them or not, they don't need to roll. The NPC will believe what the NPC wishes to believe without character interference.


So bluff is also used to convince npcs of something, true or not ? We always used diplomacy for truth and bluff for others.

[erok0809]

So bluff is also used to convince npcs of something, true or not ? We always used diplomacy for truth and bluff for others.

That's how I've always run it as well, but the convincing of truth via Diplomacy is a house rule, since diplomacy itself only discusses changing people's attitudes toward you. In rare cases, although I'm not entirely sure when I would actually do this off the top of my head, it might become a simple Charisma check, rather than Diplomacy. I don't really like using Bluff to convince someone of something that's completely true though.

[Ashtagon]

Do you use bluff to convince someone of the truth when they are convinced that a falsehood is the truth?

[erok0809]

Do you use bluff to convince someone of the truth when they are convinced that a falsehood is the truth?

When I DM, I would most likely use either diplomacy or a straight charisma check here, depending on the disposition of the disbeliever towards the person trying to convince them. Diplomacy if the disbeliever is still friendly to the convincer, and would be willing to take the time to listen to reason; Charisma if they are nearing hostile and need logic shoved down their throats rather than having a normal conversation. More often than not it ends up as Diplomacy though, since that's more player friendly overall.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho in this scenario you don't start with a bluff check. Cause as others mentioned, you don't lie in the first place as long as the npc/target doesn't believe you, you wouldn't need a bluff check.
The bluff check comes into play, when the target npc makes a Sense Motive check to get infos about your motives. Then you can make a bluff check to hide your motivation or to make it look like it fits the desires/thinking of the target.

edit: you could use diplomacy, but in a other way. You would trade logical arguments to solve the situation. Bluff is more about twisting logic and/or talking more about "motives" & "feelings".

[Ashtagon]

That explains the huge success of the vulcan diplomatic corp

[Mordaedil]

D&D has always specified rolling as being for things where the outcome is a little bit uncertain.

If you lie, but it is such a convincing lie that there is no doubt that the listener would believe you, there is no need to roll.

If you lie, but there are uncertain things which he might not bite on, then there's a need for a roll.

If you lie and it is an obvious lie, then it's probably not going to be enough to even roll.

[SangoProduction]

First, to the OP, you didn't lie. It was a completely factual statement at -4 hp, and even if he wasn't, it's not a hard-to-believe statement.

Second, to the guy who quoted the the skill. Notice how lying is still not said there.

You might actually be a Nigerian Prince...but you're still going to have to roll bluff. No one would believe you....ok a few people might, but still!

[drmy]

Imho in this scenario you don't start with a bluff check. Cause as others mentioned, you don't lie in the first place as long as the npc/target doesn't believe you, you wouldn't need a bluff check.
The bluff check comes into play, when the target npc makes a Sense Motive check to get infos about your motives. Then you can make a bluff check to hide your motivation or to make it look like it fits the desires/thinking of the target.


I really like this approach. You don't need to bluff someone who won't question your statement. A player using roleplaying at his advantage to word his sentence in a way the npc won't be suspicious gets the advantage that his "bluff check" works without fail, recompensing his agile tongue. I'd be sure to allow myself to interfere if an exploit arise hehe.

Thanks everyone for your clarifications, have some nice games ! :D

[Calthropstu]

How I run bluff vs sense motive, is unless my players actively ask to roll, they have a d20 score of 5. If the bluff is lower than 5+their sense motive, I tell them it's obvious. Otherwise, they have to consider that the npc could be lying.

[Crake]

How I run bluff vs sense motive, is unless my players actively ask to roll, they have a d20 score of 5. If the bluff is lower than 5+their sense motive, I tell them it's obvious. Otherwise, they have to consider that the npc could be lying.

This method of doing it is really annoying as a player. It makes you have to question everything, when sense motive is entirely a non-action, and would be entirely things that players would pick up on in character that cant be conveyed with words. Taking this method simply results in players saying "I sense motive" and wasting time with rolls for things that are even remotely questionable and just ruins pacing in general because of it.

[Calthropstu]

This method of doing it is really annoying as a player. It makes you have to question everything, when sense motive is entirely a non-action, and would be entirely things that players would pick up on in character that cant be conveyed with words. Taking this method simply results in players saying "I sense motive" and wasting time with rolls for things that are even remotely questionable and just ruins pacing in general because of it.

I have not had that problem in my games at all in pver 10 years of playing 3.5/pathfinder. So... eh?

[zergling.exe]

This method of doing it is really annoying as a player. It makes you have to question everything, when sense motive is entirely a non-action, and would be entirely things that players would pick up on in character that cant be conveyed with words. Taking this method simply results in players saying "I sense motive" and wasting time with rolls for things that are even remotely questionable and just ruins pacing in general because of it.

Actually, sense motive normally takes a minute, and is therefore not a non-action. You have to devote time to it.

[Krobar]

It's Mr. GoodyTwoShoes' responsibility to ask the right questions. If he asks the wrong question, and gets a completely truthful answer that doesn't provide him with the information he really wants, that's his problem. Not volunteering extra information is not deception.

[Necroticplague]

It's Mr. GoodyTwoShoes' responsibility to ask the right questions. If he asks the wrong question, and gets a completely truthful answer that doesn't provide him with the information he really wants, that's his problem. Not volunteering extra information is not deception.

This. In that example, the answer given is 100% a truthful answer to the question he asked. The fact that someone asked the wrong question isn't the fault of the person answering. No Sense Motive for saying something entirely true in a very direct manner. Maybe if he was evasive about it, or gave a leading non-answer*, but not for giving such a direct answer.


*= Ex.
Does he look dead?=Evading the question.
You'd be suprised what you can live through.=Not actually answer the question, but implying a false one.

[Troacctid]

Actually, sense motive normally takes a minute, and is therefore not a non-action. You have to devote time to it.
It is a non-action when it is an opposed check. It takes 1 minute when used actively to get a hunch.

[jedikiller]

My brother played a special house ruled elf subrace that was known for their charisma and he bluffed my orc fighter out of all of his money.

[Mordaedil]

I have not had that problem in my games at all in pver 10 years of playing 3.5/pathfinder. So... eh?
Yeah, people really play D&D differently I've come to notice. In our campaign, our DM had me roll to Sense Motive of an NPC who was my caretaker and I failed, and he described me as basically beaming and I had no problems with that because we were in sync with how we felt about the situation.

Then again, that is very perpendicular to this DM and this group, I think in a different setting I might not be comfortable with either knowing the result of my Sense Motive roll or having the DM declare my roleplaying.