Sense motive

[Drakill Tannan]

Not really scotty, because a player may chose to disregard the roll anyway.

[Meldread]

I am not really a fan of skill rolling among players.  I'm not even a big fan of skill rolling among NPC's.

My reasoning:

If you have a ridiculously high number of points (from leveling, equipment and buffs) it does not always translate into tangible usefulness.  For example, with sixty persuade I should be able to convince you to do virtually anything.  However, PC's are not bound to go by the skill roll.  In most cases I have found they will ignore it if it is even just a little detrimental to their character (such as showing signs of fear).

To give an example I've had PC's with amazing intimidate, and attempted to show this in a number of ways, followed by skill rolls to simply add back-up to my emotes and words, but every time I've done this I've found it to be like giving someone a courage potion.  It's ridiculously funny how many people will immediately emote in various ways to show that they aren't afraid despite the fact you just rolled a natural 20 and have like 30 intimidate.  About the coolest thing I've ever accomplished with a social skill was just standing around with some other folks, who also had high intimidate (same aforementioned PC), and we were kinda joking around emoting how intimidating we looked and rolling the skill... and a DM had a nearby rat die of a heart attack.

I've had numerous characters with high social skills and have not once really found it translates over into tangible benefits at all.  

And attempting to roll a bluff check when you're lying is the worst thing you can do, because like intimidate above, I have done this before, and I have found that even if PC's were not suspicious before they immediately become suspicious afterward.  The only time it's been useful to me even remotely is when I know OOCly the player already knows OOCly that I am telling a lie.  The bluff skill allows some context, and combined with a persuade might allow you to avoid arrest or something.  However, again, if it is even remotely detrimental to another PC there is well over 90% chance of failing or having your actions be counter productive.

Finally, there are two issues that I really hate about the system.  First, it is entirely based upon levels and lucky rolls.  Why is it that a first level PC is not going to be as good at a social skill than a level four PC?  Level should play a minor role compared to background.  Second, it is how class skills work.  Does it really make sense for a bard to be better at bluffing than a Cleric of Shar, Mask or Cyric?  Does it really make sense for a savage barbarian to be more intimidating than a Cleric of Bane, Umberlee or Loviatar?  I do not think so.

In the end, I have found that it is best for you to merely play your character as best you can regardless of skill.  If your character is supposed to be intimidating at level one, then act intimidating at level one.  If you're really good at it maybe the DM's will reward you with an item that will help you be as intimidating as you pretend to be... otherwise just roll with it (no pun intended), and do what is IC for your character.

If a social skill system was setup in which things were more balanced, multiple rolls were required,  if DM's used the system frequently, and players more often than not modified their PC reactions on that system then I would find social skills under EFUSS much more enjoyable.

[Pup]

Well said my friend. I agree entirely.

Could've been a bit longer, though.

<3

[Cruzel]

Rolling to other players is stupid unless you want to show off your massive skills which you may not want them to know you have.

Rolling say for example... bluff - You may not want people knowing your PC has a ridiculously high bluff if he's trying to pose as a trustworthy guy. As soon as people see your skyscraper skill ranks, they are (sometimes unintentionally) going to look at your PC in a new light OOCly and that may affect how/when they beleive you when otherwise they would've taken your honied words without a second thought.


A DM can make a roll private so no other PC sees it, if a situation warrants. And as said above, you shouldn't count on a roll to pull your through a situation. Even if a player with 25-30+ bluff happens to roll 20 on a showoff roll before they lie, it should still be up to what they actually do and say that influences you believing them or not. If the player in the above example rolls a 20 and then just says "*Puts on a straight face* He's went that-a-way!" and someone else with  unknown ranks in bluff who doesn't roll makes a detailed emote of somekind, following by something interesting and convincing, I'm more inclined to beleive the second player TBH.  Bottom Line? If you're going to max out a skill, at least be able to back it up somewhat with how you play it. If you're going to be a liar or a performer, play your character that way and don't use rolls to pull you through if you can't come up with something.  If you don't think you can come up with convincing lies, don't play a PC who is a compulsive liar and expect to have him get away with it.

[Oskar Maxon]

In my opinion, this is unwanted.

If a roll necessarily is to be made, I'd think it cooler if instead of saying something and then rolling, you roll and depending on how good your check comes of you adjust what you're saying and what you emote along it with it.