Pathfinder PVP Social Skill Check

[Aphetoros]

Hi all,

Is it against RAW to use skills like bluff, intimidate, sense motive, etc, on other players, or is it just bad RP? (Or is it lerfectly acceptable.)

I’ve read a lot about it and it seems discouraged, but I’d like to know if rules disallow it and cannot find anything.

A character of mine attempted to hand poison to an NPC, saying it was a healing potion. Visually, they’re almost identical as this poison looks like a healing potion as described by our DM. I hinted at it in my description of what I was doing for the DM’s sake, saying something like, “I hand him a... vial... of reddish? liquid? and say, ‘Take this healing potion, it may come in handy later’”, and the paladin immediately used sense motive on me and won, immediately knowing that I was lying and it wasn’t a healing potion but poison, and now wants to kill me. The situation felt very meta-gamey to me and when I tried to say something the GM and Paladin were like “no it’s not!” But I’m convinced had I said “I hand him a healing potion” the paladin would not have used sense motive and we wouldn’t be dealing with this. Am I wrongly salty, here? Advice on how to deal with this? It really frustrated me because even if he had a hunch it was poison, we didn’t even RP it out.

How would you have handled that? Are social skills usable on players?

[DeTess]

I'd say sense motive and bluff are acceptable social skills to use in pvp specifically to weed out acting on metagame knowledge(I know OC that you are lying, but I failed the roll so can't act on it).

If you got to oppose the Paladin's sense motive with bluff in the scenario above, I think everything went fine. If you'd handed the guy poison while calling it a healing potion without some way for the rest of the table to catch you, it would gave been worse, I think, as you used a metagame description (healing potion) to convince the players OC that nothing is wrong.

[EldritchWeaver]

I think the sense motive roll should have been done by the GM. The paladin has no clue that the potion was a poison and if the OP simply hands the potion over, that doesn't really give a clue that he was lying. Unless there was history suggesting that there could have been a betrayal, this means that the paladin player metagamed this situation. So the correct way would have been that GM would have rolled the check in secret (with maybe a penalty) to see if the paladin notices something amiss.

[Rhedyn]

RPing uses of social skills don't work on PCs. You can't use sense motive to know they are lying anyone than you can use diplomacy to make players do what you want.

As in, that is how it should be for the game to not break down. IDC if it's RAW or not.

[Aphetoros]

I'd say sense motive and bluff are acceptable social skills to use in pvp specifically to weed out acting on metagame knowledge(I know OC that you are lying, but I failed the roll so can't act on it).

If you got to oppose the Paladin's sense motive with bluff in the scenario above, I think everything went fine. If you'd handed the guy poison while calling it a healing potion without some way for the rest of the table to catch you, it would gave been worse, I think, as you used a metagame description (healing potion) to convince the players OC that nothing is wrong.

I’d only suggest it wasn’t a metagame description because my character found the poison and was only able to know it was poison through a knowledge roll. I specifically hinted that it wasn’t a healing potion in my description of it even though it looked like it, and as I did that the pally goes, “!! I use sense motive on him!”


I think the sense motive roll should have been done by the GM. The paladin has no clue that the potion was a poison and if the OP simply hands the potion over, that doesn't really give a clue that he was lying. Unless there was history suggesting that there could have been a betrayal, this means that the paladin player metagamed this situation. So the correct way would have been that GM would have rolled the check in secret (with maybe a penalty) to see if the paladin notices something amiss.

Essentially you’re right here, but the pally player went “!! I use sense motive!!” And the Gm rolled it and then said “yeah you know it’s poison :)” And my feeling is that he acted on OOC information to make that roll rather than in-game information.

It just felt super ****ty because this has happened before. My character is self-interested and looted things and then said he didn’t find anything else but some potions on the foes (keeping the gold) and then the pally KNOWING the GM told me I had looted gold, used sense motive.

I just feel like something’s not right here and I’m not sure how to deal with that. For reference, pally is newer to RP and the GM is a new GM. I brought it up and they were generally dismissive.

Edit: and obviously regardless of fairness or right or wrong, it happened, and now I have to figure out how not to have the paladin (try to) kill me even though it’s a bad situation.

But my bigger concern is how to prevent this from happening again.

Edit 2: AND I didn’t even get to RP against it. It wasn’t like, “yeah you know something’s up” it was straight up “you know it’s poisoned”

[EldritchWeaver]

It just felt super ****ty because this has happened before. My character is self-interested and looted things and then said he didn’t find anything else but some potions on the foes (keeping the gold) and then the pally KNOWING the GM told me I had looted gold, used sense motive.

I agree that unless there is some IC hint that you are doing something morally gray/black, the paladin shouldn't get to roll in the first place. So the history - where the paladins knows that you are non-good - is created by ignoring the meta-dividing line.


I just feel like something’s not right here and I’m not sure how to deal with that. For reference, pally is newer to RP and the GM is a new GM. I brought it up and they were generally dismissive.

That's another problem. If you can't neither convince the GM or the paladin player that they effectively cheated, you are left with two choices. Accept that you're going to lose your character or leave the group. Remember: No gaming is better than bad gaming.


Edit: and obviously regardless of fairness or right or wrong, it happened, and now I have to figure out how not to have the paladin (try to) kill me even though it’s a bad situation.

Ingame question: Is poisoning someone worthy of being killed without trial? Maybe the paladin violates the code and loses his powers.


But my bigger concern is how to prevent this from happening again.

It will keep happening unless you can convince them that they are wrong.


Edit 2: AND I didn’t even get to RP against it. It wasn’t like, “yeah you know something’s up” it was straight up “you know it’s poisoned”

And that piece of information is outright cheating. If that doesn't convince your GM that he shortchanged you, there is nothing you can do.

[ATalsen]

Is it against RAW to use skills like bluff, intimidate, sense motive, etc, on other players, or is it just bad RP? (Or is it lerfectly acceptable.)
How would you have handled that? Are social skills usable on players?

I’ve not actually seen any rules saying ether way, but I understand the general assumption is that you can’t use social skills to control other PCs actions.


Let’s assume for the moment that using social skills like Bluff and Sense Motive on other PCs is ok.

By RAW, when you lie or deceive you need to roll bluff and the target(s) need to roll sence motive. If you choose not to roll Bluff, then you are giving up the option to convince them, and thus any lies should be obvious.

The Paladin should not have even had to *ask* for a Sense Motive check, if your PC was lying, it’s an automatic response to Bluffing.


Here’s basically what should have happened by RAW.

Lying PC: I hand the NPC a vial, and say it’s a healing potion; it’s not, my PC knows it poison instead. (You HAVE to tell the DM what your actually doing, naturally).
DM: You need to roll your Bluff check to believably convey that, since your PC is lying.
Lying PC: Ok, I roll Bluff, my result is "X"
DM: I’m rolling Sence Motive for the NPC and others who have heard you. The NPC seems to believe you and takes the vial. Paladin, you know that Lying PC is lying and its not a healing potion.

Obviously if the Paladin doesn't know its poison, the DM should not say that. The Paladin can then follow up with questions like "What did you just given them? Is it poison?" and the Scene can continue from there.



Whether PvP is ok at your table, and whether Social Skills fall into that is more of a table ruling than anything else.

If you do not know what the status of PvP is at your table, you should hold a discussion on it. If it turns out that no PvP is allowed at all and that social skills are considered PvP, then, since Bluff is active, you probably can never successfully lie to another PC.



But my bigger concern is how to prevent this from happening again.

Find out about PvP at your table, stat!
And consider revising your PC to not need to or want to PvP, even socially, if you don't like the outcome that engaging in PvP in your group is likely to receive... You KNOW your playing with a Paladin, for example.

[Elkad]

This loops back to the other PvP thread we had last week-ish.

Unless your group is perfectly nice at all times, and always agrees with one another on every decision, everything turns into CvC (Character vs Character) eventually.

Best to just start with CvC on, roleplay it, and have an understanding with the other players that it won't turn into Player vs Player.


Did the Paladin's player meta that roll? Sure. You probably should have passed the DM a note. (And boy instant messaging makes that easier now. Try playing the note-passing frenzy that is Paranoia with actual paper...)

[Falontani]

(And boy instant messaging makes that easier now. Try playing the note-passing frenzy that is Paranoia with actual paper...)
I actually try to do that, and occasionally hand notes to players that say, "Nothing" just to get people on edge.


A note on the PVP thing (I might post in that thread from last week) but where does charm person and dominate person and their equivalents come in?

If a character is dominated and forced to attack the party is killing him CvC? PvP? Is it okay or not okay?

[Elkad]

A note on the PVP thing (I might post in that thread from last week) but where does charm person and dominate person and their equivalents come in?

If a character is dominated and forced to attack the party is killing him CvC? PvP? Is it okay or not okay?

We pretty much covered that. It's not really CvC, but with the wrong group it can still lead to hard feelings.
Obviously you'd try not to go for the death blow, but it happens. I sure don't mess around with non-lethal, I just try to judge the right amount of damage at the end to leave him dying instead of dead.
And of course the rez comes out of the Retirement Fund, not his own pocket.
Same if the dominated guy manages to kill someone in the party, except he won't be pulling punches at the end.

My online game this week. Badguy won initiative. Dominated our melee brute, who was next on the initiative list, and adjacent to my archer. I went from full (112hp) to -48 before I took a turn.
Hell, when he failed the save, I knew I was dead. I was the logical guy to kill first when the enemy is flying.

No hard feelings, not even from my character. Wasn't his fault. He was given free rein by the DM other than picking the target, and he carefully used every possible ability to stack damage on me in a single round. As he should have.

[Malimar]

It's only Diplomacy that doesn't work on PCs.

Every time you lie, everyone around you, PC or NPC, is entitled to make a Sense Motive check against your Bluff check. If the paladin's Sense Motive was not opposed by your Bluff check, or he was allowed to succeed without a die roll, or his die roll was a success when it shouldn't have been, then the paladin and the DM are not playing by RAW.

But if you had lied OOC and said "I give him a healing potion", and not given the paladin's player cause to roll Sense Motive, it would have been you who was cheating.

(The rules suggest that the DM roll some or all Sense Motive checks for PCs, but that's needlessly cumbersome in most instances.)

[heavyfuel]

But I’m convinced had I said “I hand him a healing potion” the paladin would not have used sense motive

There's no such thing as "using" Sense Motive (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html). It's always on. As soon as a situation that call for it arises (someone makes a Bluff check, the character meets someone charmed/dominated, you're feinted, etc) you get an automatic roll.

I agree with other posters saying the DM should've made both your Bluff roll as well as the Paladin's Sense Motive roll a secret to avoid metagaming, which your DM did. But the fact remains that you lied to the paladin and were caught in the act. You tried to kill him and he's now well within his right to not trust and even kill you if there's no lawful authority to turn you in to.

Your salt is just you being a sore loser. You rolled the dice (literally) and lost to no one's fault but your own.

[Falontani]

There's no such thing as "using" Sense Motive (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html). It's always on. As soon as a situation that call for it arises (someone makes a Bluff check, the character meets someone charmed/dominated, you're feinted, etc) you get an automatic roll.

I agree with other posters saying the DM should've made both your Bluff roll as well as the Paladin's Sense Motive roll a secret to avoid metagaming, but the fact remains that you lied to the paladin and was caught in the act. You tried to kill him and he's now well within his right to not trust and even kill you if there's no lawful authority to turn you in to.

Your salt is just you being a sore loser. You rolled the dice (literally) and lost to no one's fault but your own.

He handed an NPC a potion. Where was it that he tried to kill the paladin? He never once said that he attempted to harm the paladin. This is a rogue handing an NPC that the rogue wants dead a "potion" that is a poison, and the paladin catching the rogue in the act. Nowhere was the paladin threatened physically or verbally. He is NOT being a sore loser coming to us to try to not have this happen in the future. He doesn't want this to devolve into PvP, but he wants to feel as though his decisions aren't being cheated against (like how the paladin shouldn't have been able to say, "I roll sense motive.")

(I understand not liking chaotic neutral characters because they are "totally not evil" but usually they only play chaotic neutral "not evil" characters because playing an evil character was banned, I'm usually that person toeing the line.)

[heavyfuel]

He handed an NPC a potion. Where was it that he tried to kill the paladin? He never once said that he attempted to harm the paladin. This is a rogue handing an NPC that the rogue wants dead a "potion" that is a poison, and the paladin catching the rogue in the act. Nowhere was the paladin threatened physically or verbally. He is NOT being a sore loser coming to us to try to not have this happen in the future. He doesn't want this to devolve into PvP, but he wants to feel as though his decisions aren't being cheated against (like how the paladin shouldn't have been able to say, "I roll sense motive.")

Sorry, I misread. I though the potion went to the Paladin. My bad.

This doesn't change the fact. He lied, the Paladin overheard him, Paladin gets a Sense Motive.

The Paladin still didn't need to have called it. You should never call for Sense Motive, much like you should never call for Initiative. The DM does the calling when the situation arises.

[Falontani]

Sorry, I misread. I though the potion went to the Paladin. My bad.

This doesn't change the fact. He lied, the Paladin overheard him, Paladin gets a Sense Motive.

The player still didn't need to have called it.


I will agree with this completely.

However the part that I now don't agree with in all of the above: The DM should have told the paladin that there is something odd going on, something more. Not that the potion (that the paladin had no way of knowing was poison) was a poison.

[heavyfuel]

(that the paladin had no way of knowing was poison)

Likely, but maybe not.

Maybe the Paladin knew where OP's character kept his potions and poisons and saw him taking it from the poison pocket. Maybe the Paladin had seen OP's char with this particular poison vial before the exchange. Maybe the Paladin had seen a similar poison before and recognized it.

All of these are reasonable representations of what the Sense Motive skill entails, especially the first one. (The last one might be more of a Knowledge check though)