Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Fan 01-10-04, 02:24 PM	I've always noticed the twinkarific potential of Diplomacy, but I've never actually had the gall to play such a character. The Book of Exalted Deeds made it so much more appealing by giving even more options for diplomatic twinkery. Here's how to get the most uber diplomat as early as possible: Half-elf bard: +2 Max ranks in diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge (nobility), and bluff: +6 synergy, plus max diplomacy ranks. Starting charisma 16: +3 Sacred vow at level 1: +2 vow of poverty at level 3: nothing, but extra feats ability bonus 1 into charisma: nothing yet nymph's kiss at 4: +2 (along with numerous other benefits) skill focus (diplomacy) at 6: +3 vow of nonviolence at 6: nothing, prerequisite 1st ability enhancement to charisma: +1 vow of peace at 8: +4 2nd ability bonus to charisma: +1 Negotiator at 9: +2 Ranks at level 9: +12 And there you go. I'm ignoring things that give conditional bonuses to diplomacy like nimbus of light in favor of the general. So that means that our excruciatingly likable bard has a total of +38 to diplomacy at level 9. Now let's see in game terms what that means: --------------------------------------------------------------- Take a great orc warrior whose father your father slew. He has sworn on the blood of his forebears that he would hunt down you and kill you to avenge his father, and now he has you cornered. The two possible uses of diplomacy here are a rushed explanation, and to just let him attack you for a full minute and hope your various exalted bonuses protect you (can't even go on full defensive). If you just give a rushed explanation apologizing for the sins of your ancestor, odds are 100% that he'll at least figure you're not worth killing. Odds are 65% though that he will understand that the sins of the father do not carry to the son and give up his quest for vengeance, then go advocate your case to his brothers who still carry the grudge. If you spend a full minute with him blustering and thundering while you do nothing but let him attack and attempt to state your case, at the end of the 10th round he will invariably come to respect your valiant spirit. There is also a 35% chance that he will become your newest ally and stand against his brothers when they come to finish where he failed. --------------------------------------------------------------- When put into story terms like above, it sounds a lot more reasonable than it does initially. After all, this is a character who has put all his effort into being as diplomatic as possible. However, is it balanced? It seems like you could just talk your way out of any situation regardless of how high-level your opponent is.
Falkus 01-10-04, 03:01 PM	Or he could simply ignore you while you were talking, and do his best to split your skull open. A person has to be listening if diplomacy is to have any affect.
The_Fan 01-10-04, 03:06 PM	This is true. However, one could also argue that the situation described above, where the good guy decides to take the highest road and not fight instead of killing the merely misguided villain, and it actually *works*, is a staple of fantasy and should be allowed. Any more opinions on this issue?
Judicator Shekar 01-10-04, 03:30 PM	When I DM, I very rarely call for charisma-based checks to be made. I have various reasons for this, but the most prominent one is my desire to see players roleplay and not rollplay. Rolling a d20 and creating the situation can be quick and fun, but I much prefer it when an actually battle of wits occurs between the player and the NPC. This sometimes takes 1/2 an hour or and entire hour. Some lame people would rather be killing stuff for this time, but that is their game.
Kintara 01-10-04, 05:40 PM	I think the best approach is to do both. Roleplay through an entire scene with the knowledge that someone has such a level of, almost miraculous, ability. Then apply appropriate modifiers to the situation, and roll to see how effective it was (or roll at whatever point seems most logical, but continue roleplaying).
Samwise 01-10-04, 08:40 PM	Is that it? Without any applicable enhancing magic items a 6th Psion (Telepath) I am running in living Arcanis is over a +20 on Diplomacy already. At 9th level, the following should be "typical" for such a character: Diplomacy Ranks: 12 Synergy Bonuses: +6 Charisma: +5 (for an 18 at start and both level bonuses added) Skill Focus: +3 Negotiator: +2 Psychoanalyst: +2 Circlet of Persuasion: +3 Cloak of Charisma (+4): +2 Attraction: +4 Telempathic Projection: +1 for a total modifier of +40. And if it doesn't work I can go to Plan B. (B for Beatdown.) And heaven forbid I go looking for a highpowered Shard of Diplomacy, or some of the other Charisma enhancing items. Oh, and "taking the highest road" isn't a staple of fantasy. Beating down the Bad Guy, Swords over Sorcery, and Getting the Chick are staples of fantasy.
the Horc 01-11-04, 12:32 AM	If you're in the FRCS, go for courteous magocracy, make friends in someplace like Silverymoon and get Smooth talk, and the S&S feat: Alluring..
Elendur 01-11-04, 01:45 AM	Diplomacy is very flaky. As written your character could prevent any person from attacking, no matter what the situation, no matter how powerful they are, with a standard action. There is no resistance or immunity. Unless you are a PC. PC's are immune to diplomacy for some reason. That's why diplomacy is subject to DM interpretation. Most DM's just throw it out.
MattMart 01-11-04, 09:31 AM	If someone wants to flush all thier feats and skill points down the toilet so that the only thing they can do at level 9 is talk thier way out of stuff....no magic items....no real weapons or combat feats....then i would certinely let them talk thier way out of most anything they want.... Course....if the mean ol villian realizes how good the player is at duping all of his chaps...he might just have the bards tongue removed or something.... also....anyone with all those modifiers to diplomacy is going to make an impact on people....also, he is likely to have people want to hear him talk....which is probably his equivilant to bard song...his perform... Anyway....the more famous he gets...the more black and white the results will be....the npcs will either automatically listen to him because of how good they know he is...or they will never listen to him because of how good they know he is....
Falkus 01-11-04, 10:01 AM	As written your character could prevent any person from attacking, no matter what the situation, no matter how powerful they are, with a standard action. Unless they aren't listening to you. A person who isn't listening and doesn't care what you say can't be affected by diplomacy.
The_Fan 01-11-04, 10:17 AM	Originally posted by Elendur Diplomacy is very flaky. As written your character could prevent any person from attacking, no matter what the situation, no matter how powerful they are, with a standard action. There is no resistance or immunity. Unless you are a PC. PC's are immune to diplomacy for some reason. That's why diplomacy is subject to DM interpretation. Most DM's just throw it out. Actually, no, he couldn't do it as a standard action. I've read up on diplomacy extensively. It takes a full-round action to even attempt a diplmacy check, and that automatically incurs a -10 penalty because it's hella difficult to change someone's opinion of you in 6 seconds. It takes AT LEAST a 10 full-round actions to get the full benefit of all the ranks you've put in it. It says there are other situations where it may take a whole lot longer.
Racies 01-12-04, 12:13 AM	think that's tough, we had a character make a monk that we called a diplomancer. he had the vow of peace, nonviolence and poverty as well as a few otehr choice feats. at level four he had a +37 bonus to his diplomacy check and the vow of peace made him radiate an aura which made people automatically apathetic so they would not attack him. it was nuts and caused so many problems in the game (never getting in a fight and everyone else getting bored) that we had to have him make up a new character. it is entirely possible to break the diplomacy system, but it removes all of the fun from the game if you do.
Qaetar 01-12-04, 12:26 AM	Judicator Shekar, just to point out, when I DM, I throw out the dice and make my players hit a dummy with a baseball bat to see how much damage they should do. Of course, I don't measure it per say, I just see how much effort they really put into it.
Elendur 01-12-04, 12:41 AM	You're right, it's a full round action to get the -10 penalty attempt. My point was, with the checks these characters have, ie 35+ they can afford to take the -10 and still change someones reaction from hostile to unfriendly. What is strange about diplomacy is that the check works equally well against a 20th level cleric as it does the stable boy. A high will save, high charisma, protection from enchantment, even a high diplomacy score doesn't effect the outcome. Moving a person from hostile to unfriendly as a full round action is always DC 30, automatic for these types of characters. They should have made it some kind of opposed check.
Auber Furyblade 01-12-04, 03:29 AM	I'm running a campaign right now and one of the characters is a courtier whose diplomacy is over 50. (Far and away the highest skill in a party with otherwise average skill levels.) I handle diplomacy this way: 1) I make sure the party bumps into other high diplomacy people from time to time who have similar skills. Further, every smart noble, criminal mastermind, and individual of decent influence keeps at least one good advisor on hand to break things up if the influential NPC seems to fall unduly under the influence of someone else, like a PC. In my campaign, eventually the courtier mentioned above developed such a reputation about being able to talk people into things that the ruler of the land, who disliked the character, refused to ever deal with him face to face, and would only do so in writing, or through several layers of intermediaries. 2) If they PC's are trying to convince an NPC to do something that's very out of character, I add the NPC's level as a modifier to the DC. This helps to keep the challenge in finessing powerful NPC's into doing things they don't want high, but still within reach of the PC's if done right. 3) If diplomacy occurs in combat I add 1.5 times the NPC level to the DC, in addition to imposing the -10. I find this helpful since it reinforces the difficulty of diplomacy in combat, esp. against high level foes, who are better at ignoring seemingly superfluous distractions. 4) If they PC's initiated the combat, or are sworn enemies of the NPC, I double the level modifier. 5) I make it clear that at any time any NPC's or monster might be unswayable due to mitigating factors, no matter the PC's roll. (This is my way of keeping a check on illogical suggestions, like "I talk the vampire into never drinking any kind of blood again.") 6) While diplomacy may make the NPC like one PC, that doesn't necessarily include the rest of the party and unless a sustained effort is made, in a manner similar to that outlined in the BOED, the NPC's alignment doesn't change. However, all of this overlooks the best part of diplomacy: 7) What is that NPC doing now that the PC's are gone? Ex 1. A bandit may still rob and plunder, but may send some of his stolen wealth along to his new friend. A nice boon if your evil, or possibly neutral, something of an embarassment if your good, and don't want to keep the missing tiara of the empress, but aren't sure how you go about explaining exactly how it came to be in your posession, when the bandit who stole it is still alive and thinks your just a great person. Ex 2. The hobgoblin tribe who took a liking to the PC's may begin to plunder in their names. Perhaps the characters can then direct the hobgoblins against some enemies of the PC's. Or, maybe the character convinces them to stop, taking on the responsibility of helping the hobgoblins acquire the other skills they need to survive and live peacefully with other races. (And without such guidance those hobgoblins will probably fall back into their old warlike ways.) Final comments: I've found my players have some people they just don't want to talk their way past. There are NPC's they just want to kill, because they don't want them running around anymore. Having gotten over the initial euphoria, and being aware that it isn't a universal panacea, the players in my group view diplomacy as just another tool they have at their disposal in any given encounter. And, it's a tool they often forego since there are just some foes that they prefer to bury then be best buds with. However, I actually prefer it when my PC's use diplomacy on NPC's. I like seeing the courtier talk the party out of a situation where they're in over their heads. And, seldom do those NPC's who are swayed by a PC's diplomacy disappear forever, sooner or later they always seem to reappear as part of another adventure....
Qaetar 01-12-04, 09:08 AM	Well put, Auber. A good set of house rules and manner by which you deal with the skill that I think fits the bill nicely. (Qaetar)
Elendur 01-12-04, 09:28 AM	You've got the right idea Auber. Those are the types of rules I'd use in my game, if any of my players bothered to talk to people instead of killing them :) BTW, I introduced a twinkery diplomat much like the one The_Fan suggested, as NPC. I quickly realized how ridiculous he might get, so I'm probably going to relegate him to an advisor type character rather than an adventuring companion. I wanted to show my bloodthirsty players that there was an alternative, but I don't want to spoil their fun. The only social skills my party displays is the dwarf fighter trying to intimidate someone, and failing miserably due to no ranks, low charisma and bad rolls, and the rogue bluffing people, just to confuse them momentarily to set up the party's attack.
Lord Arkhaven 01-13-04, 01:47 PM	Bluff gives you a synergy bonus to Diplomacy So does Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty)
Master of the Squirrel's 01-15-04, 09:18 PM	Two things: 1. Here's my diplomacy build (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163146) . It gets +46 UNBUFFED by level 8. :) 2. I think to many of you are looking at what attitudes mean. Diplomacy isn't a brain controller, and it by know means makes the person do exactly what you want them to do. Is the Helpful Cleric of Pelor a thrall of yours? Or how about the kindly old man who likes helping out the youngsters with some stories? No. They still have their own motivations and goals. Lets say for instance the Diplomat just won over the necromancer that wants to raise an army of undead to take over a castle. So now he likes the Diplomat. Does that make him want to stop taking over the castle? No. Sure, the Diplomat might try to talk him out of it, but the necro is less likely to say something to the effect of, "Your totally right, I'll now change my ways," and more like, "Hey, I get your point, but I really do want this castle. Your a good guy and all, so if you want to help, that would be great. No? Well, next time your around you should stop by." A person's inner motivations always take charge, no matter if they are friends. Think about your best friend. You would definately consider yourself having a Helpful attitude toward the person, and likewise toward you. But, if your friend came to you and said, "I need you to sell your car, your house, and possibly your wife, so you can help me pay for this really sweet trip to Italy," you'd probably bust out laughing, and hope your friend was telling you a joke. Would you still be considered Helpful? Sure. But I think Helpful only goes as far as is within reason for the Helpful person.
Elereth_Berantor 01-19-04, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by Judicator Shekar When I DM, I very rarely call for charisma-based checks to be made. I have various reasons for this, but the most prominent one is my desire to see players roleplay and not rollplay. Rolling a d20 and creating the situation can be quick and fun, but I much prefer it when an actually battle of wits occurs between the player and the NPC. This sometimes takes 1/2 an hour or and entire hour. Some lame people would rather be killing stuff for this time, but that is their game. I do that, but combine it with a dice roll or two: instead of the dice being "how well they say it" the diplomacy roll usually just gives a scale on how far the player can go--if the player has spent the last 5 minutes trying to convince a barmaid to go to bed with him, if he gets a 10 and, in my opinion as a DM, hasn't been very convincing, it's a no go. However, if he gets a 30, his natural charm overcomes his verbal blundering. See? It helps to offset the problem of having a not-so-articulate player playing a bard or rogue. On the other hand, if he's been great (and is playing in-character) then I may not require a roll at all, or at least make the DC quite a bit lower.
BloodSpill 01-19-04, 11:06 PM	I think the real worry about diplomacy is if you use the "Fanatic" rules. (ELH, p 40) From Helpful - DC 50 Friendly - DC 60 Hostile - DC 150 Suddenly, the friendly necromancer is now your fanatical follower and will give his life to serve you. Ow.
Master of the Squirrel's 01-21-04, 06:36 PM	That doesn't even touch the iceburg. The scary thing is, if you can lock yourself into a chamber of a HOSTILE, yes, HOSTILE army of orcs, you can change them into Fanatics given twenty minutes and a few Silence spells. All you have to do is make all those raging hordes silent, and then just preach to them for 10 minutes to convert them to Helpful automatically. The next 10 minutes make all those helpful people into Fanatics. THAT'S why this guy is good. Plus, even if said hordes were attacking him the entire time, they probably won't be getting through his thirty something AC and Damage Resistance. The question you all have is, "Is this game breaking?" Not in the least bit. Think of it this way: What is 20 minutes? 200 rounds. My example above assumes the Diplomat is 12th level. What 12th level character can't do what the Diplomat just did in 20 minutes that would likely take them less than 20 rounds? I mean, a fighter with Cleave/Great Cleave could go through these orcs like butter. A wizard could shoot a SINGLE fireball and wipe out the majority of the competition. A rogue in there wouldn't even be noticed as he silently executed the bewildered orcs. A cleric with full buffs is just as powerful as aforementioned fighter. Does the Diplomat get better results after the encounter? Naturally. He's taking 20 whole minutes to beat them, not 20 whole seconds. Same with BBEG. It's much more effectiveto get rid of the rampaging necromancer with a few fell sweeps, instead of talking him down. The standard diplomat turns out to effectively work as of course the face of your party, but ironically also as the heavy artillary. Is this bad? No. Should diplomacy be nerfed? No.
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-21-04, 09:19 PM	Originally posted by Elendur You're right, it's a full round action to get the -10 penalty attempt. My point was, with the checks these characters have, ie 35+ they can afford to take the -10 and still change someones reaction from hostile to unfriendly. What is strange about diplomacy is that the check works equally well against a 20th level cleric as it does the stable boy. A high will save, high charisma, protection from enchantment, even a high diplomacy score doesn't effect the outcome. Moving a person from hostile to unfriendly as a full round action is always DC 30, automatic for these types of characters. They should have made it some kind of opposed check. And that's why I think diplomacy is one of the most poorly written skills in the PHB. You have equal chances of using it on a fanatical blackguard as you do on some guy who bears you a minor grudge.
Loren Pechtel 01-22-04, 12:36 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth And that's why I think diplomacy is one of the most poorly written skills in the PHB. You have equal chances of using it on a fanatical blackguard as you do on some guy who bears you a minor grudge. Agreed. High level diplomacy is simply broken.
Elendur 01-22-04, 10:39 AM	Also there should be rules on how to get an already friendly person to do a specific thing for you. I.E. how to change behavior, not just attitude. Bluff and Intimidate have opposed rolls, I don't see any reason why Diplomacy shouldn't. In general, I think skills cap out to quickly in usefulness. I like the idea of epic skills. I also don't think skills get the coverage they deserve. I mean 80 billion new feats and PrC's and not 1 new skill? Anyway...
Pagan priest 01-23-04, 01:08 AM	Originally posted by Elendur I mean 80 billion new feats and PrC's and not 1 new skill? Anyway... New skills bad, very bad. New uses for existing skills, good. Allowing either level or wis bonus to increase the Diplomacy DC or allowing a will save to not be swayed would likely be a good thing.
Elendur 01-23-04, 11:31 AM	Originally posted by Pagan priest New skills bad, very bad. New uses for existing skills, good. I agree that new skills you have to use, like spot, listen, and search would be bad because it thins the pools of skill points available. I don't think there's anything wrong with new knowledge, craft, profession, or perform skills. There would probably be a few other skills that might be appropriate to add based on the campaign. I just think the sad state of diplomacy is indicative of the lack of attention skills are getting in D&D. I guess its because they aren't generally as exciting as feats or spells.
Auber Furyblade 01-23-04, 08:43 PM	Originally posted by Elendur I just think the sad state of diplomacy is indicative of the lack of attention skills are getting in D&D. I guess its because they aren't generally as exciting as feats or spells. I think diplomacy has the same problem a lot of non-quantifiable spells have, it's easy for a smart, aggressive, or whining player to push their DM into doing things with it that it was never intended to do. (Eventually forcing a badgered DM to be forced to invoke rule 0 to keep their campaign on track.) However, like I mentioned briefly in my previous post, I believe a good DM will take the power level, alignment, goals, and personalities of the NPC's into account, and make them react accordingly, even if they're now a "zealot" in the players service. That said I do think Diplomacy is the type of skill that needs some revision (Dynamic DC's taking level, circumstances, and alignment into account would be a good start.) In addition, there should be some explanation about what diplomacy can do, what it shouldn't do, and the kind of common sense ideas that should be used when applying it to any situation within the game.
msoya 01-23-04, 10:47 PM	Originally posted by Master of the Squirrel's I mean, a fighter with Cleave/Great Cleave could go through these orcs like butter. A wizard could shoot a SINGLE fireball and wipe out the majority of the competition. A rogue in there wouldn't even be noticed as he silently executed the bewildered orcs. A cleric with full buffs is just as powerful as aforementioned fighter. Does the Diplomat get better results after the encounter? Naturally. He's taking 20 whole minutes to beat them, not 20 whole seconds. Same with BBEG. It's much more effectiveto get rid of the rampaging necromancer with a few fell sweeps, instead of talking him down. The standard diplomat turns out to effectively work as of course the face of your party, but ironically also as the heavy artillary. Is this bad? No. Should diplomacy be nerfed? No. Think of the long term. You've just raised an army. What player would turn down a few hundred loyal minions? Even if you're a pacifist, you've just formed the greatest street-cleaning force in the world! Now, take them to town, repainting walls, helping old ladies cross the street... :D
Master of the Squirrel's 01-23-04, 11:11 PM	Originally posted by msoya Think of the long term. You've just raised an army. What player would turn down a few hundred loyal minions? Even if you're a pacifist, you've just formed the greatest street-cleaning force in the world! Now, take them to town, repainting walls, helping old ladies cross the street... :D Well, that's just about exactly the goal of an Apostle of Peace Diplomat. You've just conquered a full army. Are you taking them to war? No. Your making them kinder people and teaching them morals. What does a Diplomat get from a job well done? Just the feeling of satisfaction that you just avoided years of bloodshed. Mind you, that's a great feeling, and is the point of the build, but your also not materially benefitting from the ordeal. New arguement for why Diplomacy is indeed not broken: Take a look at the average diplomacy bonus that your typical cleric might have. By 20th, you'll maybe be pushing 30, and that's if you've invested some time into diplomacy. How often is this guy getting a 50? 5% of the time. How often is getting that 60? Never. These diplomats litterally spend all their resources in character building to make a bigger and better diplomat. You will not and cannot successfully argue that a 20th level anything else can't be more effective at just about anything else than the Diplomat, except for diplomacy. Myself, as a self proclaimed min/maxxer, can tell you over a dozen builds off the top of my head that can effectively wipe out an army at a moments notice, whereas this guy is preaching for a half hour, and hoping his foes are intelligent enough to understand. What happens when the diplomat runs into an ooze? He calmly backs away while the big boys do their work. Is this character specialized? HELL yes. Is he overpowered? I maintain that answer to be no.
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-23-04, 11:47 PM	Originally posted by Elendur Also there should be rules on how to get an already friendly person to do a specific thing for you. I.E. how to change behavior, not just attitude. Bluff and Intimidate have opposed rolls, I don't see any reason why Diplomacy shouldn't. That gets even more dangerous when you start making it more defined. The problem with opposed rolls with skills is that if you don't have it as a class skill you're totally screwed at high levels because unlike epic BaB, skills don't scale down at high levels. So the gap between a 40th level bard and a 40th level warrior in terms of opposed rolls makes the warrior completely unable to resist a skill roll. For some skills like hide, this might be ok, until you factor in crap like hiding in plain sight. For social skills which at high and epic levels act like a nonmagical version of charm person, this is not acceptable. It reduces every non-PC into a walking automaton with no personality except what epic level characters decide to give them. The cleric of Tyr you knew one day could become a fanatical servant of bane the next after a 1 minute oratory by some evil bard. A character with a reasonable diplomacy bonus can talk anyone out of attacking, regardless of who they are. Whether its a random orc bandit, or the last remaining survivor of a bloodline you personally wiped out, the DC is the same. Hell, you could be talking to Bane himself, but if your paladin has a high enough score, Bane himself will aid you. In general, I think skills cap out to quickly in usefulness. I like the idea of epic skills. I also don't think skills get the coverage they deserve. I mean 80 billion new feats and PrC's and not 1 new skill? Anyway... I hold the opposite point, I think skills are too weak early on and become way too powerful the higher in level you get. Diplomacy as written sucks completely if you've got only a +5 bonus. You really can't do much with it at all. However, once it hits high levels you can basically do anything with it. Personally I'd like to see epic skills scaled back alot and lower level skills made a bit more useful. I'd also like to see the epic skill advancement rate slowed in some way, much as epic BaB was slowed. It should be a lot harder to advance when you're that good, so epic skills are truly epic skills. As for new skills, I really wouldn't want to see them... I saw that happen with GURPS and Vampire and generally the result was not something good. You end up with 4 different skills that can do one particular task, and nobody is sure what to use. New knowledges are good fi they apply to one specific campaign setting, new professions maybe... but besides that, I think more skills only screws things up. I'd prefer new feats that allow someone to use an existing skill in new ways.
Auber Furyblade 01-24-04, 02:26 PM	Originally posted by Master of the Squirrel's Well, that's just about exactly the goal of an Apostle of Peace Diplomat. You've just conquered a full army. Are you taking them to war? No. Your making them kinder people and teaching them morals. What does a Diplomat get from a job well done? Just the feeling of satisfaction that you just avoided years of bloodshed. Mind you, that's a great feeling, and is the point of the build, but your also not materially benefitting from the ordeal. The problem once again, IMO, is that there is no more explanation on how to adjudicate diplomacy then there is to use, say, climb. As a skill, diplomacy requires much more common sense on the part of the DM to keep it from abuse, so a page, or even half a page, in the PHB or DMG to educate DM's probably would have saved a lot of headaches. For example, the Diplomat now has an army. Great. A common sense response might say, they're going to need 3 meals a day, clothing, temporary housing, and a chain of command to belay orders. If you want to take a force that large into town, you'll probably need special permission from the town authorities. Such a large group of people arriving in one place may cause massive inflation, causing prices for certain items to spiral upwards, depending upon the size of the community. And, particularly in small communities, may cause some fear and resentment among the towns people, since it was a former army and could effectively turn hostile at any time. Further, many of those soldiers are going to have differing ideas about the best way to go about doing good and cleaning up the town, not all of them helpful. And, finally, eventually, those soldiers are going to want to go home, some sooner then other. More work then just a few simple skill rolls? Yes. Potentially more rewarding as well? Yes! It's more work but the impact on the world is that much greater if it succeeds. However, I don't think DM's, when first confronted by a high diplomacy score, stop to think about that I know my first reaction when confronted with a high diplomacy roll from a low level character was to think: "What the? This is going to derail my adventure. Ok. If I let the PC succeed at this how do I get the adventure back on track?" That's why I say a large part of the issue is training a DM on exactly what the limits of diplomacy are and how to apply common sense to them. Originally posted by Master of the Squirrel's New arguement for why Diplomacy is indeed not broken: Take a look at the average diplomacy bonus that your typical cleric might have. By 20th, you'll maybe be pushing 30, and that's if you've invested some time into diplomacy. How often is this guy getting a 50? 5% of the time. How often is getting that 60? Never. Unless you go none core character, which is where the trouble starts, because it allows characters to reach heights the original designers may not have anticipated. We allowed 2 non-core books, and the party diplomat in my campaign has a natural diplomacy bonus that's above 50, without items added in. (The rest of the party, now nearing 20th level, is at normal skill progression levels.) That means an impossible task of a 40 is impossible for the party diplomat to fail, by core rules. That's why I think there should be, and instituted house rules early on, that add additional modifiers to the base DC taking level, and the like, into account. (This also helps to keep suspense in the game since a player may know they need a diplomacy check around 30 for a particular challenge, but won't be sure of the exact check until they have to make it.) My player is pretty good about not abusing diplomacy. Still, I've heard stories of players using the skill to talk merchants into free magic items, kings out of kingdoms, dragons out of hordes, and gods into granting divine status. (Every impossible task is a straight DC 40.) That's why I think diplomacy should be clarified. It's potentially the most useful skill, along with my personal favorite, but also the one that lends itself to the most abuse, if a DM doesn't know what kind of common sense to apply to it.
Mind of Darkness 01-24-04, 05:22 PM	"quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Elendur Also there should be rules on how to get an already friendly person to do a specific thing for you. I.E. how to change behavior, not just attitude. Bluff and Intimidate have opposed rolls, I don't see any reason why Diplomacy shouldn't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That gets even more dangerous when you start making it more defined. The problem with opposed rolls with skills is that if you don't have it as a class skill you're totally screwed at high levels because unlike epic BaB, skills don't scale down at high levels. So the gap between a 40th level bard and a 40th level warrior in terms of opposed rolls makes the warrior completely unable to resist a skill roll." The most logical opposed roll would be will save. Since skills scale differently than saving throws, multiply their result by some factor based on difficulty, say times two, and based on how much the diplomacy roll exceeds the modified will save, their attitude is changed a corresponding amount. Of course, the attitudes should be better defined, so the resulta of the roll tell the Dm exactly how to make rthe NPC act. After all, PCs should have a decent shot at convincing enemy minions to help. But when they try to sway the BBEG from evil, the're attempt fails, and a climatic battle ensues. Just like in the movies. :)
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-25-04, 07:18 AM	Some kind of modified will save could work, though it would be kinda tricky to get the exact system down because the scaling is so vastly different. One thing I really wish they'd do for 3E is to level out the way things scale. It'd be really nice to have skills, saves and attack rolls all scale the same way. That way you could just do a direct opposed roll between skills and saves. Definitely though either a save or a level check has to be implemented, so epic level diplomacy isn't totally insane.