Disguise, Spot, Sense Motive, and Bluff: How Do They Work?

[Doctor Despair]

Hello, all. I was looking at the skills referenced in the title, and now I feel I've done a decent job of confusing myself, so I thought I'd reach out to the Playground for clarification. Disguise reads thusly:


Check
Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Spot check results. If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Spot checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Spot checks.

You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people are making Spot checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is.

The effectiveness of your disguise depends in part on how much you’re attempting to change your appearance.

If you are impersonating a particular individual, those who know what that person looks like get a bonus on their Spot checks according to the table below. Furthermore, they are automatically considered to be suspicious of you, so opposed checks are always called for.

Usually, an individual makes a Spot check to see through your disguise immediately upon meeting you and each hour thereafter. If you casually meet many different creatures, each for a short time, check once per day or hour, using an average Spot modifier for the group.

So from this we can gather that in order to make a spot check, a person must be suspicious; if they are suspicious, they take 10 on their spot check. Folks who know the person you are disguised as are suspicious, as well as those who are just naturally suspicious (guards and the paranoid). However, this only follows if you draw attention to yourself; in that case, folks presumably do a get a spot check that would be rolled (as there's no provision for taking 10 there). Simple enough, right?

... however, Sense Motive includes this mode:


Check
A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed. You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone’s trustworthiness.

Hunch [DC 20]
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.

So by observing someone (presumably after they have drawn your attention them), you can make a DC 20 Sense Motive check to decide you are talking to an impostor?! While it seems that way at my first read, closer inspection reveals it just shows that "something is wrong." As such, a viewer might become suspicious of that individual (and therefore be entitled to a spot check to see through their disguise). So it seems like now a disguised person must only worry about the naturally suspicious, those who know the person they're disguised as, and random folks they interact with who can make a DC20 Sense Motive check.

However, the highest disguise check in the world doesn't seem to help with that last mode. For a DC20, they can decide whether you're a liar or not, with no opposed check?! Again, it seems stronger at first glance than I think it really is; it technically only lets you determine that the person is trustworthy. It has no provision for showing someone is untrustworthy. However, if the person is reasonably confident in their Sense Motive, that in and of itself could present an issue. However, the bluff skill reads:


Check
A Bluff check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check. See the accompanying table for examples of different kinds of bluffs and the modifier to the target’s Sense Motive check for each one...

... 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. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

So with a successful bluff, you can make someone do what you want (for 1 round) or believe something you want them to believe (for an indefinite duration). Presumably this would include the idea that you are trustworthy. However, can you bluff someone when you can't see them? Is acting in character when you believe you're being observed a sort of omni-directional bluff that affects anyone able to see you? There's technically no range limit on bluff, so I suppose there's nothing preventing you from bluffing that you are trustworthy and that you are who you say you are all the time. A small wrench in the works comes with the synergy table:


Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get a +2 bonus on Disguise checks when you know that you’re being observed and you try to act in character.

On the one hand, conveniently, this does seem to suggest that a character can try to act in-character to ensure they don't appear suspicious. However, more confusingly, it also seems to suggests that the disguise skill is actually supposed to be responsible for reflecting when you act in-character. If that's the case, does that mean that it should be an opposed check between disguise and sense motive to determine whether you are trustworthy or not?

Regardless of whether disguise or bluff is responsible for opposing the "hunch" mode of sense motive, suppose you fail against their sense motive check. They make their DC20 to become suspicious and do not confirm you are trustworthy, and they are confident in their ability to assess people, so they decide you must be untrustworthy. However, they make their spot check and fail to bypass your disguise. Do they return to being un-suspicious? What exactly does being suspicious entail? Is it basically a worse version of the Urban Savant's ability to know someone is disguised, even though they can't see through the disguise? Would they just shift to "unfriendly" on the diplomacy table?

I suppose my main questions here are:


Do my readings seem accurate based on what you know about the RAW for disguise/sense motive/spot/bluff?

Which check (disguise or bluff) would be responsible for making someone believe you are trustworthy while you are disguised?

What are the mechanical effects of someone getting a "hunch" that something is wrong with a social situation, or that you may not be trustworthy?

[bean illus]

...
... for reflecting when you act in-character. If that's the case, does that mean that it should be an opposed check between disguise and sense motive to determine whether you are trustworthy or not?


Some characters may have sense motive and/or bluff, others have spot and/or disguise. They do different things, but can trigger checks on each other.

A guard with spot notices a disguised character doesn't act like a priest, but sees nothing more. He calls a paladin. They confront the disguised character, who is really a rogue.

The plaladin fails his sense motive, and neither he nor the guard can penetrate the disguise. They lose their diplomacy check, and are allies of this new cleric.

A local ranger stands near, with his back turned. His listen and spot are sky high. He overhears the conversation, and fails his diplomacy, and loves this new cleric. He turns to meet his allies new ally.
Noticing the presence of the guard and the paladin, he passes a simple DC 10 wisdom check with ease, and throws a spot check around. His sky high spot immediately notices the fake beard. At the last moment the spy is revealed!



Regardless of whether disguise or bluff is responsible for opposing the "hunch" mode of sense motive, suppose you fail against their sense motive check. They make their DC20 to become suspicious and do not confirm you are trustworthy, and they are confident in their ability to assess people, so they decide you must be untrustworthy. However, they make their spot check and fail to bypass your disguise. Do they return to being un-suspicious? What exactly does being suspicious entail? Is it basically a worse version of the Urban Savant's ability to know someone is disguised, even though they can't see through the disguise? Would they just shift to "unfriendly" on the diplomacy table?


Have the failed spotter roll a dc 10 wisdom check, with a +2 for each suspicious circumstance, and a -2 for each benefit (failed spot, bluff, etc). Then hint to the player that they possibly misread the entire thing (adding a -2 to future checks).



I suppose my main questions here are:


Do my readings seem accurate based on what you know about the RAW for disguise/sense motive/spot/bluff?

Which check (disguise or bluff) would be responsible for making someone believe you are trustworthy while you are disguised?

What are the mechanical effects of someone getting a "hunch" that something is wrong with a social situation, or that you may not be trustworthy?


You are a good writer, and reader, and i feel that you have it right.

The mechanical effects are basically a triggering of more checks. In my view, each failed/ successful check gives that character -2/+2 on other checks; so a failed sense motive adds -2 to the spot, etc.

In espionage encounters, i prefer not to 'one and done' the whole thing. A good espionage campaign should encourage successful disguises, only granting checks for good reason (guards, etc), and limiting rechecks, etc. But always leave room for the failed check, and big reveal.

It's almost impossible to maintain a disguise without the assumption that most people are just who they say they are.
Guards are just guards. The market doesn't have 200 clerics casting detect alignment. High level characters are busy, and most of them won't have reason to doubt your disguise. Few characters possess the full suite of skills it takes to reveal a dedicated spy, if they don't win their first check.

And then there's magic, which is a whole different game.

[Doctor Despair]

Some characters may have sense motive and/or bluff, others have spot and/or disguise. They do different things, but can trigger checks on each other.


Fair enough



A guard with spot notices a disguised character doesn't act like a priest, but sees nothing more.



Would that not be sense motive? So the guard gets a hunch that the character is shifty, but can't put his finger on why, as he can't see through the disguise. Ok.



He calls a paladin. They confront the disguised character, who is really a rogue.

The plaladin fails his sense motive, and neither he nor the guard can penetrate the disguise. They lose their diplomacy check, and are allies of this new cleric.

Do you use opposed diplomacy rolls? Or are you just implying the disguised character would use diplomacy to make them neutral or friendly after they became suspicious and "unfriendly"? Diplomacy seems like a fair answer, but could bluff also convince the guard and paladin that the character is trustworthy and eliminate the "suspicious/unfriendly" state?



A local ranger stands near, with his back turned. His listen and spot are sky high. He overhears the conversation, and fails his diplomacy, and loves this new cleric. He turns to meet his allies new ally.
Noticing the presence of the guard and the paladin, he passes a simple DC 10 wisdom check with ease, and throws a spot check around. His sky high spot immediately notices the fake beard. At the last moment the spy is revealed!



Do you mean the DC20 sense motive check to become suspicious?



Have the failed spotter roll a dc 10 wisdom check, with a +2 for each suspicious circumstance, and a -2 for each benefit (failed spot, bluff, etc). Then hint to the player that they possibly misread the entire thing (adding a -2 to future checks).

You're repeating the wisdom check, so I assume it was intentional, then, and not a mis-typing of the DC20 "hunch" sense motive check. Are you suggesting the wisdom check is for them to realize they may be wrong about their hunch, or to become less suspicious, without any deliberate action from the disguised character? That seems like a fair way to approach someone being suspicious with no answer as to why this person seems untrustworthy.

However, I do think that either the disguise or the bluff skill should be usable to convince them of much the same (and the diplomacy skill, now that you've brought it up, seems to have some merit here, as viewing a character as untrustworthy might be enough to make them unfriendly, a defined social attitude).



You are a good writer, and reader, and i feel that you have it right.

The mechanical effects are basically a triggering of more checks. In my view, each failed/ successful check gives that character -2/+2 on other checks; so a failed sense motive adds -2 to the spot, etc.

In espionage encounters, i prefer not to 'one and done' the whole thing. A good espionage campaign should encourage successful disguises, only granting checks for good reason (guards, etc), and limiting rechecks, etc. But always leave room for the failed check, and big reveal.

Definitely a good way to run it from behind a DM-screen for players; better not to call for checks at all if there's no risk of failure, after all.



It's almost impossible to maintain a disguise without the assumption that most people are just who they say they are.
Guards are just guards. The market doesn't have 200 clerics casting detect alignment. High level characters are busy, and most of them won't have reason to doubt your disguise. Few characters possess the full suite of skills it takes to reveal a dedicated spy, if they don't win their first check.

And then there's magic, which is a whole different game.

Absolutely -- dedicated disguiuse takes far more than a disguise check. I just ended up going down a rabbit hole with the interactions between these skills.

[bean illus]

Would that not be sense motive? So the guard gets a hunch that the character is shifty, but can't put his finger on why, as he can't see through the disguise. Ok.


Sure, sense motive, but also spot. Guards have spot, so look for disguises. They also look for people that seem out of place, and could spot a priest distracted by a dice game.



Do you use opposed diplomacy rolls? Or are you just implying the disguised character would use diplomacy to make them neutral or friendly after they became suspicious and "unfriendly"? Diplomacy seems like a fair answer, but could bluff also convince the guard and paladin that the character is trustworthy and eliminate the "suspicious/unfriendly" state?


Yes, yes, and yes. Bluff to remove suspicion, or diplomacy, which can also improve reaction.

Assume the paladin fails the sense motive, he may maintain cautious suspicion, which diplomacy can help with.



Do you mean the DC20 sense motive check to become suspicious?

You're repeating the wisdom check, so I assume it was intentional, then, and not a mis-typing of the DC20 "hunch" sense motive check. Are you suggesting the wisdom check is for them to realize they may be wrong about their hunch, or to become less suspicious, without any deliberate action from the disguised character? That seems like a fair way to approach someone being suspicious with no answer as to why this person seems untrustworthy.


Both.
You asked about 'what if'. Well ... , if you think a roll should happen, then do a basic check.

If a character walks up on a guard and a paladin, talking to cleric in a market, they may not say "i make a spot check". But, like spotting smoke on the horizon, a passive wisdom check to 'catch a hunch' (the guard and paladin should be at their post, a wise man might wonder why, and use their spot).



However, I do think that either the disguise or the bluff skill should be usable to convince them of much the same (and the diplomacy skill, now that you've brought it up, seems to have some merit here, as viewing a character as untrustworthy might be enough to make them unfriendly, a defined social attitude).


Yes. And ... a dm should rarely tell a character 'this isn't the man you're looking for', or 'this person is innocent'. Unless you pull the mans beard off, leave as much realistic doubt as reasonable.




Definitely a good way to run it from behind a DM-screen for players; better not to call for checks at all if there's no risk of failure, after all

And make them roll false 'checks' for no reason at all, lol.
When they roll a 20, tell them the window is open, or the painting is expensive (or tell them nothing, but write something down and keep going).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

However, can you bluff someone when you can't see them? Is acting in character when you believe you're being observed a sort of omni-directional bluff that affects anyone able to see you? There's technically no range limit on bluff, so I suppose there's nothing preventing you from bluffing that you are trustworthy and that you are who you say you are all the time. A small wrench in the works comes with the synergy table:



On the one hand, conveniently, this does seem to suggest that a character can try to act in-character to ensure they don't appear suspicious. However, more confusingly, it also seems to suggests that the disguise skill is actually supposed to be responsible for reflecting when you act in-character. If that's the case, does that mean that it should be an opposed check between disguise and sense motive to determine whether you are trustworthy or not?

Disguise does reflect acting in-character:


You can also use Disguise to impersonate people, either individuals or types. For example, you might, with little or no actual disguise, make yourself seem like a traveller even if you’re a local.

So a Disguise check encompasses both changing your appearance and changing your behavior in order to seem like something you're not.

The basic difference between Bluff and Disguise when trying to act in-character is that Disguise is passive and Bluff is active: you don't make separate Disguise checks to try to fool each possible observer, and you don't make Bluff checks out into the void when there's no one observing you. Spot always opposes Disguise, because it involves noticing details in general, both physically as in "Huh, that guard's uniform looks like it fits poorly, I don't think he's an actual guard" and conversationally as in "Huh, this servant keeps looking away when mentioning details about his employer, I don't think he's an actual servant." Sense Motive always opposes Bluff, because it involves reading another person in general, both physically as in "Aha, he stepped with his right foot this time, I think this is a feint" and conversationally as in "Aha, she's trying to be cool but seems pretty nervous, I think she's lying."



What are the mechanical effects of someone getting a "hunch" that something is wrong with a social situation, or that you may not be trustworthy?


A hunch just tells you that something may be wrong--as in, the DM literally says something to the effect of "You feel like there might be something off about this," he doesn't say why you feel that way.

If you're chatting with someone and they seem straightforward and honest, and then you roll Sense Motive and get a hunch that something's wrong, that could mean that the person is an imposter and lying to you despite your high Spot/Sense Motive result to the contrary...or it could mean that they're totally who they say they are and everything they're saying is true, but that they're being coerced by someone else to present the information in a certain way and seem unusually nervous, they're under a geas to always tell the truth and are being very careful with their wording, they're being possessed by a demon so their body language is a bit off, they know they're being watched by a sniper a couple rooftops over and are trying to avoid giving that away, or a bunch of other possible things.

Similarly, if you run into someone who's wearing ill-fitting clothes and pretty shifty and you're pretty sure they're an imposter and/or liar, and then you roll Sense Motive and get a hunch that they're on the level, that could mean that the person is totally trustworthy and merely suffers from a poor sartorial sense and social anxiety...or it could mean that they're wearing a disguise to fool someone else but aren't trying to fool you at all, they just got back from the tavern and have a terrible hangover so the slurring and wincing is unrelated to what they're saying, they got hit with an ego whip and are really out of it at the moment so they just seem unconfident in general, or the like and are actually being as honest as they can.

Basically, the Hunch use of Sense Motive isn't a way to bypass the need to Spot a disguise or Sense Motive a bluff at all. Rather, it adds another axis to the binary "Is a lying liar who lies about their identity"/"Is completely trustworthy in all ways" output of Spot and Sense Motive and provides a means by which a DM can convey traits, tells, and other information that would be subtle yet apparent to the characters in-game but that would be overly blatant if told directly to the players.

[Spiderswims]

Hello, all. I was looking at the skills referenced in the title, and now I feel I've done a decent job of confusing myself, so I thought I'd reach out to the Playground for clarification.


Here is a link to the post all about disguise from a while back: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?561021-Visual-Lies-A-Reference-for-the-Disguise-Skill

At the bottom of the first post is also a link to the one for the Bluff skill.

Plenty of good stuff to read.

[Doctor Despair]

Here is a link to the post all about disguise from a while back: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?561021-Visual-Lies-A-Reference-for-the-Disguise-Skill

At the bottom of the first post is also a link to the one for the Bluff skill.

Plenty of good stuff to read.

Oh, believe me, I've spent a lot of time on these posts, haha. Definitely a valuable reference resource


Disguise does reflect acting in-character:



So a Disguise check encompasses both changing your appearance and changing your behavior in order to seem like something you're not.

The basic difference between Bluff and Disguise when trying to act in-character is that Disguise is passive and Bluff is active: you don't make separate Disguise checks to try to fool each possible observer, and you don't make Bluff checks out into the void when there's no one observing you. Spot always opposes Disguise, because it involves noticing details in general, both physically as in "Huh, that guard's uniform looks like it fits poorly, I don't think he's an actual guard" and conversationally as in "Huh, this servant keeps looking away when mentioning details about his employer, I don't think he's an actual servant." Sense Motive always opposes Bluff, because it involves reading another person in general, both physically as in "Aha, he stepped with his right foot this time, I think this is a feint" and conversationally as in "Aha, she's trying to be cool but seems pretty nervous, I think she's lying."

A hunch just tells you that something may be wrong--as in, the DM literally says something to the effect of "You feel like there might be something off about this," he doesn't say why you feel that way.

If you're chatting with someone and they seem straightforward and honest, and then you roll Sense Motive and get a hunch that something's wrong, that could mean that the person is an imposter and lying to you despite your high Spot/Sense Motive result to the contrary...or it could mean that they're totally who they say they are and everything they're saying is true, but that they're being coerced by someone else to present the information in a certain way and seem unusually nervous, they're under a geas to always tell the truth and are being very careful with their wording, they're being possessed by a demon so their body language is a bit off, they know they're being watched by a sniper a couple rooftops over and are trying to avoid giving that away, or a bunch of other possible things.

Similarly, if you run into someone who's wearing ill-fitting clothes and pretty shifty and you're pretty sure they're an imposter and/or liar, and then you roll Sense Motive and get a hunch that they're on the level, that could mean that the person is totally trustworthy and merely suffers from a poor sartorial sense and social anxiety...or it could mean that they're wearing a disguise to fool someone else but aren't trying to fool you at all, they just got back from the tavern and have a terrible hangover so the slurring and wincing is unrelated to what they're saying, they got hit with an ego whip and are really out of it at the moment so they just seem unconfident in general, or the like and are actually being as honest as they can.

Basically, the Hunch use of Sense Motive isn't a way to bypass the need to Spot a disguise or Sense Motive a bluff at all. Rather, it adds another axis to the binary "Is a lying liar who lies about their identity"/"Is completely trustworthy in all ways" output of Spot and Sense Motive and provides a means by which a DM can convey traits, tells, and other information that would be subtle yet apparent to the characters in-game but that would be overly blatant if told directly to the players.

So I suppose talking to someone prompts a spot check to see through their disguise. If you fail the spot check, you can make a fixed-DC sense motive check to get a hunch. If you succeed on the check, you get the feeling something is wrong, and that this person may not be trustworthy. If you are confident in your sense motive skill checks, then you are certain they are untrustworthy and something is wrong.

The disguised person, talking to you, may take an action to lean into their disguise, bluffing to you to convince you that they are trustworthy for one reason or another and are, indeed, who they say they are; this check may be at up to a -20 penalty if the observer is absolutely confident in their original sense motive check. If the disguised person surpasses your sense motive, presumably you would be convinced, in spite of your gut instinct. If you beat the disguised person's bluff, you remain suspicious of them and might take further action to ascertain their identity -- casting things like true seeing, detect magic, using vatic gaze, etc -- or just using good, old-fashioned interrogation (presumably calling for more opposed bluff/sense motive rolls for each piece of information the person doesn't know, with circumstantial penalties to the bluff). I'm not sure where it would proceed from there, but presumably it would be to the best interest of the disguised person to avoid letting things get to this point.

What seems more frustrating is the idea of an observer using hunch while watching from a distance. After all, how can the disguised person bluff them if they aren't aware they are being watched? However, now that I look at it, it seems like you actually can't use the hunch skill unless the person is aware they are being watched. It allows you to get a gut feeling about a social situation. If the disguised person is in any social situation, then, it follows that they will actively bluff to appear more believable to couch against an unseen observer using "hunch" against them.

Of note, too, is that using sense motive takes at least 10 rounds, and I believe getting a hunch requires active effort on the viewer's part rather than being a passive check:


Action
Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.

This will reduce the amount of times this ability is relevant. However, this does prompt a thought for me.

Mask of Gentility reads:


Benefit
If you are subjected to a divination spell that normally would reveal your alignment, your alignment registers as neutral. In addition, if someone tries to use the Sense Motive skill to get a hunch about your purpose or nature, she must succeed on a DC 30 check to obtain an accurate impression.

Suppose someone confident in their sense motive (taking 10, +10 modifier) goes to hunch against someone with this ability. This ability would prevent them from deciding something is wrong, it is true, but it will also prevent them from determining that the Masked person is trustworthy. Doesn't that mean that, if they are confident in their check, they would decide the Masked person is untrustworthy, and become suspicious anyway? Just checking: is the second mode of the feat just entirely useless against most sense motivers (who are the only people we'd want to use the feat against anyway, as those who are not dedicated to the skill will not be certain of their check, and so can be more easily bluffed)?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

So I suppose talking to someone prompts a spot check to see through their disguise. If you fail the spot check, you can make a fixed-DC sense motive check to get a hunch. If you succeed on the check, you get the feeling something is wrong, and that this person may not be trustworthy. If you are confident in your sense motive skill checks, then you are certain they are untrustworthy and something is wrong.

As you note later, using Sense Motive proactively takes at least a minute, so yes, if someone makes a Spot check, determines that the person is not disguised (as far as they know) and then immediately goes for the Hunch option, they may determine 10+ rounds later that there's something fishy going on and suspect that the person is in fact disguised after all.

There are a few caveats, however:

1) This doesn't help for interactions shorter than a minute. Someone doing a quick "Yes, Officer, she went that way!"-type interaction and then leaving isn't going to be sussed out that way, and presumably someone infiltrating an area or impersonating someone is going to try to keep interactions to a minimum.

2) Since there's no hard time requirement specified for Hunch, the DM could quite reasonably declare that if you're convinced the person is who they say they are to start with then you'd need a lot more than a minute to find any inconsistencies and choose the "spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you" option for that.

3) Remember that actions taking longer than 1 round require you to spend a full-round action every round performing that action, so if you attempting to get a Hunch about someone is noticeable somehow (and it makes sense that it would be; someone taking an action requires some effort on their part, and detecting that someone is charmed when there's no change in their behavior and the person they're charmed by isn't even around is only a DC 15 Sense Motive check) then going for a Hunch right after meeting someone means you basically spend the first minute of your interaction with them staring at them suspiciously or otherwise being kinda socially awkward yourself. Aside from making yourself look suspicious, this can easily get you a reputation for paranoia or unfriendliness if you do that in every social interaction you have, and of course if you do that in every single social interaction then you're likely going to get a bunch of false positives.

So again, Hunch isn't a win button that lets you bypass opposed Disguise and Bluff checks if your Spot and Sense Motive aren't that high or you happen to roll low, it's a single (somewhat niche) tool in the social skill toolbox.


Suppose someone confident in their sense motive (taking 10, +10 modifier) goes to hunch against someone with this ability. This ability would prevent them from deciding something is wrong, it is true, but it will also prevent them from determining that the Masked person is trustworthy. Doesn't that mean that, if they are confident in their check, they would decide the Masked person is untrustworthy, and become suspicious anyway? Just checking: is the second mode of the feat just entirely useless against most sense motivers (who are the only people we'd want to use the feat against anyway)?

Failing the check to get a Hunch doesn't return false information, it returns no new information. If someone seems trustworthy and you roll a 19, the DM doesn't say you're pretty sure they aren't trustworthy, they just say you don't get a funny feeling, so the NPC still seems trustworthy. Same thing here. If that weren't the case, then firstly the Hunch description would say something about getting a false reading, as with Appraising a common item, and secondly having that ability would be actively worse than not having it, which doesn't make sense.

[Doctor Despair]

Failing the check to get a Hunch doesn't return false information, it returns no new information. If someone seems trustworthy and you roll a 19, the DM doesn't say you're pretty sure they aren't trustworthy, they just say you don't get a funny feeling, so the NPC still seems trustworthy. Same thing here. If that weren't the case, then firstly the Hunch description would say something about getting a false reading, as with Appraising a common item, and secondly having that ability would be actively worse than not having it, which doesn't make sense.

You're right that failing the check doesn't return false information, but I suppose that's where my concern comes from with regard to the Mask feat. Making the Hunch check returns one of three types of information with regard to trustworthyness:

1. I met the check, and this person is trustworthy

2. I have failed to meet the DC 20 to gather information... OR I met the check, and they are therefore not trustworthy (as otherwise they would seem trustworthy)

For most characters (who have a reasonable chance of failure at the check), this means that failing to meet the DC would not yield useful information (as the chance that they are trustworthy is still there). However, consider the character who ALWAYS hits the DC 20 with no chance of failure. They are used to the hunch returning one of two results:

1. I met the check, and this person is trustworthy

2. I met the check, and they are therefore not trustworthy (as otherwise they would seem trustworthy)

If such a character made the hunch check and didn't hit the 30 against the character with the Mask feat, it would look the same as a character who was not trustworthy, right? So whether or not the mask feat is there, it returns the same result?

I suppose that's what I'm struggling with with the feat at the moment. I don't see a mechanical benefit to taking it (apart from, of course, masking your alignment in no uncertain terms). A deceitful character will already want bluff to deal with the first mode of the hunch skill (to bluff to set their mind at ease if they make the DC 20), and that should be able to help with seeming trustworthy, too. If we take the Mask feat and prevent them from meeting the DC, the social situation may not seem strange, but (I think) we still need to bluff to seem trustworthy, meaning we may as well have not taken the feat at all (since we have to bluff vs their sense motive regardless).

[liquidformat]

What seems more frustrating is the idea of an observer using hunch while watching from a distance. After all, how can the disguised person bluff them if they aren't aware they are being watched? However, now that I look at it, it seems like you actually can't use the hunch skill unless the person is aware they are being watched. It allows you to get a gut feeling about a social situation. If the disguised person is in any social situation, then, it follows that they will actively bluff to appear more believable to couch against an unseen observer using "hunch" against them.

Of note, too, is that using sense motive takes at least 10 rounds, and I believe getting a hunch requires active effort on the viewer's part rather than being a passive check:



This will reduce the amount of times this ability is relevant. However, this does prompt a thought for me.

I believe you are over thinking this and giving hunch too much weight, sense motive is an interactive skill that takes at least a minute of interaction to be able to function. Arguably someone watching you from a distance away could never trigger a sense motive check since they aren't interreacting with you.

Also comically from a RAW view of sense motive there is no mechanism inside of the sense motive skill to identify a disguise (at least in core). Furthermore, hunch doesn't tell you that this person is disguised only that there is something not quite right which would then trigger a spot check to attempt to identify their disguise.

In general the static skill checks of skills that are an interaction between two or more skills have always bugged me so in cases like hunch I use them as a minimum bar rather than a static DC. For example a level 1 aristocrat should never be able to trigger their 'hunch' of sense motive skill against a character who has +45 skill mod to disguise and +50 mod to bluff; that just seems silly to me.



A local ranger stands near, with his back turned. His listen and spot are sky high. He overhears the conversation, and fails his diplomacy, and loves this new cleric. He turns to meet his allies new ally.
Noticing the presence of the guard and the paladin, he passes a simple DC 10 wisdom check with ease, and throws a spot check around. His sky high spot immediately notices the fake beard. At the last moment the spy is revealed!

Have the failed spotter roll a dc 10 wisdom check, with a +2 for each suspicious circumstance, and a -2 for each benefit (failed spot, bluff, etc). Then hint to the player that they possibly misread the entire thing (adding a -2 to future checks).
I agreed with you until you threw in a DC 10 wisdom check for the ranger, that really should be a sense motives check and not a wisdom check you are literally describing the sense motive 'hunch' check but giving it a DC 10 wisdom check.

Furthermore, having the person roll a a DC 10 wisdom check is just too much of a give me for someone who has already failed to notice something. Roleplaying shouldn't be done by dragging the character around by the nose. From a character's point of view whether they are an NPC or a PC there are many reasons a person could be 'untrustworthy' not just because they are wearing a disguise so failing to notice a disguise doesn't get rid of that gut feeling that something is off. Failing to notice the disguise shouldn't entitle them to another check in order to check again for an already failed check that is just ridiculous, it should just mean they don't trust said person but haven't noticed any issue with their disguise....


You're right that failing the check doesn't return false information, but I suppose that's where my concern comes from with regard to the Mask feat. Making the Hunch check returns one of three types of information with regard to trustworthyness:

1. I met the check, and this person is trustworthy

2. I have failed to meet the DC 20 to gather information... OR I met the check, and they are therefore not trustworthy (as otherwise they would seem trustworthy)

For most characters (who have a reasonable chance of failure at the check), this means that failing to meet the DC would not yield useful information (as the chance that they are trustworthy is still there). However, consider the character who ALWAYS hits the DC 20 with no chance of failure. They are used to the hunch returning one of two results:

1. I met the check, and this person is trustworthy

2. I met the check, and they are therefore not trustworthy (as otherwise they would seem trustworthy)

If such a character made the hunch check and didn't hit the 30 against the character with the Mask feat, it would look the same as a character who was not trustworthy, right? So whether or not the mask feat is there, it returns the same result?

I suppose that's what I'm struggling with with the feat at the moment. I don't see a mechanical benefit to taking it (apart from, of course, masking your alignment in no uncertain terms). A deceitful character will already want bluff to deal with the first mode of the hunch skill (to bluff to set their mind at ease if they make the DC 20), and that should be able to help with seeming trustworthy, too. If we take the Mask feat and prevent them from meeting the DC, the social situation may not seem strange, but (I think) we still need to bluff to seem trustworthy, meaning we may as well have not taken the feat at all (since we have to bluff vs their sense motive regardless).

Your logic is flawed, from the character/pc's point of view it would always be the following result in either case:

1. I met the check and they are trustworthy or failed the check, and therefore this person is trustworthy

2. I met the check and this person isn't trustworthy, and they are therefore not trustworthy (as otherwise they would seem trustworthy)

There should never be a difference between passing the check with a trustworthy person and failing the check from an IC point of view. You are going way to metagame with your logic and applying OOC logic and knowledge to IC situations. A character with a high sense motive skill check trusts his gut and finds it rarely steers him wrong. He has no notion of skill check DCs or the fact that he has a high enough base skill mod to 'always meet a static DC' so when he comes across someone who has a higher then standard DC for hunch and he fails his check it is no different from his gut telling him this person is trustworthy.

[Doctor Despair]

I believe you are over thinking this and giving hunch too much weight, sense motive is an interactive skill that takes at least a minute of interaction to be able to function. Arguably someone watching you from a distance away could never trigger a sense motive check since they aren't interreacting with you.


That's fair; arguably someone couldn't assess a social situation without being able to participate in it. It isn't against RAW to use sense motive on someone else's social situation however, so it's something to consider, I think.



Also comically from a RAW view of sense motive there is no mechanism inside of the sense motive skill to identify a disguise (at least in core). Furthermore, hunch doesn't tell you that this person is disguised only that there is something not quite right which would then trigger a spot check to attempt to identify their disguise.


It's true that it doesn't actually tell you the person is disguised, although the last mode (to determine someone is trustworthy) seems like it should be somewhat more problematic to a disguised character.



In general the static skill checks of skills that are an interaction between two or more skills have always bugged me so in cases like hunch I use them as a minimum bar rather than a static DC. For example a level 1 aristocrat should never be able to trigger their 'hunch' of sense motive skill against a character who has +45 skill mod to disguise and +50 mod to bluff; that just seems silly to me.

I agree 100%; however, fortunately, unless that aristocrat can hit an automatic 20, they should not be that confident in their ability to assess folks. With that said, it's not impossible for that level 1 character to hit consistent 20s (4 ranks, skill focus for +3, maybe some other generic feat for +2, a masterwork item for +2, and taking 10 for an automatic 21). In that case, it becomes more problematic, I think.



Your logic is flawed, from the character/pc's point of view it would always be the following result in either case:

1. I met the check and they are trustworthy or failed the check, and therefore this person is trustworthy

2. I met the check and this person isn't trustworthy, and they are therefore not trustworthy (as otherwise they would seem trustworthy)

There should never be a difference between passing the check with a trustworthy person and failing the check from an IC point of view. You are going way to metagame with your logic and applying OOC logic and knowledge to IC situations. A character with a high sense motive skill check trusts his gut and finds it rarely steers him wrong. He has no notion of skill check DCs or the fact that he has a high enough base skill mod to 'always meet a static DC' so when he comes across someone who has a higher then standard DC for hunch and he fails his check it is no different from his gut telling him this person is trustworthy.

Fair enough -- either they trust their gut or they do not. I suppose a character who doesn't at least somewhat consistently make the check wouldn't choose to use the mode, so using it shows that they'll trust the result. That doesn't quite solve the issue though, but rather expands it to anyone that uses the mode.

The feat (raising the DC to get a hunch) doesn't make it harder for folks to decide you are untrustworthy when you're being deceitful -- it makes it harder for them to verify that you are trustworthy when you are actually being upfront about things. If folks always trust their gut, shouldn't that suggest that the person isn't trustworthy (basically re-confirming the "something is off about this person") even though raising the DC is ostensibly supposed to make it easier to make people trust you? The question they're answering is "is this person trustworthy?" and the answer, whether they fail the check or succeed on a sketchy person, is "no." If no one believes they will fail the check (as that's too meta), then failing to return a "yes" would mean the character believes they're suspicious in spite of the evidence, right?

It does make it harder to get the gut feeling that something is wrong, but that's an odd mix of intuition for a character to receive (Nothing is wrong, but this guy isn't trustworthy). Ideally the character should already be bluffing to appear trustworthy in that case, so it's not necessarily a serious problem, but at that point why not use bluff to set their mind at ease for the first part, too?

I wish the mode read "Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is untrustworthy." In that case, raising the DC would reveal that you are trustworthy to those who trust their gut and fail the check. As it is written (without the "un"), does the sense motive mode of the feat actually do anything? If the level 1 sense-motive-boosting aristocrat trusts the result, and their result doesn't reveal that the sky-high disguise character is trustworthy, shouldn't it make the aristocrat believe the disguised guy is untrustworthy (and therefore suspicious) despite not seeing through his disguise (until bluffed to believe otherwise), even if there isn't anything off about the social situation?

[liquidformat]

That's fair; arguably someone couldn't assess a social situation without being able to participate in it. It isn't against RAW to use sense motive on someone else's social situation however, so it's something to consider, I think.



It's true that it doesn't actually tell you the person is disguised, although the last mode (to determine someone is trustworthy) seems like it should be somewhat more problematic to a disguised character.

I like to use it in conjunction with things like the friendly chart, not trusting someone would typically bump you down a level in the unfriendly chart for example. Also being untrustworthy doesn't simply equate to wearing a disguise there are plenty of people out there you don't trust that doesn't mean they are disguised heck it doesn't even mean they are lying it just means you take everything they say with a grain of salt and won't trust what they tell you without more evidence to back it up.

That isn't inherently an issue with a disguise, sure it might make the disguised person's job a bit harder but it doesn't make their disguise any less believable.


I agree 100%; however, fortunately, unless that aristocrat can hit an automatic 20, they should not be that confident in their ability to assess folks. With that said, it's not impossible for that level 1 character to hit consistent 20s (4 ranks, skill focus for +3, maybe some other generic feat for +2, a masterwork item for +2, and taking 10 for an automatic 21). In that case, it becomes more problematic, I think.

You are highlighting the point I was trying to make. It rubs me the wrong way that say a level 1 Martial setup to have a very big mod on their sense motive skill could automatically tell there is an issue with say a 20+ level spy master specifically geared and setup for disguise and bluff. It is proof that static DCs for such skill checks are inherently an issue.


Fair enough -- either they trust their gut or they do not. I suppose a character who doesn't at least somewhat consistently make the check wouldn't choose to use the mode, so using it shows that they'll trust the result. That doesn't quite solve the issue though, but rather expands it to anyone that uses the mode.

The feat (raising the DC to get a hunch) doesn't make it harder for folks to decide you are untrustworthy when you're being deceitful -- it makes it harder for them to verify that you are trustworthy when you are actually being upfront about things. If folks always trust their gut, shouldn't that suggest that the person isn't trustworthy (basically re-confirming the "something is off about this person") even though raising the DC is ostensibly supposed to make it easier to make people trust you? The question they're answering is "is this person trustworthy?" and the answer, whether they fail the check or succeed on a sketchy person, is "no." If no one believes they will fail the check (as that's too meta), then failing to return a "yes" would mean the character believes they're suspicious in spite of the evidence, right?

It does make it harder to get the gut feeling that something is wrong, but that's an odd mix of intuition for a character to receive (Nothing is wrong, but this guy isn't trustworthy). Ideally the character should already be bluffing to appear trustworthy in that case, so it's not necessarily a serious problem, but at that point why not use bluff to set their mind at ease for the first part, too?

I wish the mode read "Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is untrustworthy." In that case, raising the DC would reveal that you are trustworthy to those who trust their gut and fail the check. As it is written (without the "un"), does the sense motive mode of the feat actually do anything? If the level 1 sense-motive-boosting aristocrat trusts the result, and their result doesn't reveal that the sky-high disguise character is trustworthy, shouldn't it make the aristocrat believe the disguised guy is untrustworthy (and therefore suspicious) despite not seeing through his disguise (until bluffed to believe otherwise), even if there isn't anything off about the social situation?

First off I think it is important to clarify what it means to use the sense motive skill and I think a fair interpretations based on raw would be after interacting with someone for a minute or more (or being present while a someone else is interacting with them while actively paying attention) what is the general impression that I get from said person?

This would be a binary question where my 'hunch' either returns I can trust them or I can't trust them. So from a game mechanics point of view failing the DC, ie failing to noticing anything strange about the person and succeeding the DC with a trustworthy person should return the same result.

The way you are treating the skill is really too meta and implies all characters are actively aware of type error as it happens while they are interacting with each other. Another way to put it is knowing the difference between succeeding a check with a trustworthy person and failing a check, when in actuality they shouldn't be aware of this.

This is the reason why many rolls are supposed to be secret inside the game. Let's move away from sense motives for a second and it might be easier to see the issue. If you are a rogue checking for traps in a room and you fail to meet the search DC to find the trap you would then be told you found no traps in the room. The way you are interpreting sense motive would be the same as telling the rogue you failed to meet the search DC to find the trap in the room. While sure they are both technically the same the second is telling the player more information then their character would know based on the situation and thereby drive them to act in a different way.

[Doctor Despair]

I like to use it in conjunction with things like the friendly chart, not trusting someone would typically bump you down a level in the unfriendly chart for example. Also being untrustworthy doesn't simply equate to wearing a disguise there are plenty of people out there you don't trust that doesn't mean they are disguised heck it doesn't even mean they are lying it just means you take everything they say with a grain of salt and won't trust what they tell you without more evidence to back it up.

That isn't inherently an issue with a disguise, sure it might make the disguised person's job a bit harder but it doesn't make their disguise any less believable.

I like that idea, and it seems logical to treat someone as unfriendly if they don't trust you; then, you could bluff them to appear trustworthy, reducing it to neutral, or diplomacize them to make them like you in spite of their instincts.




You are highlighting the point I was trying to make. It rubs me the wrong way that say a level 1 Martial setup to have a very big mod on their sense motive skill could automatically tell there is an issue with say a 20+ level spy master specifically geared and setup for disguise and bluff. It is proof that static DCs for such skill checks are inherently an issue.


I agree. There's something to be said for the listen table, too, which has flat DCs for things like a level 1 rogue using move silently, a cat stalking, an owl gliding... They seem more for use with the DM screen than anything.




First off I think it is important to clarify what it means to use the sense motive skill and I think a fair interpretations based on raw would be after interacting with someone for a minute or more (or being present while a someone else is interacting with them while actively paying attention) what is the general impression that I get from said person?


I agree that seems fair; active attention being paid by someone present during a social encounter for 10 rounds or more.



This would be a binary question where my 'hunch' either returns I can trust them or I can't trust them. So from a game mechanics point of view failing the DC, ie failing to noticing anything strange about the person and succeeding the DC with a trustworthy person should return the same result.

This is precisely where my complaint comes from, and I think our fundamental misunderstanding with one another here; the way it's phrased, you seem to be incorrect here. It says: "Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy." This means that failing the check returns the same result as someone succeeding the check against someone who is not trustworthy. The skill can never tell you: "this person is suspicious." Instead, it tells you if they are trustworthy (success against a trustworthy person) or not trustworthy (failure, or success against an untrustworthy person).



This is the reason why many rolls are supposed to be secret inside the game. Let's move away from sense motives for a second and it might be easier to see the issue. If you are a rogue checking for traps in a room and you fail to meet the search DC to find the trap you would then be told you found no traps in the room. The way you are interpreting sense motive would be the same as telling the rogue you failed to meet the search DC to find the trap in the room. While sure they are both technically the same the second is telling the player more information then their character would know based on the situation and thereby drive them to act in a different way.

Based on my reading (see response to previous quoted material), a better comparison would be:

The rogue-based character checks for traps in a room, fails the DC, and is told they found no evidence of traps. They then decide there are no traps in the room.

The sense motive character checks for trustworthyness, fails the DC, and is told they found no evidence of trustworthyness. They then decide the target is untrustworthy.

[liquidformat]

This is precisely where my complaint comes from, and I think our fundamental misunderstanding with one another here; the way it's phrased, you seem to be incorrect here. It says: "Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy." This means that failing the check returns the same result as someone succeeding the check against someone who is not trustworthy. The skill can never tell you: "this person is suspicious." Instead, it tells you if they are trustworthy (success against a trustworthy person) or not trustworthy (failure, or success against an untrustworthy person).



Based on my reading (see response to previous quoted material), a better comparison would be:

The rogue-based character checks for traps in a room, fails the DC, and is told they found no evidence of traps. They would then decide there are no traps in the room.

The sense motive character checks for trustworthyness, fails the DC, and is told they found no evidence of trustworthyness. They then decide the target is untrustworthy.

This doesn't really jive with the idea of intuition and the role it plays inside of sense motive and seems to also assume all characters are untrustworthy until proven otherwise which wouldn't always be true. The idea behind sense motive specifically 'hunch' is your intuition is telling you how to feel about this person, so the act of making that decision is an unconscious action on the part of the character even if they are trying to consciously determine if they can trust someone or not.

I could get behind the idea that having a base biased is involved with the hunch skill check.

So if we say have a priest in a church he is automatically assumed to be trustworthy, after a minute of interacting with him I have my sense motive check rolled for hunch and fail the check so the dm never says anything to me so the assumption of him being trustworthy stands.
On the other hand we have a peddler we meet in a back alley and automatically assume he is untrustworthy. After a minute of talking to the peddler we roll a sense motive skill check behind the scene and fail so the dm never comments on us noticing anything so the initial assumption stand that he is untrustworthy.

In both cases whether they are trustworthy or not we have failed to notice anything that changes our initial biased. If this kind of functionality is what you are suggesting I could get behind that, it has both type I and II error involved and makes sense motive hunch check less useful but still perfectly functional.

I think the important part is that hunch check either works by confirming/rejecting initial bias or works like a lie detector telling you this person is or isn't trustworthy.

[Doctor Despair]

This doesn't really jive with the idea of intuition and the role it plays inside of sense motive and seems to also assume all characters are untrustworthy until proven otherwise which wouldn't always be true.

The concept of everyone that can't consistently hit a DC 20 (read: 95% of the population) being super paranoid about everyone is pretty funny, actually. With that said, I agree -- mechanically, however, I think the most plain reading (with no RAI) suggests that is the case. :/



The idea behind sense motive specifically 'hunch' is your intuition is telling you how to feel about this person, so the act of making that decision is an unconscious action on the part of the character even if they are trying to consciously determine if they can trust someone or not.

Doesn't it say that it takes a minute of conscious effort (not passive perception)? I suppose it technically doesn't say it's NOT passive, but that it takes a full minute to use, and in the absence of langauge saying you can do it passively or as part of another action, that implies 10 full-round actions (where you can talk as a free action, presumably). I suppose, as long as you aren't doing anything else during conversation, most characters won't have much better to do than try for a hunch, though.



I could get behind the idea that having a base biased is involved with the hunch skill check.

So if we say have a priest in a church he is automatically assumed to be trustworthy, after a minute of interacting with him I have my sense motive check rolled for hunch and fail the check so the dm never says anything to me so the assumption of him being trustworthy stands.
On the other hand we have a peddler we meet in a back alley and automatically assume he is untrustworthy. After a minute of talking to the peddler we roll a sense motive skill check behind the scene and fail so the dm never comments on us noticing anything so the initial assumption stand that he is untrustworthy.

In both cases whether they are trustworthy or not we have failed to notice anything that changes our initial biased. If this kind of functionality is what you are suggesting I could get behind that, it has both type I and II error involved and makes sense motive hunch check less useful but still perfectly functional.

I think the important part is that hunch check either works by confirming/rejecting initial bias or works like a lie detector telling you this person is or isn't trustworthy.

Even allowing for initial biases to color the conclusions of folks using sense motive, I think this working as you described is predicated on us rejecting folks viewing everyone as untrustworthy until proven otherwise -- and the hunch skill seems to suggest that's how folks with high sense motives view others. Although, if we are intentionally looking for another reading...


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.

First, we've established the person being assessed must be in a social situation to be assessed. This allows them the opportunity to bluff to convince viewers that they are trustworthy, even if the flat DC would otherwise provide them evidence to the contrary. This may affect the modifiers on the bluff, of course.

With that said, I've been reading this as two different modes to use "hunch" with up until this point. When treated as two modes, the first only raises suspicion if you beat the DC against a suspicious person; the second returns suspicion unless you beat the DC with a trustworthy person.

However, what if we read it as one mode? What if passing the DC reveals definitively that something is wrong (and you should be suspicious) or that the people around you are trustworthy (because nothing is wrong)? If we treat these as one distinct mode (instead of two separate modes), then characters could no longer fail the check to specifically determine trustworthyness (and therefore raise suspicion); instead, they would fail to gain any information and, instead, default to their original impressions (based on the character's disguise check, presumably, or the circumstances) or possibly become trusting (having failed to turn up any weird gut feelings).

With that said: is it RAW to treat these lines are one distinct check instead of two options? You make one check to get a hunch; it says that you can get a feeling that something is wrong, or alternatively you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy. I had read that alternatively as being a distinct thing you could check for, but it's possible they were only trying to make clear that getting a hunch can only reveal one of the two things (that something is wrong with this guy, or that this guy is fine). It doesn't fly in the face of the English language to read it this way, and it aligns much more with common sense.

So... that was an adventure. It seems like this is a workable reading for how disguise works, then, based on what we've read so far:


1. A disguises himself as B and enters the city.

2. Suspicious people who observe you (guards and those who know B) take 10 on spot checks to look at you, but don't break the disguise; A moves on.

3. A talks to people briefly, trying not to talk to people for longer than he has to to avoid giving them the minute they'd take to get a hunch. These people make a spot check against A's disguise, as he drew their attention to himself, but don't break the disguise.

4. A has to talk to someone for 10 rounds or more. They make a spot check, but don't break through the disguise. They make a sense motive check to get a hunch, but they fail. They don't get a hunch, and retain their original opinion (based on how they feel about B).

5. As he is talking to someone, A knows he is being watched, so bluffs to act further in character, cementing a trusting attitude.

6. A cleric is watching A's conversation from a little ways away and has time to get a hunch. She successfully makes the hunch, and decides something is odd about the situation, although she can't put her finger on it, as she failed her spot check. However, as she is observing A's bluff, she fails her second sense motive check, and decides she must have imagined it.

7. A ranger is watching A's conversation from across the room, fails the spot check, and gets a hunch, similarly to the cleric. As he observes A's bluff, he defeats the bluff with his sense motive, and becomes even more suspicious of A. He crosses the room and whispers to the cleric, asking her to cast detect evil. The cleric, humoring him, casts it -- and low and behold, A neglected to disguise his alignment! If only A had thought to diplomacize the ranger before that moment!


Does that exchange seem accurate to how this ought to work, based on our conjecture?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

However, what if we read it as one mode? What if passing the DC reveals definitively that something is wrong (and you should be suspicious) or that the people around you are trustworthy (because nothing is wrong)? If we treat these as one distinct mode (instead of two separate modes), then characters could no longer fail the check to specifically determine trustworthyness (and therefore raise suspicion); instead, they would fail to gain any information and, instead, default to their original impressions (based on the character's disguise check, presumably, or the circumstances) or possibly become trusting (having failed to turn up any weird gut feelings).

This is exactly how it works. The actual use of a Hunch is "making a gut assessment of the social situation," and you make a single check for that; the outputs of "something is wrong" or "this person is an imposter" or "this person is trustworthy" are three possible outcomes of a successful check but are by no means the only possible results (and even if you get something like "something's off about this situation" or "you're not sure they're being entirely aboveboard" there are a bunch of possible explanations beyond "they're a dirty rotten liar," as expounded upon in my last post).


With that said: is it RAW to treat these lines are one distinct check instead of two options?

If a skill description has several different italicized subheadings like Sense Motive does, each is a distinct and singular use of that skill. There would only be ambiguity if it were all one undifferentiated block of text, like how Sleight of Hand bundles palming objects, hiding objects on your person, pickpocketing, and performing sleight of hand for an audience in one entry.


So... that was an adventure. It seems like this is a workable reading for how disguise works, then, based on what we've read so far:

*snip example*

Does that exchange seem accurate to how this ought to work, based on our conjecture?

For #5, there's no generic "bluffing to act in character" use of Bluff; that either passively falls under the Disguise check they already made or involves a specific bluff to cover a specific suspicion or fault in the disguise (e.g. A's conversation partner C says "Wait, you don't know Lord Frederick Smythe? I thought you said you're a spice merchant, how would you not know the man in charge of the market?" and A replies "Oh, that Frederick! We spice merchants always call him Freddy!" and C buys the lie but the ranger sees through it). But everything else looks accurate.