In a campaign in which I'm playing, there was a bit of conflict during our last session. I'm alright with Character-on-Character conflict(in moderation), but this one turned to Player-on-Player(s).

Person A has been planning with Person B to rob Person C (kind of; they're going to loot the sacred treasure ground of Person C's god, which he would be very against).
Person A managed to trick Person C into thinking they would be robbing a different dungeon, and convinced Person C that only one person could enter the dungeon.
Person C was going to go into the bag of holding and not be aware of the location of the dungeon until we were in it. Player C was aware of their plan, but his character (Person C) was not.
Person C did a Sense Motive check on Person A, and got the result of feeling like he wasn't being entirely honest, but not knowing what about.
This is where the check question comes in.
Person B noticed that Person C didn't seem to be trusting Person A.
Person B made a Bluff check to convince Person C that the only thing Person A was being dishonest about was that he wasn't planning on splitting the loot fairly (Person A is a rogue, and can be put into the stereotype of being dishonest).
Person C rolled a Perception check to counter the Bluff, and did not beat it. We declared that he was still clueless about the ultimate plan. Shortly thereafter, Person B was being bluffed by an NPC, and rolled a Sense Motive check.
Person C declared that he was unaware that Sense Motive countered Bluff, and should get to roll again, and did so, receiving a higher result.
Player B was pretty upset, declaring that the bonuses that Person C has in sense motive and perception were the same, so the result should remain the same, but Player C was firm in his belief that his new Sense Motive roll should be the one that counts.

There was a lot of contention on that one roll, everyone speaking over the other, trying to say their point of view. The GM in the end (I believe) felt bad for Player C, and allowed him to get a result between the two, where he believed what Person B said, but had suspicions there was something else. (He either felt bad for him, or truly agreed with him, I don't know which.) Players A and B were kind of sore about the situation, and I wanted to know what should be done in such a situation, should the need arise again.

When a player rolls for the wrong skill, should they get to reroll in the correct skill, or keep the original roll, but adjust the total score based on bonuses?

Person A/B/C refers to the character being played.
Player A/B/C refers to the person playing the character.

Is the main problem in our group the fact that some PCs are willing to raid another's sacred place? Yes. We all know each other very well outside of sessions, and each has made it clear to each other what their character's intentions were, and the GM has approved it.
Character A is very neutral in alignment, and does things like this often. Everyone expects it. Player B wasn't there in the session when Person A learned of the treasure, and in the next session when Person A came with the idea to Person B, B was under the impression that the treasure was lost, that not even the tribe of people who worshipped the deity were aware of its location, and thought "Yeah sure! It will be fun to find a treasure."
Only after agreeing to help Person A did Person B learn that it was considered sacred-but he didn't know how he could back out of his promise.

The point at which this became a matter of conflict was when the die roll was contested. While perhaps A is morally questionable to say the least, and perhaps B is a coward for not telling A that this was a bad idea, I still think the die roll was the biggest issue for our party.

I was unable to find anything addressing this in the rules. If there is something in the rules, I'd love to be pointed to it.

  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ From your question, it doesn't sound like the problem is with letting the player re-roll the Sense Motive check. \$\endgroup\$ – LegendaryDude Mar 31 '16 at 19:40
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't know that you're going to get an objective answer on this. Are you looking for pathfinder rules on this? \$\endgroup\$ – Premier Bromanov Mar 31 '16 at 19:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MikeKellogg Please don't answer in comments, especially when you think it's too subjective to give a proper answer. This isn't a chat forum. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 31 '16 at 19:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Rule 0 exists in Pathfinder, but it's not called that. DM is the ultimate arbiter. \$\endgroup\$ – BaseHobo Mar 31 '16 at 21:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is definitely opinion-based. Like many games, Pathfinder has no rules that govern what to do when you get the rules wrong. \$\endgroup\$ – GMJoe Mar 31 '16 at 23:42

Disclaimer: My background is D&D.

In in D&D and RPGs in general, it's the player's responsibility to know what his saving throws and checks are.

Also, the GM should say, "Roll for Perception" or "Roll for Sense Motive." Sometimes, the GM can say, "Roll for Perception or Sense Motive," giving the player a choice. In this case, the player should announce, out loud, what she is rolling for.

That said, if the player rolled Perception and failed but would have passed Sense Motive, at the GM's discretion he could pass his check. Rerolling a missed check shouldn't be allowed in any system. We generally don't allow players to reroll To Hit so why would this be allowable?

More to the point, if you have PCs raiding another PC's deity's sacred ground you have bigger problems than a rerolled die.

| improve this answer | |
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you have some supporting rules or guidance from the DMG for this answer? (I generally agree, but some rules based support might be helpful). \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Mar 31 '16 at 20:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Not with me... I'm screwing off at work at the moment. \$\endgroup\$ – CharlieHorse Mar 31 '16 at 21:06

The Bluff skill from the book states:

Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your Opponent's Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluffs are modified by believability of the lie....Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).

So what I get from this is that if the initial roll of player C to counter bluff with perception is not even possible. The DM and group should have caught the mistake right there and adjusted the bonuses to be a sense motive instead of perception. Given the fact that the intent of the roll was to counter a bluff, I would rule that one would simply change the modifier and not make a totally new roll.

The key here is that his intent did not change (at least that's how I would rule it on my table). Given the fact that the skill modifiers are the same regardless, there would be no change in result.

Now, he did succeed in his check to have a hunch that something was amiss, so I don't think character C would be completely convinced, and it should be played from there.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.