Sense motive

[Drakill Tannan]

A character can be a good lier, and may not need to show the bluff roll, but in that case, how can you be sure he does have ranks in bluff?

I agree rolls should be made in agreement. But sometimes players after agreeing to roll dices, disagree in wich roll answers to wich other, and why.

Sence movite is the way to tell bluffs in D&D that much i know, it is missing in NWN, efuss is a good way to bring it in to aid. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Now, i agree it is easy to dump in efuss, but it is also a sacrifice (alchemy, herbalism are quite desirable efuss skills...) and since players can chose to ignore the roll anyway, no one will be forced to invest in it, just the ones who wish to answer to rolls with something not so improvised.

If i'm not mistaken, it is maxed at 10? If so, a level 4 rogue with 12 cha has a bluff of 8 without items, with items it can go over 10. So it is kinda in disadvantage, i dobut it will be overpowered.

I would certianly use it. I don't see how it could make any significant damage, and if it ends doing so, it can be removed right?

Theory is kinda different from practice, i say we give it a try.

[Underbard]

If someone makes a roll for bluff, or persuade, or whatever, at least you as a player know they have invested something in this skill.  Then, if all else fails, you as a player, know what they are trying to convey.  While nothing says you have to adhere to these rolls, I think they are good to let people know more about your PC and his /her characteristics.

[9lives]

Rolling bluff against anything but NPCs is silly. People are expected to correctly represent their characters' skills.

[chezcaliente]

I am also of the opinion that people are more than welcome to roll bluff/persuade/perform/intimidate checks, but that no one should feel compelled to do anything about them. I do not think that rolling these checks around other PCs is silly.

If anything it allows people to at least give an idea of the skill point investment in an area, especially with regards to something like performing music, or using bluff to disguise yourself. It also at leasts allows people who are still developing their language skills, either because of age or having english as a second language, to make the attempt to roleplay something that may be a little out of their depth.

The response however I feel is totally up to other players, who also should roleplay their stats and skills, and should not be based entirely on dice rolls. Therefore I don't think a "sense motive" should be added, purely because as ScottyB has said, the two skill systems are a bit imbalanced.

I find it hard to believe a low-wis character wouldn't be taken-in by a bluff roll of 30+ and see through a disguise. Whereas a character with high wis, spot or listen, or even high appraise, might roleplay noticing something about them, hearing their voice falter, or noticing that their "signet ring" is nothing but cheap trash. This however is up to the players!

[artfuldodger99]

IMO it would be nice to have a DM privately have a PC roll to them, bluff and other skills occasionally and report the general outcome to the other side e.g. "John Doe Prays faithfully to Bane". or "John Doe makes a number of errors in his prayer to Bane, he seems to be making it up as he goes along"
 
Yes everyone should perfectly play their stats, but I am not sure we are all perfect and an intervention here or there can be good.

[Secutor]

Showing your bluff ranks to a PC is self-defeating.

[Talir]

I don't support rolls PC vs. PC. If  you're a good liar, show it and have the skills to back it up. How can you counter it? Through the knowledge your character has and what the other character says and emotes. If this is the first time meeting the character then chances are that you won't be able to know if he lies easily, unless the other character is suspiciously strange. PCs asking other PCs for bluff rolls is not something I am comfortable with, as this will give the other player an OOC advantage that is previously not there. And the PC who made the roll has no idea if the other character has the knowledge to see through it.

So guys, play your stats.

[Pup]

Being a player who has been scolded in the past for lying with minimal ranks in Bluff, I would say that a counter-skill is appropriate.  Sense Motive seems right on.

[Thomas_Not_very_wise]

Will sense motive address spotting a person through there disguise?

I think not.

This was a good suggestion, but unnecessary. Only a DM can enforce bluff checks if you players want to roll /c roll bluff check all will and good...but honestly, it's silly.

[TheWastesAreFrozen]

The counter skill is the DC a DM sets. Players shouldn't set DC's of their own against one another nor expect their random roll check to mean anything outside of showing off. If you're character tells lies then you should have bluff. If you don't have bluff you should be bad at telling lies and make it obvious.

[Jayde Moon]

In lieu of a Sense Motive Skill, I always thought it might make sense to use your Will Save against a DC of the bluff skill rolled.  People who have strong mental defenses may be able to discern bullshit better than those who don't.

Bluff vs Bluff isn't at all realistic, there are plenty of no-nonsense type folks who can see right through your bullshit but have no ability to hoodwink folks themselves.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned something about a bluff roll DC modified by plausibility, etc... certainly that's something you can simply 'set' and add modifiers as appropriate, but I will point out that in PnP DnD (which EfU is NOT, but sometimes, lacking a better source we can look to PnP for inspiration) Bluff and Sense Motive are directly opposed rolls, with each being the others DC.  Modifiers modify your bluff outcome (not DC), thus modifying the DC of the sense motive roll.  That's just an FYI.

[PanamaLane]

There are always going to be skeptics and suckers. Some people won't believe you no matter how well you try to sell it, even if its the truth. I mean look at evolution or climate change.

I feel like rolling a persuade, bluff, etc check to give other players an idea of how well your character is doing at said skill is alright if its done in moderation. No one should ever feel forced to roll against it though unless they choose to. And for the love of god don't abuse it (said as someone who has been guilty of it in the past).

That said, if you do -choose- to roll against someone, I don't see any harm in at least providing the option of Sense Motive. It is the opposing skill roll in D&D. I could also see a number of non-bluff related ways this could be useful skill, especially on DM events. "You sense the Ogre charging at you with an axe wishes you harm..."

[Oskar Maxon]

"Roll dex or die"

[The Crimson Magician]

not much work, the haters don't have to use it while some people may actually use it to good roleplay when someone isn't particularly sure if he should believe this guy instead of just outright ignoring it or giving a bs answer

[ScottyB]

That said, if you do -choose- to roll against someone, I don't see any harm in at least providing the option of Sense Motive.

The harm is that EFUSS skills progress differently than standard skills. Someone can easily dump 10 points into Sense Motive at level 2 or 3 depending on their INT and maybe other factors; people who know this will be reluctant or refuse to consent to roll, and people who don't know may feel conned when they do learn.

I think EFUSS's scope should be limited to custom systems (like alchemy), skills that will only be taken into account by DMs or scripts (archeology), and e-penis skills (entertainment). We'll see if that remains the case, but that's the way it's looking.