Bluff question

[danielxcutter]

If you don’t make the Sense Motive check, do you automatically believe them, or are you allowed to still be suspicious? This question is for both sides of the table; it applies to both suspicious NPCs and suspicious PCs.

I know it is unrealistic to assume that all NPCs who fail their Sense Motive checks to be still suspicious, but there are certainly situations where that might happen, especially if the person hearing the lie either has good reason to believe that the liar is lying. Or maybe just paranoid.

[DeTess]

I don't think there is. If the person making the check already knows what he's being told is a lie, then the bluff check is just an auto-fail, and no sense motive check is necessary. If a person is naturally suspicious, use that as aan extra modifier on the check. Either way, if the check fails, they shouldn't really be suspicious, as that's what the check is meant to represent.

[Kish]

I would say that someone who is sufficiently paranoid to not trust someone even if a Sense Motive check tells them they're telling the truth...they wouldn't be making a Sense Motive check.

"Has good reason to believe that the liar is lying" is a reason for a circumstance bonus to the Sense Motive check--depending on how good that reason is, it could be enough of a circumstance bonus to automatically succeed (since skill checks don't auto-fail on a 1 or auto-succeed on a 20). But that doesn't mean you get to ignore the Sense Motive check result even if you did roll poorly enough. "All right, Lex, I believe you really do want to reform this time."

"Or maybe just paranoid" is a reason to put no ranks in Sense Motive, never roll it, and assume everyone is lying all the time. If you're theoretically making arrangements for circumstances under which your paladin former ally might be trying to contact you because something threatens you both, assume he's actually there to kill you and seize your gate, and set a bomb instead.

[danielxcutter]

Okay, “if you’re suspicious but you think he’s too good of a liar then don’t make the bloody check” actually kind of works, yeah. Makes sense.

[the_tick_rules]

If you don’t make the Sense Motive check, do you automatically believe them, or are you allowed to still be suspicious? This question is for both sides of the table; it applies to both suspicious NPCs and suspicious PCs.

I know it is unrealistic to assume that all NPCs who fail their Sense Motive checks to be still suspicious, but there are certainly situations where that might happen, especially if the person hearing the lie either has good reason to believe that the liar is lying. Or maybe just paranoid.

I think anytime the person is making a bluff check the other person gets a sense motive check. I'm not sure if there is a formal chart for the scale of the failure in the sense if you fail by 1 you are suspicious but go along but if you fail by a lot you totally believe them. I know if some dude in an alleyway offered me cheap magical items I'd be suspicious if he was as good a liar as Olidammara. one of my fav dm's rolled his opposition checks in secret so you couldn't know if your check beat his in cases like this.

[Psyren]

I'd recommend porting in the Pathfinder clause which states: "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)." I would then couple it with the second clause which states "If you fail to deceive someone, any further checks made to deceive them are made at a –10 penalty and may be impossible (GM discretion)."

Using this clause, Haley's "you don't see or hear us" and "you're a yellow-footed rock wallaby" (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html) lies probably wouldn't work in PF.

[SirNibbles]

If you don’t make the Sense Motive check, do you automatically believe them, or are you allowed to still be suspicious? This question is for both sides of the table; it applies to both suspicious NPCs and suspicious PCs.

I know it is unrealistic to assume that all NPCs who fail their Sense Motive checks to be still suspicious, but there are certainly situations where that might happen, especially if the person hearing the lie either has good reason to believe that the liar is lying. Or maybe just paranoid.




"Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like. If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff.

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe."

SRD: Bluff


If the Bluff check succeeds, they believe you. Modifiers exist for a reason and the modifiers for Bluff/Sense Motive are clearly listed in the SRD, the PHB, and the Rules Compendium. You wouldn't tell someone they can't possibly Tumble even with a good check because they are trying to move full speed (+10) on an icy (+5), sloped (+2), cavern floor (+5). Why try to do it with Bluff?

[Telonius]

Bluff and Sense Motive are kind of tricky. Personally I treat Sense Motive as telling a user, "Does the target believe what they're saying?" If the Sense Motive check is less than the Bluff check, or if the person isn't deliberately telling a falsehood, you think that the person believes what they're telling you. How the player acts on that information is up to the player. If the Sense Motive check exceeds a Bluff check, you think they're lying. For example, if somebody's been subject to a spell that makes them think they're a Polymorphed Tarrasque, and they say, "I'm a Polymorphed Tarrasque!" then any Sense Motive check is going to come up with, "He believes he's telling the truth." That doesn't mean the person making the check has to act as though the target is, in fact, a Polymorphed Tarrasque.

Similarly, if somebody is a level 20 Diplomancer with a +75 bonus to Bluff, talking with a level-1 Guard, the guard will never be able to see through any Bluff check even on a 20. He'll believe that the Diplomancer thinks whatever he's saying is true, but he won't have to ring the Tarrasque Alarm; he can call the local Cleric instead to get the poor soul un-confused. What he won't do is arrest the guy for lying to a guard.

[bekeleven]

Reminds me of one of my favorite characters, a country bumpkin in the big city. Whenever somebody said something obviously, patently unbelievable, I'd announce "I'm making a sense motive check on that!" and just place a D20 on the table with the 1 up.


Bluff and Sense Motive are kind of tricky. Personally I treat Sense Motive as telling a user, "Does the target believe what they're saying?" If the Sense Motive check is less than the Bluff check, or if the person isn't deliberately telling a falsehood, you think that the person believes what they're telling you.This is tricky. You should be able to convince people of unbelievable things - hard sells and sweet talks are a real skill, and quite important to grifters. But I understand shying away from it because it's so abusable in the D20 framework. I've spent a while on it and there's no perfect answer.

[Quertus]

Bluff and Sense Motive are kind of tricky. Personally I treat Sense Motive as telling a user, "Does the target believe what they're saying?" If the Sense Motive check is less than the Bluff check, or if the person isn't deliberately telling a falsehood, you think that the person believes what they're telling you. How the player acts on that information is up to the player. If the Sense Motive check exceeds a Bluff check, you think they're lying. For example, if somebody's been subject to a spell that makes them think they're a Polymorphed Tarrasque, and they say, "I'm a Polymorphed Tarrasque!" then any Sense Motive check is going to come up with, "He believes he's telling the truth." That doesn't mean the person making the check has to act as though the target is, in fact, a Polymorphed Tarrasque.

Similarly, if somebody is a level 20 Diplomancer with a +75 bonus to Bluff, talking with a level-1 Guard, the guard will never be able to see through any Bluff check even on a 20. He'll believe that the Diplomancer thinks whatever he's saying is true, but he won't have to ring the Tarrasque Alarm; he can call the local Cleric instead to get the poor soul un-confused. What he won't do is arrest the guy for lying to a guard.


This is tricky. You should be able to convince people of unbelievable things - hard sells and sweet talks are a real skill, and quite important to grifters. But I understand shying away from it because it's so abusable in the D20 framework. I've spent a while on it and there's no perfect answer.

I pretty much go with Telonius on this one. Bluff lets you convince people that you believe what you say even when you don't; Sense Motive lets you know when people don't believe what they say. How people respond is up to them. "Honestly" believing that the world is flat/round, that Monks are strong/weak, that Pelor is/isn't the Burning Hate, that the gods are/aren't parasites, that the Wall of the Faithless is necessary / an abomination, around people who "know" differently?

The art of the con, then, is in getting people to believe what you want them to believe by playing 5d chess, or, as in Loki's case, selectively "failing" bluff checks.

The art of science, IMO, is in honestly believing all the underlying steps - steps which (probably) wouldn't be there if what you believed was false.

[Sinner's Garden]

If you're suspicious, you make a sense motive check. If you don't have a reason to doubt them, or you fail the sense motive check, then your suspicions are allayed. That's the whole point of the bluff and sense motive skills.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho you only rely on bluff/sense motive if it is necessary.

here a few example scenarios:

- when someone is biased about you (e.g. he knows that you always lie, or is a racist and don't believe you anyways, goes against his code of conduct..). Imho in this chase a diplomacy check is required first, before you can try to bluff. This should be roleplayed that he isn't even listening to what you say. He doesn't give you the attention to give an opportunity to bluff.

- if someone has other special reasons to believe or disbelieve your story.


everything else should be represented by modifiers/penalties. Remember that you aren't sole bound to the modifiers mentioned in the book and that they are only guidelines. If you as DM have a plausible reason for a special modifier you are allowed/encouraged to make use of them.

[Troacctid]

The DC to get a hunch about someone's motivations is 20. If you get less than that, you shouldn't get any information at all, IMO. It should just be "You can't get a good read on them." Especially if the players are rolling their own dice—they'll know they rolled a 3, so if I just say "You believe them," they easily deduce OOC that they're wrong to do so, giving away that the NPC is lying.

On the other hand, if you get at least a 20 but still less than their opposed Bluff result, then you can have a false reading. That's the point where you're confident enough to think you're right, even if you're wrong, IMO.

[Calthropstu]

Bluff vs sense motive, to me, works something along the lines of this:

"Please help me Mr Guard. I need to get through quickly to get this medicine to my grandmother right away. She's very sick and might die."
"Can I see some identification?"
*pocket fishing, reveals hole in pocket.
"Oh no, it must have fallen out in my rush over here. Please sir, I have to get in quickly!"
"Oh, all right. Just tell me your Grandmother's name and I'll check up on you two later."
"Ok, her name is Sally McDoesntexist"
*one bluff check later
Success: "Right. I'll make sure someone checks up on you later. Now get that medicine to your granny."
Fail: "Otto, go escort this man to his Grandmother. If he's lying, throw him in the jail and I'll deal with him personally."
Massive fail: "Otto, throw this guy in lockup, and send that "medicine" for testing. 2:1 odds that it's drugs."

[danielxcutter]

Bluff vs sense motive, to me, works something along the lines of this:

"Please help me Mr Guard. I need to get through quickly to get this medicine to my grandmother right away. She's very sick and might die."
"Can I see some identification?"
*pocket fishing, reveals hole in pocket.
"Oh no, it must have fallen out in my rush over here. Please sir, I have to get in quickly!"
"Oh, all right. Just tell me your Grandmother's name and I'll check up on you two later."
"Ok, her name is Sally McDoesntexist"
*one bluff check later
Success: "Right. I'll make sure someone checks up on you later. Now get that medicine to your granny."
Fail: "Otto, go escort this man to his Grandmother. If he's lying, throw him in the jail and I'll deal with him personally."
Massive fail: "Otto, throw this guy in lockup, and send that "medicine" for testing. 2:1 odds that it's drugs."

chuckles Sounds more or less right.

[the_tick_rules]

my shining moment in bluffing was when we kidnapped a casino boss and rolled him up in a carpet and tried to sneak him out the back. when a guard asked what we were doing I responded, "Oh this guy was caught cheating, the boss told us to take him out back and explain company policy." he didn't even make me roll for it.

[danielxcutter]

my shining moment in bluffing was when we kidnapped a casino boss and rolled him up in a carpet and tried to sneak him out the back. when a guard asked what we were doing I responded, "Oh this guy was caught cheating, the boss told us to take him out back and explain company policy." he didn't even make me roll for it.

How high was your modifier? It sounds plausible enough for a decent bonus.

[Jay R]

Sense Motive isn't magic. It's understanding people's reactions. When a PC rolls sense motive, I treat it like this:

[Sense motive success, if the speaker is lying] DM: He's sweating, moving back and forth a little, and looks nervous. You're pretty sure he's lying, or at least unsure of his information.

[Sense Motive failure, or Sense Motive success if the speaker isn't lying] DM: Nothing in his voice or manner gives you an automatic reason to distrust him.

In either case, they are given the results of observation, not the results of mind-reading. The player will decide what his or her character believes, based on all the information available -- including what the speaker was actually saying.

[Segev]

The trouble I always have with lie/detect-lie opposed roll systems is the question of what happens if you're telling the truth but trying to convince people of something unbelievable?

"The king is a chicken, I tell you! A giant chicken!" A chicken who is, apparently, a master of disguise and only your keen eye or lucky discovery of his makeup kit revealed this to you. And you have no evidence.

You make no Bluff roll, because you're not lying. Everyone else rolls Sense Motive, and they discover that you're not lying. ...except now they either believe you're mad, or that you're such a good liar that you can convincingly portray believing what you're saying.

Now, if you're lying? Same thing, assuming your Bluff beats their Sense Motives. Except... now there's that "epic success" notion that, maybe, you're SUCH a good liar that you can persuade them to suspect the king might actually be a bit fowl. Or maybe not, depending whether the DM allows Bluff to persuade of anything but your own sincerity.

But then, we're still right back to the question: how do you persuade somebody of something unbelievable? Again, the fantasy of playing a fast-talker absolutely includes doing things like talking a town full of people into believing that a Pool Hall opening up in town means they need to start a marching band at their school and buy a bunch of instruments and uniforms to keep their kids out of trouble.

How do you run that?

[Gruftzwerg]

The trouble I always have with lie/detect-lie opposed roll systems is the question of what happens if you're telling the truth but trying to convince people of something unbelievable?

"The king is a chicken, I tell you! A giant chicken!" A chicken who is, apparently, a master of disguise and only your keen eye or lucky discovery of his makeup kit revealed this to you. And you have no evidence.

You make no Bluff roll, because you're not lying. Everyone else rolls Sense Motive, and they discover that you're not lying. ...except now they either believe you're mad, or that you're such a good liar that you can convincingly portray believing what you're saying.

Now, if you're lying? Same thing, assuming your Bluff beats their Sense Motives. Except... now there's that "epic success" notion that, maybe, you're SUCH a good liar that you can persuade them to suspect the king might actually be a bit fowl. Or maybe not, depending whether the DM allows Bluff to persuade of anything but your own sincerity.

But then, we're still right back to the question: how do you persuade somebody of something unbelievable? Again, the fantasy of playing a fast-talker absolutely includes doing things like talking a town full of people into believing that a Pool Hall opening up in town means they need to start a marching band at their school and buy a bunch of instruments and uniforms to keep their kids out of trouble.

How do you run that?
As you said it yourself:
You make no bluff role.

Because you are not bluffing. When you bluff, you try convince others by charming and twisting words and hope that the victim doesn't think it through and doesn't try to confirm your story.

But what you need to do in your situation (convincing others of a unbelievable but true story) is Diplomacy. You want others to think things through and that they try to confirm your story. The total opposite of bluffing.

Sure, you could still try to bluff your way out. But than you are relying again on your charm and twisting words ability and not your ability to handle different points of view in a conversation.

With bluff you'll use fake arguments, while with diplomacy you try at least not to lie (maybe keeping some things secret, but not straight out lying).

[Segev]

As you said it yourself:
You make no bluff role.

Because you are not bluffing. When you bluff, you try convince others by charming and twisting words and hope that the victim doesn't think it through and doesn't try to confirm your story.

But what you need to do in your situation (convincing others of a unbelievable but true story) is Diplomacy. You want others to think things through and that they try to confirm your story. The total opposite of bluffing.

Sure, you could still try to bluff your way out. But than you are relying again on your charm and twisting words ability and not your ability to handle different points of view in a conversation.

With bluff you'll use fake arguments, while with diplomacy you try at least not to lie (maybe keeping some things secret, but not straight out lying).

What's the Diplomacy DC? And is it harder to convince somebody of something ridiculous than of something believable? Is it harder to convince somebody who will be expected to give up something than somebody who stands to gain?

Is the Bluff and Diplomacy DC the same to convince somebody the King is a Giant Chicken, with the only difference being whether you're lying or not?

[Psyren]

The trouble I always have with lie/detect-lie opposed roll systems is the question of what happens if you're telling the truth but trying to convince people of something unbelievable?

"The king is a chicken, I tell you! A giant chicken!" A chicken who is, apparently, a master of disguise and only your keen eye or lucky discovery of his makeup kit revealed this to you. And you have no evidence.

You make no Bluff roll, because you're not lying. Everyone else rolls Sense Motive, and they discover that you're not lying. ...except now they either believe you're mad, or that you're such a good liar that you can convincingly portray believing what you're saying.

Now, if you're lying? Same thing, assuming your Bluff beats their Sense Motives. Except... now there's that "epic success" notion that, maybe, you're SUCH a good liar that you can persuade them to suspect the king might actually be a bit fowl. Or maybe not, depending whether the DM allows Bluff to persuade of anything but your own sincerity.

But then, we're still right back to the question: how do you persuade somebody of something unbelievable? Again, the fantasy of playing a fast-talker absolutely includes doing things like talking a town full of people into believing that a Pool Hall opening up in town means they need to start a marching band at their school and buy a bunch of instruments and uniforms to keep their kids out of trouble.

How do you run that?

The PF approach is simply "if you try something too outlandish, the GM can just say no, regardless of your result." I would put trying to convince everyone that the king is poultry in that category.

And honestly, setting a hard guideline for "this nonsensical statement is universally believable and this one isn't" regardless of the context/situation is poor design anyway. The rules should serve to empower the GM to have the courage to say no if the player is being uncreative and merely relying on a dice roll, while still allowing for a hail mary to work - and that means a guideline is appropriate.

[Quertus]

The trouble I always have with lie/detect-lie opposed roll systems is the question of what happens if you're telling the truth but trying to convince people of something unbelievable?

"The king is a chicken, I tell you! A giant chicken!" A chicken who is, apparently, a master of disguise and only your keen eye or lucky discovery of his makeup kit revealed this to you. And you have no evidence.

You make no Bluff roll, because you're not lying. Everyone else rolls Sense Motive, and they discover that you're not lying. ...except now they either believe you're mad, or that you're such a good liar that you can convincingly portray believing what you're saying.

Now, if you're lying? Same thing, assuming your Bluff beats their Sense Motives. Except... now there's that "epic success" notion that, maybe, you're SUCH a good liar that you can persuade them to suspect the king might actually be a bit fowl. Or maybe not, depending whether the DM allows Bluff to persuade of anything but your own sincerity.

But then, we're still right back to the question: how do you persuade somebody of something unbelievable? Again, the fantasy of playing a fast-talker absolutely includes doing things like talking a town full of people into believing that a Pool Hall opening up in town means they need to start a marching band at their school and buy a bunch of instruments and uniforms to keep their kids out of trouble.

How do you run that?

I'm embarrassed to admit, it wasn't until I realized that someone (you?) had used this example before that I realized that I got the reference.

How do I run things? Much like IRL, people are idiots. It doesn't matter how true it is that the king is actually poultry, people are simply unwilling to believe it.

[zlefin]

I'm embarrassed to admit, it wasn't until I realized that someone (you?) had used this example before that I realized that I got the reference.

How do I run things? Much like IRL, people are idiots. It doesn't matter how true it is that the king is actually poultry, people are simply unwilling to believe it.

this is really reminding me of those skits from Animaniacs with the chicken pretending to be human. Looking it up it was called Chicken Boo.