What Sense Motive is....

[SangoProduction]

Assuming you can obtain any arbitrary bonus to Sense Motive, at what point would you effectively be able to read minds...if with at least a bit of prodding?

I started wondering about the question after having thought about a past character from a super heroes campaign who...well, was just "really good" at mundane things like empathy and emotional manipulation (and massage). I ask the boards because they are more likely to know the answer than I am to be able to find it in one of the 10 trillion splat books that exist.

[Troacctid]

Detecting surface thoughts is a DC 100 check. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#senseMotive)

[SangoProduction]

Detecting surface thoughts is a DC 100 check. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#senseMotive)

0,0 Wow. In D&D it takes a +90 to a skill check to be equivalent to a second level spell.
OK. I was expecting something pretty ridiculous, but that went above and beyond.

[frogglesmash]

0,0 Wow. In D&D it takes a +90 to a skill check to be equivalent to a second level spell.
OK. I was expecting something pretty ridiculous, but that went above and beyond.

Sense motive is typically used to read a room, or judge whether someone is being dishonest. The difference between that, and reading specific thoughts based on body language, and facial expressions alone is pretty insane, so it makes sense that the DC would also be insane.

[Troacctid]

0,0 Wow. In D&D it takes a +90 to a skill check to be equivalent to a second level spell.
OK. I was expecting something pretty ridiculous, but that went above and beyond.
I would generally imagine that removing the saving throw from a spell and making it usable at will would elevate it significantly beyond the normal power level of a 2nd level spell, but that's me.

[Doctor Awkward]

And bypasses mind blank

How's that again?

[frogglesmash]

Mind Blank protects you from devices and spells. A sense motive check is neither.

It also "protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects," and using Sense Motive to detect surface thoughts functions "as the 3rd-round effect of the detect thoughts spell" which is a mind-affecting spell, so it's not unreasonable to consider the Sense Motive to be a Mind-Affecting Effect when used in this manner.

[frogglesmash]

if a skill is mind affecting it outright says so. look at diplomacy. No, sense motive v.s. mind blank is no different than hide v.s. true sight

You're acting like that's a general rule, when that's literally the only example of a skill being called out as mind-affecting, and in that example no specific spell is ever referenced. It's not unreasonable to assume that the writers neglected to explicitly call out Sense Motive's mind-affecting nature as that is a trait that's included in the referenced spell.

[Ellrin]

I feel like being absurdly good at reading a person’s tells is, in no way, affecting that person’s mind. No matter how absurd we’re talking.

[frogglesmash]

I feel like being absurdly good at reading a person’s tells is, in no way, affecting that person’s mind. No matter how absurd we’re talking.

I agree, but that's not really relevant when discussing RAW.

[Duke of Urrel]

if a skill is mind affecting it outright says so. look at diplomacy. No, sense motive v.s. mind blank is no different than hide v.s. true sight

I looked at Diplomacy skill. Nowhere is it called "mind-affecting." Just to be sure, I also looked at Bluff, Gather Information, and Intimidate skill. None of these skills is ever called "mind-affecting" either. And of course, Sense Motive skill is never called "mind-affecting."

Of course, this only makes your argument stronger.

EDIT: In my understanding, "Mind-Affecting" is first and foremost a spell descriptor that applies to spells that have it. Secondly, all spells that belong to the Enchantment school, all spells that have the Fear descriptor, and all spells that belong to the Pattern or Phantasm subschool of the Illusion school are Mind-Affecting. Thirdly, any spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability that mimics a Fear spell or a Mind-Affecting spell is probably mind-affecting. But as far as I know, that is all.

[Ellrin]

I agree, but that's not really relevant when discussing RAW.

The point is that RAW still relies on a common understanding of what things mean. Sensing a person’s motives is in no way a mind-affecting process. If the fact that it emulates one of the abilities of a spell that IS a mind-affecting effect obliquely suggests that it might be without actually specifying, we have to take a step back and determine if there’s any precedent in the rules for whether anything Sense Motive is capable of is mind-affecting, or any similar language in any other skills offering more specific solutions. If not, we then have to take a further step back and ask ourselves “is what this skill accomplishing in any way capable of affecting minds?”

The answer there seems to be a pretty clear “no,” so we only have to determine whether there are any precedents in Sense Motive’s list of capabilities that are indisputably mind-affecting effects, or any similar situations among other skills.

[frogglesmash]

I looked at Diplomacy skill. Nowhere is it called "mind-affecting." Just to be sure, I also looked at Bluff, Gather Information, and Intimidate skill. None of these skills is ever called "mind-affecting" either. And of course, Sense Motive skill is never called "mind-affecting."

Of course, this only makes your argument stronger.

EDIT: In my understanding, "Mind-Affecting" is first and foremost a spell descriptor that applies to spells that have it. Secondly, all spells that belong to the Enchantment school, all spells that have the Fear descriptor, and all spells that belong to the Pattern or Phantasm subschool of the Illusion school are Mind-Affecting. Thirdly, any spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability that mimics a Fear spell or a Mind-Affecting spell or that is called "Mind-Affecting" is probably mind-affecting. But as far as I know, that is all.

This is where diplomacy is described as mind-affecting.
"Mind-affecting Effects" enompasses a variety of Ex and Su abilities as well as a number of miscellaneous effects, and is not restricted to spells in any way.


The point is that RAW still relies on a common understanding of what things mean. Sensing a person’s motives is in no way a mind-affecting process. If the fact that it emulates one of the abilities of a spell that IS a mind-affecting effect obliquely suggests that it might be without actually specifying, we have to take a step back and determine if there’s any precedent in the rules for whether anything Sense Motive is capable of is mind-affecting, or any similar language in any other skills offering more specific solutions. If not, we then have to take a further step back and ask ourselves “is what this skill accomplishing in any way capable of affecting minds?”

The answer there seems to be a pretty clear “no,” so we only have to determine whether there are any precedents in Sense Motive’s list of capabilities that are indisputably mind-affecting effects, or any similar situations among other skills.

Since the description directly references only a portion of the spell's rules, it's unclear how many of the spells traits are supposed to come along for the ride, and as such I don't think there is a clear RAW ruling, and all the arguments I've seen to date have required too much hermeneutical gymnastics to convince me otherwise.

[rrwoods]

Phrases like “as if” and “as though” are my pet peeve in rule templating because of crap like this. The inspire courage / listen to this interaction is similarly aggravating.

My reading is that it’s not as if they’re affected by the third round of a detect thoughts spell, but rather that in order to understand what “detect surface thoughts” means, you refer to the text of detect thoughts.

[Duke of Urrel]

This is where diplomacy is described as mind-affecting.
"Mind-affecting Effects" enompasses a variety of Ex and Su abilities as well as a number of miscellaneous effects, and is not restricted to spells in any way.

Why should we consider skills to be extraordinary abilities (let alone supernatural ones)? They are nowhere identified as such.

[frogglesmash]

Why should we consider skills to be extraordinary abilities (let alone supernatural ones)? They are nowhere identified as such.

My two statements were unrelated, and the first one was supposed to have this (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicSkills.htm) link included, sorry for the confusion

[liquidformat]

My two statements were unrelated, and the first one was supposed to have this (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/epicSkills.htm) link included, sorry for the confusion

RAW seems to suggest that the only counter to Sense Motive's detect thoughts ability is a DC 100 Bluff check. Skills aren't Ex abilities (unless the skill explicitly states so) they are skills which are their own category so aren't by default subject to any rules that are explicitly related to EX/SA abilities. Same argument for spells. In this case it is similar in terms of functionality but isn't subject to the same shortcomings as the spell. There is no save, since it isn't magic it isn't subject to dispel or antimagic, and since it isn't mind affecting it overcomes the standard immunities to mind affecting affects. With all of that in mind a DC 100 check seems pretty reasonable.

On a side note am I reading correctly that DC 80 spot check gives you see invisibility?

[Telonius]

"Mind-affecting effects" is probably not limited to spells, but I'd say that an effect has to be specifically described as Mind-Affecting for it to matter. Otherwise you'd get into silliness like Mind Blank making a character immune to inebriation, or getting a good night's sleep, or learning new facts.

[AvatarVecna]

If it's relevant to your game, in Pathfinder you can use Skill Unlocks to read minds if you have 15+ ranks.

[frogglesmash]

RAW seems to suggest that the only counter to Sense Motive's detect thoughts ability is a DC 100 Bluff check.

The only thing RAW suggests is that the detect thoughts ability can be countered by bluff, not that it is an exclusive counter.


Skills aren't Ex abilities (unless the skill explicitly states so) they are skills which are their own category so aren't by default subject to any rules that are explicitly related to EX/SA abilities. Same argument for spells. In this case it is similar in terms of functionality but isn't subject to the same shortcomings as the spell. There is no save, since it isn't magic it isn't subject to dispel or antimagic, and since it isn't mind affecting it overcomes the standard immunities to mind affecting affects. With all of that in mind a DC 100 check seems pretty reasonable.

My initial point was that the "mind-affecting" trait isn't limited to Spells, or Ex/Sp/Su abilities, and can be theoretically applied to any effect even skills. For example, the Instill Suggestion in Target use for bluff functions "identical[ly] to the effect of the suggestion spell," which unambiguously makes it a mind-affecting effect.
It is for similar reasons that I find it unclear, by RAW, whether the Detect Surface Thoughts use of Sense Motive is a mind-affecting effect, as it references a portion of the rules text for Read Thoughts, but fails to clarify how many of the spell's traits also apply.



"Mind-affecting effects" is probably not limited to spells, but I'd say that an effect has to be specifically described as Mind-Affecting for it to matter. Otherwise you'd get into silliness like Mind Blank making a character immune to inebriation, or getting a good night's sleep, or learning new facts.

Generally I would agree, however when an effect is described as functioning like a spell, it is assumed to have all the same traits as the spell, save for those traits that only apply only to spells. In this case it is unclear, as only a portion of a spell's description is referenced.

[liquidformat]

Generally I would agree, however when an effect is described as functioning like a spell, it is assumed to have all the same traits as the spell, save for those traits that only apply only to spells. In this case it is unclear, as only a portion of a spell's description is referenced.

So from an RAW we maybe have an issue depending on how we interpret RAW. We can say either it is mind affecting effect because if functions 'like' detect thoughts spell or we have since it doesn't explicitly say explicitly it is mind affecting effect it isn't one.

From an RAI point of view I think there is a stronger argument for it not being a mind affecting effect for the following reasons:
-the skill is about looking at creature's body language to determine information, this clearly doesn't directly affect the mind of the creature being observed; and therefore not a mind affecting effect.
-the skill description doesn't say it is identical to detect thoughts, it doesn't even say it is similar to the entire spell, it only references the third round effect and clarifies how it is different from it (no save). Therefore we shouldn't be looking at the entire spell only the third round effect. I also believe this point is valid as RAW evidence against this being a mind affecting effect.
-the skill doesn't say it is mind affecting effect and pretty much everything else in the game that is mind affecting effect claims itself to be so.

[frogglesmash]

Continuing to play devil's advocate.


From an RAI point of view I think there is a stronger argument for it not being a mind affecting effect for the following reasons:
-the skill is about looking at creature's body language to determine information, this clearly doesn't directly affect the mind of the creature being observed; and therefore not a mind affecting effect.
-the skill description doesn't say it is identical to detect thoughts, it doesn't even say it is similar to the entire spell, it only references the third round effect and clarifies how it is different from it (no save). Therefore we shouldn't be looking at the entire spell only the third round effect. I also believe this point is valid as RAW evidence against this being a mind affecting effect.

The fact that it clarifies how it's different , but doesn't mention its mind-affecting status is more of an argument against your position, rather than for.


-the skill doesn't say it is mind affecting effect and pretty much everything else in the game that is mind affecting effect claims itself to be so.

As I said before, explicitly describing an effect as mind-affecting isn't always necessary if another mind-affecting effect is used as a reference.

[liquidformat]

The fact that it clarifies how it's different , but doesn't mention its mind-affecting status is more of an argument against your position, rather than for.

I would disagree, RAW points you to read one specific piece of information inside the spell and clarifies how it should be modified. By using reading parts of the spell not specified by the functionality of Detect Surface Thoughts skill task you are adding information in that isn't RAI and I don't think it is RAW either. Sure the Detect Thoughts spell as a whole is a mind affecting effect but we aren't told to look at the entire spell to get functionality of this skill task only a very limited subsection of it.

[frogglesmash]

I would disagree, RAW points you to read one specific piece of information inside the spell and clarifies how it should be modified. By using reading parts of the spell not specified by the functionality of Detect Surface Thoughts skill task you are adding information in that isn't RAI and I don't think it is RAW either. Sure the Detect Thoughts spell as a whole is a mind affecting effect but we aren't told to look at the entire spell to get functionality of this skill task only a very limited subsection of it.

If the mind-affecting trait applies to all of the spell's effects, why wouldn't it apply to the referenced section of the spell?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Not directly related to the main point, but Oriental Adventures also adds what amounts to sensing power levels to Sense Motive. Just adding because it's nice to know (or ask if you can since it's an optional rule in a setting specific book) do that when you're playing a character with Sense Motive.

[Cygnia]

Yeah, they then fleshed out the "Assess Opponent" use for Sense Motive in the CAdv book, if I recall correctly.

(I may have a lot of 3.5 characters who like using Sense Motive)

[liquidformat]

If the mind-affecting trait applies to all of the spell's effects, why wouldn't it apply to the referenced section of the spell?

Sorry for the late reply this thread disappeared on me.

Because it isn't a spell... Should we also keep requirements for verbal, somatic, Focus/Divine Focus, and chance of spell failure because the spell effect mentioned also has these traits? Your reading of RAW is picking and choosing which parts of the spell to keep and remove whereas mine is only focusing on the specific part of the spell since it is the only thing that pertains to this skill's functionality.

[frogglesmash]

Sorry for the late reply this thread disappeared on me.

Because it isn't a spell... Should we also keep requirements for verbal, somatic, Focus/Divine Focus, and chance of spell failure because the spell effect mentioned also has these traits? Your reading of RAW is picking and choosing which parts of the spell to keep and remove whereas mine is only focusing on the specific part of the spell since it is the only thing that pertains to this skill's functionality.

There's a clear delineation between a spell's casting mechanics, and a spell's effects, and when an effect is described as functioning as a spell, it typically refers to the effects, unless it specifically says otherwise. Spell components are a part of the casing mechanics, work descriptors are part of the effects.

[liquidformat]

There's a clear delineation between a spell's casting mechanics, and a spell's effects, and when an effect is described as functioning as a spell, it typically refers to the effects, unless it specifically says otherwise. Spell components are a part of the casing mechanics, work descriptors are part of the effects.

Is it really? The mind affecting descriptor shows up in the top with the rest of the casting mechanics not inside the spell text, that seems pretty clear to me that it is a mechanic of the spell and not part of the effects.

[frogglesmash]

Is it really? The mind affecting descriptor shows up in the top with the rest of the casting mechanics not inside the spell text, that seems pretty clear to me that it is a mechanic of the spell and not part of the effects.

... It's not based on physical location on the page... It's based on whether it describes the mechanics of how you cast the spell, or the mechanics of what the spell does when you cast it.

Your position is completely untenable, by that same logic, neither the aboleth's enslave ability, the doppelganger's detect thoughts ability, nor the spirit naga's charm gaze abilities are mind-affecting effects because none of them include the descriptor in their rules text, and the spells they reference only include the descriptor in their headers with "the rest of the casting mechanics."
It's also worth noting that spell headers include info on things like duration, which saves apply, and the area targeted, all things clearly describing the effect the spell has when cast, rather than what the caster must do to cast it.

[Ellrin]

work descriptors are part of the effects.

How do you figure that? AFB, but I’m looking at the d20srd.org explanation for spell descriptions, and I’m not really seeing any explicit or implicit connection between the descriptor (ie [Mind-Affecting]) and the descriptive text (the text that actually describes what a spell does) beyond the obviously similar name. In fact, due to its placement, the descriptor seems intended to be more akin to the school and subschool than anything else in the spell’s text, and I don’t think we’d attach a school to a non-spell ability that works as described by a spell.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm

[XionUnborn01]

To me, its clear that they were explaining what you were doing by reading surface thoughts. You're gaining the same info as the 3rd round of the spell. It never occurred to me that a mundane observation would be mind affecting.

[zergling.exe]

To me, its clear that they were explaining what you were doing by reading surface thoughts. You're gaining the same info as the 3rd round of the spell. It never occurred to me that a mundane observation would be mind affecting.

Immunity to mind affecting ala mind blank could suppress displays used to see what you are thinking. Like not changing facial expression while thinking at all, being blank faced at all times. Not shifting around or other such things.

[frogglesmash]

How do you figure that? AFB, but I’m looking at the d20srd.org explanation for spell descriptions, and I’m not really seeing any explicit or implicit connection between the descriptor (ie [Mind-Affecting]) and the descriptive text (the text that actually describes what a spell does) beyond the obviously similar name. In fact, due to its placement, the descriptor seems intended to be more akin to the school and subschool than anything else in the spell’s text, and I don’t think we’d attach a school to a non-spell ability that works as described by a spell.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm

If a spell has the mind-affecting tag, that means that all the effects of that spell are mind affecting unless it explicitly says otherwise. If the rules or seperate effect say that it behaves like the aforementioned spell it follows that it is also mind-affecting, as the mind-affecting descriptor is a part of the spells behaviour. This is important when when adjudicating interactions between effects and things like immunities, as descriptors inform you on which effects are countered by which immunities. For example, the aboleth's Enslave ability.


Enslave (Su)
Three times per day, an aboleth can attempt to enslave any one living creature within 30 feet. The target must succeed on a DC 17 Will save or be affected as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 16th). An enslaved creature obeys the aboleth’s telepathic commands until freed by remove curse, and can attempt a new Will save every 24 hours to break free. The control is also broken if the aboleth dies or travels more than 1 mile from its slave. The save DC is Charisma-based.



Dominate Person
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).

Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.

Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.

The mind-affecting descriptor only appears in the heading for dominate person, and not in the rules text for either the spell, or the Enslave bility, and yet Enslave is very clearly a mind-affecting effect.


To me, its clear that they were explaining what you were doing by reading surface thoughts. You're gaining the same info as the 3rd round of the spell. It never occurred to me that a mundane observation would be mind affecting.


I agree that that's almost certainly the intended interpretation.

[Ellrin]

If a spell has the mind-affecting tag, that means that all the effects of that spell are mind affecting unless it explicitly says otherwise.

This is the core of your argument, and yet I don’t know of any rules text suggesting it to be the case. Can you point to any?

In the meantime, let’s turn it around; are there any rules suggesting that a spell descriptor can be applied to the effects of the spell, instead of only being applicable to the spell as a whole? Abilities that emulate spells that we assume by RAI to have the same descriptor as the spell they emulate generally emulate the spell as a whole, differing only as specifically described by the description text of the ability or by the explanation of the type of ability it is (for example, a (Su) ability that is described as emulating a spell won’t provoke an AoO because (Su) abilities are specifically described as not doing so). Do we have examples of any non-spell abilities that only emulate a specified portion of a spell, rather than the full spell, that explicitly take the spell descriptor?

This isn’t to say that absence of evidence is evidence to the contrary, but without it we’re essentially debating without precedent.

[skunk3]

I fail to understand how using Sense Motive to read someone's thoughts would be the same as a 'mind affecting' effect.

It's completely non-magical, and not even a supernatural or (as-listed) an extraordinary ability. That character is simply so good at reading every tiny nuance of someone else's movements, posture, and so on that they can more or less read someone else's mind. Just because gaining the info functions in a similar way to the 3rd round of Detect Thoughts, that doesn't mean that it's mind affecting per se. Furthermore, I would argue that if a PC could theoretically hit sense movie checks that high it would also foil magical defenses such as Mind Blank because using that skill isn't magical/supernatural/etc. It is an incredibly well-honed natural ability and as such it shouldn't be subject to Mind Blank.

Besides, we're talking about hitting DC 100 skill checks here which simply isn't going to happen without TO or at the very least a healthy amount of munchkin-ing. When would this really be an issue in an actual game?

[frogglesmash]

This is the core of your argument, and yet I don’t know of any rules text suggesting it to be the case. Can you point to any?

In the meantime, let’s turn it around; are there any rules suggesting that a spell descriptor can be applied to the effects of the spell, instead of only being applicable to the spell as a whole? Abilities that emulate spells that we assume by RAI to have the same descriptor as the spell they emulate generally emulate the spell as a whole, differing only as specifically described by the description text of the ability or by the explanation of the type of ability it is (for example, a (Su) ability that is described as emulating a spell won’t provoke an AoO because (Su) abilities are specifically described as not doing so). Do we have examples of any non-spell abilities that only emulate a specified portion of a spell, rather than the full spell, that explicitly take the spell descriptor?

This isn’t to say that absence of evidence is evidence to the contrary, but without it we’re essentially debating without precedent.




[Descriptor]
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.

A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.


Descriptors describe how an effect interacts, it doesn't actually do anything on its own. More specifically, it's a shorthand for a collection of interaction rules, these interactions are as much a part of the effect any any fully written out rules text.

Note: The language from the SRD is in reference to spells specifically because I got it from the SRD page on spell descriptions, however a quick perusal of the Monster Manual will show you that descriptors are not unique to spells.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to sum up my position here, one last time, and then I'm done, cause this is giving me a headache.


If an effect says it functions as a given spell, that includes all the mechanics of that spell's effect, except where otherwise specified. Descriptors indicate how a spell interacts with things, which is a part of the spell's mechanics, therefore we include descriptors when determining how effects that reference spells function. This does not include spell components, or casting time. Spell components, and casting time are actions, and conditions that must occur/be met to bring about the spell's effect, they precede the effect, they are not a part of it. It also does not include arcane spell failure, or provocation of AoOs, these are mechanics of the spellcasting class feature and are not associated with any given spell.

[Mordaedil]

Honestly, if you have a player pass a DC 100 Sense Motive check, just let him ****ing bypass Mind Blank, because you clearly haven't even attempted to balance the game at this point.

[Crake]

I fail to understand how using Sense Motive to read someone's thoughts would be the same as a 'mind affecting' effect.

It's completely non-magical, and not even a supernatural or (as-listed) an extraordinary ability. That character is simply so good at reading every tiny nuance of someone else's movements, posture, and so on that they can more or less read someone else's mind. Just because gaining the info functions in a similar way to the 3rd round of Detect Thoughts, that doesn't mean that it's mind affecting per se. Furthermore, I would argue that if a PC could theoretically hit sense movie checks that high it would also foil magical defenses such as Mind Blank because using that skill isn't magical/supernatural/etc. It is an incredibly well-honed natural ability and as such it shouldn't be subject to Mind Blank.

Besides, we're talking about hitting DC 100 skill checks here which simply isn't going to happen without TO or at the very least a healthy amount of munchkin-ing. When would this really be an issue in an actual game?

this was quite nicely explained here:


Immunity to mind affecting ala mind blank could suppress displays used to see what you are thinking. Like not changing facial expression while thinking at all, being blank faced at all times. Not shifting around or other such things.

As an aside, just because something is mundane, doesn't mean it's not mind affecting, or not subject to mind-blank preventing it. Fear attacks, including the intimidate skill, are all mind affecting and are thus protected by mind-blank


Honestly, if you have a player pass a DC 100 Sense Motive check, just let him ****ing bypass Mind Blank, because you clearly haven't even attempted to balance the game at this point.

Or, you know, you're playing in epic levels, where this function of the skill was designed.

[skunk3]

But the intimidate skill is quite literally mind-affecting. That is what one does when they attempt to intimidate another... affect their mind. Using sense motive to hit astronomical checks to read minds, I would argue, is not mind-affecting. It would be, for the lack of a better term, an extraordinary ability that exceptionally skilled characters could employ to read minds. Not affect minds - but to look at someone and to be able to analyze them with frightening accuracy to the point that one could actually detect surface thoughts. This would be similar to a mentalist, a psychologist, or an elite-level poker player... sorta. Mind Blank doesn't do anything whatsoever to suppress facial movements or behaviors or nervous tics or anything of the sort. The spell basically works like putting your mind into an impenetrable vault that cannot be breached via any sort of magical means, whether arcane or divine. HOWEVER, since using sense motive isn't actually employing any sort of magic whatsoever I think that it should bypass mind blank. I don't even think that they should get a will save. I think that all that should happen is that there's an opposed roll of some sort (bluff vs. sense motive most likely) and if sense motive wins by a high enough number, the winner should then be able to read that person like a book.

Personally, I think it is silly that ANY sense motive check (regardless of the result) would allow a character to read someone's thoughts. They should instead be able to instantly call bull**** on anything they hear that isn't the truth and to be able to narrow down exactly what is and isn't bull****. I don't know where the info is for these epic level skill check DC's (edit: just looked it up) but to me it seems to make much more sense that a character should have to be capable of hitting extremely high skill checks in BOTH sense motive *and* gather information to be able to even come close to something akin to reading thoughts but that's just my 2 cents. There's also loads of very inexpensive ways to both read and protect minds via magical items, so this scenario is a rarity. It says that any bluff check result lower than 100 automatically fails, which I think is stupid. If I got a 99 on a bluff check and someone else got a 100 on their sense motive, they could just read my mind? Get real. That's so dumb. They should have to beat the opposed roll by a SIGNIFICANT amount... and besides, it only detects surface thoughts. The effect doesn't pick apart someone's brain and gain access to any info they want. All someone would have to do to foil the mind reader is to just think about turds and puppies and sandwiches.

Anyway, like I said before, the odds of a character being able to get 100+ on a sense motive check are extremely slim, even in an epic game unless there is major munchkin-ing going on, UNLESS it's some crazy super high level game. In other words, this is an issue that is more of a thought exercise than a practical discussion because the odds of this ever being happening in an average gaming group are infinitesimally small.

[Ellrin]

Descriptors describe how an effect interacts, it doesn't actually do anything on its own. More specifically, it's a shorthand for a collection of interaction rules, these interactions are as much a part of the effect any any fully written out rules text.

Note: The language from the SRD is in reference to spells specifically because I got it from the SRD page on spell descriptions, however a quick perusal of the Monster Manual will show you that descriptors are not unique to spells.

Well of course, I wasn't trying to suggest descriptors have any direct effect of their own; neither do schools or subschools, to take another example. The argument I'm putting forward here as a hypothetical is that the descriptor is a function that describes the spell in its entirety, not in its parts; take the spell apart, and all you're left with is pieces of a spell, not a spell, in itself. And while yes, descriptors can apply to abilities other than spells, let's remember that in this case, the descriptor is applying to a spell, which we no longer have once we've disassembled it.

Having carefully read the explanatory text of descriptors in the SRD, and in lieu of any directly applicable precedents, I can't see anything to suggest my hypothesis is not correct. I also can't see anything to suggest it is, either, but that's not really the point of the hypothesis.

So is the hypothesis I've put forward the correct interpretation? Or is it the alternative? Without precedent and without directly supporting text, it's impossible to say. In short, I believe the rules as written are insufficient to explain the effect, and that defaulting to the common—that is, not the D&D-nese—meaning of the actual language involved is necessary to come to a conclusion that relies on the text available rather than trying to read between the lines. Using that standard, as I explained previously, I don't think there's much choice but to conclude that the rules don't support Sense Motive's effects as being mind-affecting. Because while sure, at the quantum level, the act of observation has a deterministic effect on the observed, on a macroscopic level, that same act, in and of itself, doesn't really directly affect the observed. And the words "sense motive," when taken in context, refer pretty clearly to an act of observation, not one of interaction; and if there are no explicitly spelled out rules for Sense Motive being used in any other way, I think we're stuck with that.

I'm starting to feel like maybe a high Sense Motive roll on the text is necessary for any real agreement, though.

[Mordaedil]

Or, you know, you're playing in epic levels, where this function of the skill was designed.
Point stands there. I mean, if it comes up, you as a DM just kinda have to make the call and I don't think just referring to RAW is useful at this point, because it's not a magical effect, it's just a skill check.

I can see two arguments to be made for and against it.

1) The player can do it an unlimited number of times per day and the number of casters that can cast Mind Blank are few enough that whenever it comes up isn't going to be a huge issue.

or

2) The player has invested a lot of skillpoints to build their character up to this point, to be able to read minds without the need for a spell, specifically to not be hindered by protective magics and reading minds in a mundane fashion, which magic can't block, because it is just written on your characters face for them and the spell merely prevents literal reading of the mind using magic, rather than intuition.

I don't think either interpretation is wrong, but you need to pick one for your game.

[liquidformat]

If a spell has the mind-affecting tag, that means that all the effects of that spell are mind affecting unless it explicitly says otherwise. If the rules or seperate effect say that it behaves like the aforementioned spell it follows that it is also mind-affecting, as the mind-affecting descriptor is a part of the spells behaviour. This is important when when adjudicating interactions between effects and things like immunities, as descriptors inform you on which effects are countered by which immunities. For example, the aboleth's Enslave ability.






The mind-affecting descriptor only appears in the heading for dominate person, and not in the rules text for either the spell, or the Enslave bility, and yet Enslave is very clearly a mind-affecting effect.

Aboleth's Enslave seems like a particularly bad example to support your case, it isn't saying it is similar to dominate or like dominate it is saying you are using the dominate spell with slight changes, of course it would still be a an Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting].

My point is by trying to apply this logic to a skill you are also making it a divination which it isn't, you are reading too much into it and adding things in that weren't there. We already have precedence with the interplay between Bluff 'disguise surface thoughts' of how it should function and and perform 'fanatic' for specifically calling out what is and isn't mind-affecting.


I fail to understand how using Sense Motive to read someone's thoughts would be the same as a 'mind affecting' effect.

It's completely non-magical, and not even a supernatural or (as-listed) an extraordinary ability. That character is simply so good at reading every tiny nuance of someone else's movements, posture, and so on that they can more or less read someone else's mind. Just because gaining the info functions in a similar way to the 3rd round of Detect Thoughts, that doesn't mean that it's mind affecting per se. Furthermore, I would argue that if a PC could theoretically hit sense movie checks that high it would also foil magical defenses such as Mind Blank because using that skill isn't magical/supernatural/etc. It is an incredibly well-honed natural ability and as such it shouldn't be subject to Mind Blank.


This is how I see it as well.


Immunity to mind affecting ala mind blank could suppress displays used to see what you are thinking. Like not changing facial expression while thinking at all, being blank faced at all times. Not shifting around or other such things.

Please read Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm), it does nothing of the sort it protects you "from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects."

Sense motive isn't a 'device', a spell, or divination spell effect therefore it is outside the preview of the spell. Furthermore, the spell doesn't talk about eliminating facial ticks or mannerisms it is more akin to putting up a mental barrier in your mind that shields you against magic. I don't see how a skill based around reading facial ticks, mannerisms, and body language should fall into the purview of a spell that puts up a magical barrier on your mind, or a special quality that protects a creature from affecting its mind.