Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dmmelkor 06-09-07, 05:14 AM	My DM says that if you try to bargain in a shop by using the diplomacy skill, you have to accept te outcome. For example if a sword would normally costs 100gp and i roll a bad diplomacy opposed to the vendor, the sword could cost 130gp and i have to buy it. I would say the vendor and i cannot agree on the price and i dont want/have to buy it. I might buy it if i a had a good roll and the sword would cost 80gp. Sounds more realistic to me. Any advice would be helpfull.
katarl 06-09-07, 06:14 AM	Bargaining doesn't really have any dnd rules for it, but it doesn't make much sense that you *have* to buy something when you get a poor bargain roll. You can just go to another merchant.
Chimaera2000 06-09-07, 01:48 PM	I seem to recall a Dragon Magazine article that had the idea of the PC and the merchant making opposed Diplomacy checks, with every 5 that you beat the opponent by swaying the price in your favor 5%. For example, if you beat the merchant's check by 25, you'd get 25% off the price. I think this capped at 30%. Another way of doing this is to just treat it like a normal Diplomacy check, with a friendly or helpful merchant's attitude giving you a more favorable price. On the topic of just "walking away" if the price gets too high, consider this: perhaps the merchant just fast-talks you through things, adding on options and hidden costs but still making the offer seem plausible (car dealers, anyone?). Some will disagree with the idea of buying something with a higher price than initially bargained for, but it provides an element of risk in bargaining. This contrasts with just turning the Diplomacy skill into a "always buy things cheaper" skill.
Kalarus 06-09-07, 03:13 PM	On the topic of just "walking away" if the price gets too high, consider this: perhaps the merchant just fast-talks you through things, adding on options and hidden costs but still making the offer seem plausible (car dealers, anyone?). Some will disagree with the idea of buying something with a higher price than initially bargained for, but it provides an element of risk in bargaining. This contrasts with just turning the Diplomacy skill into a "always buy things cheaper" skill. Doesn't matter if the offer "seems plausable", a player character is always under the player's control unless magically affected. Diplomacy or similar social skills on a PC may make an NPC appear to be as honest and helpful as possible, that doesn't stop anyone from being a distrustful hardcase and refusing anyway. Especially if you are a good diplomat yourself, you know the tricks and are better able to protect yourself against them. Similarly no RL car dealer is going to be able to make you buy the car if you really don't want to. Ending up at 130% price because of a failed Diplomacy bargaining is the equivalent of the merchant appearing to be completely sincere in his belief that he should never have priced the item so cheaply to begin with as it is obviously worth much more. As for the "always buy things cheaper" skill problem, what do you think trade guilds are for? :P Even without guilds though, it's called competition and is an ancient and real part of trading, in fact haggling and checking out what the guy around the corner offers would be very natural in a D&D setting. D&D is not a shopping mall however, there could very well be only a few people in town who could offer an item of that quality for sale to begin with, so after a few possibly failed checks the player might find himself in a practical need to visit another town. If he's really willing to do that just to shave a few gp off, let him. If it's a very expensive (perhaps magical) item, he's not going to be able to find many offers anyway. Wizard guilds are a common concept, and not every wizard (those few who choose to live in town to begin with) picks craft item feats. Definitely not every one has the requested item in stock. Really there are plenty of ways to limit continual bargaining if you really want to, without resorting to taking away player control over their character.
Vegepygmy 06-10-07, 12:43 AM	Doesn't matter if the offer "seems plausable", a player character is always under the player's control unless magically affected.There is no such rule in the game.
Aryxbez 06-10-07, 01:05 AM	There is no such rule in the game. Technically there is, unless I don't recall correctly, there was a mention of a sort of rule that said that PCs cannot be forced to do something by another NPC. So Then a NPC could not force a PC to do something from something like an Intimidate, Also even diplomacy a PC is not affected by. Not sure where something like this was declared, obviously you should probably check out the Players handbook, and under the skills things like diplomacy, I think you might find it there.
AAB 06-10-07, 03:19 AM	to the OP: complete adventurer has a skill use for diplomacy with rules for haggling with a vendor. i suggest you check that out.
Lord_Zeb 06-10-07, 03:49 AM	Which says that with a 1 minute action of Haggling, using Diplomacy Skill: Merchant starts at Indifferent. If you raise attitude to Friendly you get 10% off. If you lower attitude he won't sell at all. Attempt cannot be re-tried, but it is only asking price that is changed. (I.e. you don't need to buy, but you cannot change price any further.) If DM thinks that constant haggling is dragging the game down, he may disallow option as he please. Personally, I think this is not that good a rule. Would instead have a House Rule using Appraise skill instead. Either for the same check, having Unfriendly merchants still selling (but at double cost) and Hostile merchants not sell, and if you manage to get them to Helpful gain a 25% discount. Or you can just use Appraise for an opposed check, where each 5 points you win the check with grant a 10% change, with a minimum price of 50% of value. And with "haggling-culture" merchants or racist merchants (or something) have them start at lower attitudes. (True attitudes do not change, as this is only about the purchase of goods.) This system could also be used when the PCs try to sell stuff, even if the base price then is halved for anything but material values (trade goods, metal or gem values, and so forth). (They might get full price for it if they are really skilled at negotiation then. ;)) And have Diplomacy and Bluff grant Synergy bonuses to these checks if you got 5+ Ranks in them. (Or at least have Appraise give a synergy bonus to Haggle attempts.) This would give Appraise Skill a real value for the PCs, as well as retain Diplomacy (and Bluff) as important skills when it comes to haggling.
Kalarus 06-10-07, 07:42 AM	There is no such rule in the game. Bold emphasis mine. PHB p 5. "As a player, you use this handbook to create and run a character." Player runs the character, always, unless a specific effect prevents that. From Diplomacy skill, PHB p 71. "You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters)" Players characters do not have NPC table attitudes. Players characters are not affected by Diplomacy. Barring magical exceptions (and perhaps interventions against metagaming), players characters are under their player's control, period.
Grave_Accomplice 06-10-07, 07:59 AM	I tend to enforce a similar rule, mine being that you don't have to buy it but you don't get to roll again against the same merchant for said item. If you don't, the player just keeps walking away until he gets a good roll.
Vegepygmy 06-10-07, 01:42 PM	There is no such rule in the game.Technically there is, unless I don't recall correctly...You don't recall correctly. Not sure where something like this was declared, obviously you should probably check out the Players handbook...No, no...you should do the checking, since you are the one claiming such a rule exists. I have better things to do with my time than search for something that isn't there. PHB p 5. "As a player, you use this handbook to create and run a character." Player runs the character, always, unless a specific effect prevents that.Claiming that "and run" equates to "immunity to non-magical effects" just makes you look silly. From Diplomacy skill, PHB p 71. "You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters)"PCs are not affected by Diplomacy. That doesn't mean they aren't affected by other non-magical effects. Your supposed "rule" is incredibly overbroad.
Tsuul 06-10-07, 02:02 PM	consider this: perhaps the merchant just fast-talks you through things, adding on options and hidden costs but still making the offer seem plausible (car dealers, anyone?) "Consignment waiver fee....Clerical [non-secular] work....Clerical [secular] work....under-coating....balancing....one year wood rot protection....blacksmith handling fee...blacksmith sharpening fee....restocking fee protection(so if you return it you don't have to pay a restocking fee)....oh, and the town of Arabel temporary license to carry. That'll be 6 gold and 4 silvers for your new dagger.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 06-10-07, 02:10 PM	Bold emphasis mine. PHB p 5. "As a player, you use this handbook to create and run a character." Player runs the character, always, unless a specific effect prevents that. From Diplomacy skill, PHB p 71. "You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters)" Players characters do not have NPC table attitudes. Players characters are not affected by Diplomacy. Barring magical exceptions (and perhaps interventions against metagaming), players characters are under their player's control, period. But the Bluff skill does work on PCs...under this line of thought shouldn't I be able to say "My character would never believe that lie"? The way I see it, the "you have to buy it" rules is a little onerous, but not crazy. If the PC is trying to buy a suit of plate armor, he doesn't necessarily know that plate armor "costs" 1500 gold pieces. The player knows it...but the character doesn't have a copy of the PHB around. The character probably has some sense of what plate armor costs, in the same way that you or I may have a sense of what a new car costs, but a general sense of price is not the same thing as having the "universal price list" memorized. Assuming the PC has only a sense of the price, and not it's exact price down, the merchant may well convince him he's getting a "deal," buying the full plate for 1600 gold. The big reason to object to that is that Diplomacy doesn't usually work on PCs, so the merchant's diplomacy in theory shouldn't work either. In this case though, the rules on haggling are almost non-existent...and what's there suggests that Diplomacy may well work on PCs in that the rules say: In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains an advantage Nothing in that sentence carves out PCs, and it's not clear to me that the PCs were intended to be immune from its effect. (The language limiting Diplomacy to NPCs is in the first sentence of that paragraph, in a parenthetical, that looks to me like it excludes PCs from "influencing attitudes," rather than negotiations. Changing attitudes is one specific use of the skill, negotiating is another. The former doesn't affect PCs, the latter looks like it does.) Reading that sentence literally, it seems like the DM is right to make you buy the sword at an increased price, otherwise the merchant does not "gain an advantage" as a result of winning the Diplomacy check. The obvious alternative is that, if you are not bound by the result of the Diplomacy check, then neither is the merchant in those cases where he loses. :D The real reason not to bind the player is just "it's not fun," rather than arguing from the RAW, which I think allows for either interpretation.
Knightblde 06-10-07, 02:27 PM	Being forced to buy, is just a little too much. I agree with the theory though. As a player it appears you want to drop the price, based on your skill, but NEVER have to worry about a merchant raising your price. This is not fair. I suggest that the DM make it so that the price does in fact go up, but that the player not be forced to buy it. As such, I would rule that if the player choose not to purchase it then he cannot find another 'item' that matches, or even closely matches it. I would probably make this 'penalty' last for 3-4 game sessions. If there is no risk, then there should be no reward. Happy Gaming!
D.A.Dervish 06-10-07, 03:24 PM	On the topic of a player's control over his character concerning the Bluff skill: The Sense Motive check simply reveals whether the character can discern if someone is lying. The player is completely free to act however he wishes on this information. And note that the diplomacy skill is used to influence attitude, not cause actions. Sure, you might be willing to pay a few extra coins to the merchant with starving children, but you're not going to buy something you don't need (unless it's pure charity).
Kusari_Gamer 06-10-07, 03:38 PM	Doesn't matter if the offer "seems plausable", a player character is always under the player's control unless magically affected. Diplomacy or similar social skills on a PC may make an NPC appear to be as honest and helpful as possible, that doesn't stop anyone from being a distrustful hardcase and refusing anyway. Especially if you are a good diplomat yourself, you know the tricks and are better able to protect yourself against them. Similarly no RL car dealer is going to be able to make you buy the car if you really don't want to. Ending up at 130% price because of a failed Diplomacy bargaining is the equivalent of the merchant appearing to be completely sincere in his belief that he should never have priced the item so cheaply to begin with as it is obviously worth much more. As for the "always buy things cheaper" skill problem, what do you think trade guilds are for? :P Even without guilds though, it's called competition and is an ancient and real part of trading, in fact haggling and checking out what the guy around the corner offers would be very natural in a D&D setting. D&D is not a shopping mall however, there could very well be only a few people in town who could offer an item of that quality for sale to begin with, so after a few possibly failed checks the player might find himself in a practical need to visit another town. If he's really willing to do that just to shave a few gp off, let him. If it's a very expensive (perhaps magical) item, he's not going to be able to find many offers anyway. Wizard guilds are a common concept, and not every wizard (those few who choose to live in town to begin with) picks craft item feats. Definitely not every one has the requested item in stock. Really there are plenty of ways to limit continual bargaining if you really want to, without resorting to taking away player control over their character. I completely disagree with this statement. While yes, a player is always in control of the character but using a haggling mechanic when it is advantageous and ignoring it when it doesn't go your way is pure crap. I think if you're going to use diplomacy for this kind of thing one shouldn't try to have their cake and eat it also.
Aryxbez 06-10-07, 04:04 PM	If there is no risk, then there should be no reward. I agree with Knightblde, there should be some mode of risk for haggling, otherwise becomes a skill to auto lower or keep the price. No, no...you should do the checking, since you are the one claiming such a rule exists. I have better things to do with my time than search for something that isn't there. For one, I expect you to already know a rule like this exists. Unless of course you believe that players can be swayed by diplomacy checks, can be made to do things by Intimidate, Just being bossed around. By the way on Page 71, there is the diplomacy skill, tells you it is used for NPCs. So sir, actually know what you are talking about before you go off and start being rude. Also The whole Bluff things sounds about right, that you can bluff a PC and unless he fails Sense motive, the potential lie is believable. dmmelkor , Technically if the Merchant bluffs you and you fail the Sense motive check, you would not know it is a lie in the first place. However you also cannot be forced to buy something. Otherwise I think a good Appraise check would be a good idea to check out the price of the weapon. If it is a magical weapon, detect magic would be in order to see if the item is truly that powerful.
Vegepygmy 06-10-07, 04:33 PM	For one, I expect you to already know a rule like this exists.If it exists, you should have no trouble citing it. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Kalarus 06-10-07, 07:15 PM	If it exists, you should have no trouble citing it. Go ahead. I'll wait. Did just that already. Saw your reponse, and you are wrong on a very simple basis. It is your task to provide rules which are both non-magical effects and remove character control from their players. If you can't, there's no reason to believe any non-magical effect trumps player control. No thing in D&D affects players unless it explicitly mentions doing so. Diplomacy is not mind control. Bluff is not mind control. Enchantment (Compulsion) effects are mind control. But the Bluff skill does work on PCs...under this line of thought shouldn't I be able to say "My character would never believe that lie"? Bluff skill does not technically work on PCs, it works on you. Bluff allows you to create a believable lie. Sense Motive allows someone to catch you in the act of lying. E.g., a good Bluff check could cause you to seem completely sincere when you claim that "All grass is blue". You may state it with absolute conviction and truth, perhaps even provide some blue-coloured grass to prove your point. A comparatively lower sense motive check would make it appear like you actually believed what you said, it does not force the player to believe it also. This is why Bluff has no static DCs but is an opposed check with Sense Motive: you forge a lie, the other tries to catch you in it. The big reason to object to that is that Diplomacy doesn't usually work on PCs, so the merchant's diplomacy in theory shouldn't work either. In this case though, the rules on haggling are almost non-existent...and what's there suggests that Diplomacy may well work on PCs in that the rules say: Quote: In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains an advantage Nothing in that sentence carves out PCs, and it's not clear to me that the PCs were intended to be immune from its effect. (The language limiting Diplomacy to NPCs is in the first sentence of that paragraph, in a parenthetical, that looks to me like it excludes PCs from "influencing attitudes," rather than negotiations. Changing attitudes is one specific use of the skill, negotiating is another. The former doesn't affect PCs, the latter looks like it does.) Reading that sentence literally, it seems like the DM is right to make you buy the sword at an increased price, otherwise the merchant does not "gain an advantage" as a result of winning the Diplomacy check. The obvious alternative is that, if you are not bound by the result of the Diplomacy check, then neither is the merchant in those cases where he loses. Taking sentences out of context really does not help. Still, haggling probably comes closest to negotiation, which may mean opposed diplomacy checks with the merchant which is in fact not a bad representation of what actually happens at all. If the player loses, the merchant has the advantage, which really does not tell us anything about the buying behaviour of the player. It may mean that the merchant is truly sorry but despite his heartfelt remorse cannot afford to sell the item for a price lower than X because he'd lose money. He will not budge from this opinion since he won the diplomacy, if the PC won he would have budged from this opinion and lowered his price. Nowhere does it require the PC to actually buy the item. You are also right in saying nowhere does it require the merchant to sell the item for a price lower than X. Regardless of how helpful you make someone (influencing attitudes) or how well you haggle (negotiate), someone may have all the desire in the world to help you but simply not be able to do so for practical reasons. You can safely assume most people in D&D like themselves a lot more than they like others, including the PCs. The merchant example above might in fact be, truly sorry that he cannot lower his price, but the fact of the matter is he can't because he does not want to starve, no matter how much he's in love with the negotiator. No matter how much a PC keeps using diplomacy to haggle (you may notice the "Try again" part of the Diplomacy skill description (PHB p72) deals exactly with this kind of situation) at some point he reaches the limit of what is possible, and the merchant will refuse. You could say, if you will, that concerning opposed diplomacy checks, a player cannot wrest an NPC's control from the DM just like a DM cannot wrest PC control from a player. I completely disagree with this statement. While yes, a player is always in control of the character but using a haggling mechanic when it is advantageous and ignoring it when it doesn't go your way is pure crap. I think if you're going to use diplomacy for this kind of thing one shouldn't try to have their cake and eat it also. Do you actually have objective arguments for considering this "pure crap", or is it that you just don't like people using the skills they invested in to their advantage? Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it also. There's no point in having cake if one does not get to eat it. If one buys the cake (Skillpoints), one has every right in the world to eat it (use Diplomacy advantageously).
Horus_Sungod 06-10-07, 07:53 PM	I also wondered about the "fanatic" attitude (from the Epic Level Handbook) and haggling. The person is supposed to be in a near-rage state and give his life to the PC. Suppose you can make a merchant fanatic, could you ask him to give you all his merchandise and money (supposing he values his life over his money, and he would GIVE you his life because he is fanatic and not merely helpful)? Oh, and one more thing: can you use diplomacy multiple times to improve an NPC's attitude? The PHB is unclear about it (Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work.). I'm leaning towards a "no".
Vegepygmy 06-10-07, 08:24 PM	Did just that already.If that's the best you can do, I see no need to comment any further.
Geezer 06-10-07, 08:32 PM	I honestly have no idea how the Diplomacy skill works by RAW but, that is because we house ruled in these rules: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html (article by Rich Burlew, author of OOTS) because our group as a whole believed they were better. This article has rules for bartering, counter-offering, and the like.
Aryxbez 06-11-07, 12:17 AM	If it exists, you should have no trouble citing it. Go ahead. I'll wait. I did already, you obviously didn't read the whole post so here I will bold it for you on Page 71, there is the diplomacy skill, tells you it is used for NPCs. So sir, actually know what you are talking about before you go off and start being rude. Since you obviously don't know how to listen, I see little reason to post here anymore. So how about you read up on the facts before you start acting like you know what you are talking about. I'm normally not mean sounding, but since you apparently like to be rude, I will treat as such, as I assume you like to be treated rudely and such.
Vegepygmy 06-11-07, 01:19 AM	I did already, you obviously didn't read the whole post so here I will bold it for youIf you had bothered to read my posts, you would know that the point being debated has almost nothing to do with the Diplomacy skill, and that your cite to the skill description is totally irrelevant. Here, I'll bold it for you: Doesn't matter if the offer "seems plausable", a player character is always under the player's control unless magically affected.There is no such rule in the game.From Diplomacy skill, PHB p 71. "You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters)"PCs are not affected by Diplomacy. That doesn't mean they aren't affected by other non-magical effects. Your supposed "rule" is incredibly overbroad. As you can see if you bother to read, there is no disagreement about whether Diplomacy works on PCs or only on NPCs. The disagreement is about whether there is some general rule that PCs are always under the player's control unless magically affected.
Takasi 06-11-07, 10:25 AM	Not sure where something like this was declared, obviously you should probably check out the Players handbook, and under the skills things like diplomacy, I think you might find it there. If you aren't sure if it's declared or not, then why are we to assume that it exists until someone disproves you? I also cannot find any rule in the game that says: "a player character is always under the player's control unless magically affected". Bold emphasis mine.
Takasi 06-11-07, 10:28 AM	Since you obviously don't know how to listen, I see little reason to post here anymore. Maybe because there are other people here interested in the topic? And because your statements are based on false logic and you want to correct them?
ravenshrike 06-11-07, 10:52 AM	But the Bluff skill does work on PCs...under this line of thought shouldn't I be able to say "My character would never believe that lie"? Depends on the character, if you play as a distrustful misanthrope, technically you should get a +20 insight bonus on all bluff checks. This obviously doesn't happen, but no matter how seemingly honest a person is being, someone like said misanthrope is still unlikely to believe them.
ravenshrike 06-11-07, 10:54 AM	Oh, and one more thing: can you use diplomacy multiple times to improve an NPC's attitude? The PHB is unclear about it (Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work.). I'm leaning towards a "no". Yes, but I would probably rule not more than once a day.
jaelis 06-11-07, 11:43 AM	As you can see if you bother to read, there is no disagreement about whether Diplomacy works on PCs or only on NPCs. The disagreement is about whether there is some general rule that PCs are always under the player's control unless magically affected. Do you have a particular form of nonmagical control in mind? There are certainly a lot of cases you can think of: a panicked character is forced to run away, a frenzied berserker is forced to keep attacking, or even just a paralyzed character is unable to move. I'm betting that Kalarus and Aryxbez aren't trying to deny such situations. Perhaps asking them what they really mean would be more productive. As for the OP's question, I think you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're trying to model real social interactions. If I walk into a store and try to haggle, but I'm really rude and obnoxious, the vendor might refuse to sell to me at all, but there's no way to force me to pay more for an item than I want. What if I don't even have any money? If you (sensibly) want to avoid letting the PCs go from shop to shop until they get a good roll, just say you get one roll overall that represents how it goes with all the shops, and the resulting price is the best they can find. Then they can choose to buy it or not at that price.
Korlall 06-11-07, 12:06 PM	Here's how I rule bargaining. First of all, player's buy/sell mundane items at 100% / 50% When it comes to magic items, art object and gems, that when you can make a bargain... I made up a little reputation system for reputation in towns... It is posted at the end of this post. Then, let's start by supposing you want to buy an exotic item worthing 1000 gp. For each step you are from Neutral Attitude (Using diplomacy), there is a 5% difference... So a friendly vendor sell a -5%, a helpful at -10% while and unfriendly sell at +5% and probaly that hostie attacks you more than it bargains... Then, I make the players using a Appraise check for the item. If you success it, you get another 5% difference. (You don't have to make a check... so no modifier... but if you fail, you get a 5% penalty) Finally, if you're "Good friend" in my reputation system, you have another 5% So the max you can get is to buat 80% and sell at 70%... If the character think it doesn't worth selling the item (maybe because he failed his diplomacy and appraise checks), he can keep the item and try to sell it elsewhere.. but a way or another, that merchant will nbot change his price for one month... Plus, having a failed a appraise check mean that you cannot try it again to me... You know about the value of the item or you do not... The only thing you can do to make the price change is to try another diplomacy check (but as told, the same merchant will keep his price for one month) To help up keeping tracks of what item been goodly appraised, I have a Reference sheet for exotic items and it works well... Here's my system for reputation. I made it using the basics of the affiliation system of the PHB II: Positive criteria: Character is being of the same race as the dominant race of the twon : +1 Has a rewnown title within the town : +2 Own a land in the town or kingdom : +2 Own a house in town : +1 Family lives within town : +1 Complete a quest that benefits the town : +1 per quest Alignment is the same as the power center : +2 Alignement is one step from the power center (so if the Alignment of the power center is lawful neutral, that means you are Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, or true neutral. Doesn't stack with the previous criteria): +1 Charisma 13+ : +1 Negative Criteria: Is a monstrous/non-appreciated race : -2 Charisma 8- : -2 Alignment directly opposed to power center (Does not apply for neutral) Is know to have commit a crime : -10 Come from enemy nation/town : -5 Affiliation score and benefit: 3 or lower : Stranger: People look upon you as outlander. Default attitude unfriendly 4-10: Commoner:People don't really care about you... Neutral Attitude 11-20 : Friend: People hails you when passing by. Friendly attitude (which give you already 5% off), +2 to Gather Info and Diplomacy when used with townfolks. 21-29: Good Friend: +4 gather info and Diplomacy 30+: Hero: +8 on Diplomacy and Gather Info Bonus to Diplomacy and Gather info doen't stack with each others. That's it :)
Kalarus 06-11-07, 02:28 PM	If that's the best you can do, I see no need to comment any further. If you stopped reading there, I also see no need to comment any further.
Kalarus 06-11-07, 02:33 PM	If you aren't sure if it's declared or not, then why are we to assume that it exists until someone disproves you? I also cannot find any rule in the game that says: "a player character is always under the player's control unless magically affected". Bold emphasis mine. There doesn't need to be. Just like there doesn't need to be a rule that specifies the effects of death. It's completely redundant. Jaelis mentioned a few situations (like the Frenzied Berserker or some form of nonmagical paralysis) that escaped my description so the description needs a bit of tweaking. It's sad that someone other than the people whining about semantics needs to provide counterexamples in order to improve communication, but thanks Jaelis. Statement version 1.1: Player characters are always under the player's control unless affected by a situation that actively removes player control. There, happy now? Now you can whine that Diplomacy removes player control in your eyes, which it doesn't in mine.
Vegepygmy 06-11-07, 04:09 PM	There, happy now?Ecstatic.
Elrond Hubbard 06-11-07, 04:30 PM	Personally, I would stay away from complicated %-based systems. Just make a judgment call. Player uses Appraise to figure out what the item's worth. Have the player give you his total Appraise skill bonus and make the roll for him. If the PC fails the DC, they think it's worth either more or less than it's actually worth. You decide, based on how badly they fail. Player can use either Bluff or Diplomacy to try to haggle. Bluffing would be something along the lines of, "Well, Merchant X down the street is selling a dagger just like this for 50 gp less." Diplomacy would be "Yes, 1000 gp would be fair - for a longsword in perfect condition. But look at these scratches on the hilt." Oppose with Sense Motive and Diplomacy, respectively. Start from the book price and work upwards/downwards. Let the PC get the best deal he can broker - and allow for the PC to broker a crap deal. If your players refrain from metagaming, this could make for some funny exchanges. Naturally, those with high Appraise skills and people-management skills would be more successful at this. Let the party's rogue do the haggling - if you can trust him, of course...
Keyar81 06-13-07, 10:06 PM	DMG p.128 NPC Charisma Checks to Alter Other NPC's Attitudes: Should it come up, an NPC can use a Diplomacy or Charisma check to influence another NPC. However, NPC's can never influence PC attitudes. The players always make their character' decisions. Now barring some magical enchantment or some such, even in a haggling mechanic, the NPC buyer can never make the character buy the item. You could rule that certainly the town has only a few merchants that deal in that kind of item, or maybe he's the only one that has it. And until a certain time has elapsed maybe that merchant will always sell that particular item to the PC at that price. But allowing a skill check by an NPC to make the PC do something without magical or supernatural intervention is wrong.
Kalarus 06-14-07, 09:17 PM	DMG p.128 Now barring some magical enchantment or some such, even in a haggling mechanic, the NPC buyer can never make the character buy the item. You could rule that certainly the town has only a few merchants that deal in that kind of item, or maybe he's the only one that has it. And until a certain time has elapsed maybe that merchant will always sell that particular item to the PC at that price. But allowing a skill check by an NPC to make the PC do something without magical or supernatural intervention is wrong. I believe the appropriate reaction here is "pwned!" :P
Nom 06-14-07, 10:36 PM	I believe the appropriate reaction here is "pwned!" :PActually, there are two appropriate reactions: (1) Please edit your post so it is clear that the text in quotes is NOT from the DMG, but is Keyar81's commentary thereon. (2) The text quoted says "attitudes". That's very different from a mechanic that says "we make opposed Cha checks and whoever wins bumps the price the PC actually pays for the item in their favour". However, that's all irrelevant. The "correct" way to implement bargaining is to move the zero point. For example, the "default" price becomes 125% of nominal (for buying), and one can haggle it down from there. Otherwise you set up a situation where the PC cannot "fail" the haggling.
Keyar81 06-15-07, 04:32 PM	Actually, there are two appropriate reactions: (1) Please edit your post so it is clear that the text in quotes is NOT from the DMG, but is Keyar81's commentary thereon. (2) The text quoted says "attitudes". That's very different from a mechanic that says "we make opposed Cha checks and whoever wins bumps the price the PC actually pays for the item in their favour". However, that's all irrelevant. The "correct" way to implement bargaining is to move the zero point. For example, the "default" price becomes 125% of nominal (for buying), and one can haggle it down from there. Otherwise you set up a situation where the PC cannot "fail" the haggling. Sorry the quote I posted IS from the DMG 3.5 word for word. Kalarus however misquoted my quote, which I assume is what you are referring to. And the original mechanic that started this post said the DM would MAKE the player buy the item should he fail the bargaining check. Per this rule, and some common sense, No skill check from an NPC should ever decide what actions a player takes. The merchant may decide however he wants to jack up the price due to failed negotiations, but he nor the DM can make the player's character buy said item from said failed check. That is a decision, an action on the part of the player, and as it says, a player always makes their own decisions for a character. My DM says that if you try to bargain in a shop by using the diplomacy skill, you have to accept te outcome. For example if a sword would normally costs 100gp and i roll a bad diplomacy opposed to the vendor, the sword could cost 130gp and i have to buy it. I would say the vendor and i cannot agree on the price and i dont want/have to buy it
Vegepygmy 06-15-07, 04:45 PM	Per this rule, and some common sense, No skill check from an NPC should ever decide what actions a player takes.That is an overbroad conclusion to draw from the rule, and contrary to common sense. As proof that it is overbroad, I submit to you the Intimidate skill (PHB, page 76), which can be used to demoralize an opponent (including a PC). Demoralizing an opponent causes them to become shaken. "Shaken" is a fear effect (PHB, page 308). Fear effects are cumulative (DMG, page 294). Thus, a PC who is already shaken can be demoralized by an Intimidate check and become frightened. Frightened creatures are forced to flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can (DMG, page 294). Further, a frightened PC can be demoralized and become panicked, in which case the PC cannot even choose his path of flight (DMG, page 294). pwned! :P There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DM allowing players to haggle with merchants via Diplomacy, with the understanding that if they "lose," they will be required to buy the item at some particular price. The player in that situation is free to choose not to haggle, but if he wants the benefit of the house rule, he has to also accept the risk. That's just common sense.
Grave_Accomplice 06-15-07, 05:00 PM	These are some blackmarket/haggling rules I swiped from Spycraft and altered for my campaign. Hope it helps. Black Market Rules: -Finding a broker requires a level check with the following DC’s: * Untraceable civilian equipment: 12 * Illegally modified civilian equipment: 16 * Minor illegal (ex: standard law enforcement) equipment: 20 * Major illegal equipment (ex: high end law enforcement/low end military): 25 * Extremely illegal or banned items (ex: high end military/dweoware): 30 * Unique or exceptionally hard to obtain items (ex: tarrasque scale/unicorn horn): 35+ -The above roll can be modified as follows: * Typical fence (deal check fails on a 1-5): +0 * Trustworthy fence (deal check fails on a 1-3): +5 * Scrupulous fence (deal check fails on a 1): +10 * Fighter or rogue makes the check: -2 * Character looking for a fence has the Procure feat: -5 * Gather Information was used before attempting to find a broker: -1 for every three the Gather Information result exceeded 12. -Cutting the deal requires a contested roll with the buyer rolling Diplomacy and the fence rolling Sense Motive. One roll is used for the entire group. Each item must be rolled for separately. The Diplomacy roll is modified as follows: * Character is a rogue or fighter: +2 * Character has the Procure feat: +5 * Deal is being made with a typical broker: +0 * Deal is being made with a trustworthy broker: +2 * Deal is being made with a scrupulous broker: +4 * Deal is being made on the broker’s turf (increase check failure chance by 2): +2 * Deal is being made on neutral territory: +0 * Deal is being made on the character’s turf (decrease check failure chance by 2): +4 -Results of a successful check: * Check succeeded by up to 5 above what the needed DC: $500 x the items BP or 5 x the base market cost. * Check succeeded by 6 to 10 more than the needed DC: $300 x the items BP or 3 x the base market cost. * Check succeeded by 11 to 20 more than the needed DC: $200 x the items BP or 2 x the base market cost. * Check succeeded by 21 or more than the needed DC: $150 x the items BP or 1.5 x the base market cost, plus all further ‘cutting the deal’ checks during the same deal are treated as one level higher. Cash returns when selling merchandise: -20 + (1d6 x 10) % of the item’s base market value. Haggling starts at this price.
Keyar81 06-15-07, 05:19 PM	That is an overbroad conclusion to draw from the rule, and contrary to common sense. As proof that it is overbroad, I submit to you the Intimidate skill (PHB, page 76), which can be used to demoralize an opponent (including a PC). I just re-read the intimidate skill. I find nowhere it specifically states that it can be used on a PC. Most skills are written from the Players perspective. Almost every rule in D&D is written with the assumption that it is correct in all circumstances unless otherwise noted, such as a spell that specifically states it can be used to make a PC do something. Demoralizing an opponent causes them to become shaken. "Shaken" is a fear effect (PHB, page 308). Hate to say this but there is no such thing on PHB 308. This and all following information is on DMG pg 294 as you have said. Fear effects are cumulative (DMG, page 294). Thus, a PC who is already shaken can be demoralized by an Intimidate check and become frightened. Frightened creatures are forced to flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can (DMG, page 294). Further, a frightened PC can be demoralized and become panicked, in which case the PC cannot even choose his path of flight (DMG, page 294). Still this only proves that Fear effects can make a character flee. This is a finite example that doesn't prove one way or the other that a skill check made by an npc even with say Intimidate, can invoke these effects on a PC. Certainly a fear spell, or a fear ability from a monster could provoke these fear effects. Also you are not quoting the DMG word for word, so please don't pass it off as a quote, it doesn't state PC in any of the text on DMG 294 pwned! :P There is absolutely nothing wrong with a DM allowing players to haggle with merchants via Diplomacy, with the understanding that if they "lose," they will be required to buy the item at some particular price. The player in that situation is free to choose not to haggle, but if he wants the benefit of the house rule, he has to also accept the risk. That's just common sense. Sure there is, it DEFIES common sense. In the real world, if you haggle with a merchant, and he stops at a price that you think is too high and won't budge, do you HAVE to buy the item? nope. Not unless your in some kind of auction, which is different from haggling altogether. Futhermore, the various fear effects, are a condition, not a forced choice on the part of the player. Not to mention something that is spelled out in the rules specifically as doable. Choosing to buy something is a choice a decision. The character is not under the influence of any mind altering conditions or spells when failing a diplomacy check, and there is no basis in the rules for it.
Nom 06-15-07, 06:07 PM	Sorry the quote I posted IS from the DMG 3.5 word for word. Kalarus however misquoted my quote, which I assume is what you are referring to.Yes. Per this rule, and some common sense, No skill check from an NPC should ever decide what actions a player takes.Incorrect. Per this rule, no skill check from an NPC should ever define a PC's attitude. Besides, I think you're missing the point with haggling. With the mechanic described, the smart way to implement it is that the PC has already decided to buy the item; the haggle check merely sets the price. I just re-read the intimidate skill. I find nowhere it specifically states that it can be used on a PC. Most skills are written from the Players perspective. Almost every rule in D&D is written with the assumption that it is correct in all circumstances unless otherwise noted, such as a spell that specifically states it can be used to make a PC do something.You're blathering. DMG pg 128 says that a Diplomacy skill check should not be used to change the attitude of a PC (which is fundamentally what Diplomacy does; it's about attitude, not event). You're generalising to a non-existent principle of "no skill check can affect a PC's behaviour", and in doing so reading tangential commentary in the DMG against rules in the PH. In the real world, if you haggle with a merchant, and he stops at a price that you think is too high and won't budge, do you HAVE to buy the item?In the real world, the answer is surprisingly often 'yes'. Most of the time, once one begins haggling in earnest it is not a question of whether they will buy, but for how much. Yes, it's more sophisticated than that, but we're trying to approximate an intense social process by a single skill check. The mechanic needs to place some inherent penalty on a PC for a "failed" check, otherwise they may as well wander throughout the town trying one merchant after another, effectively "taking 20".
Vegepygmy 06-15-07, 07:41 PM	I just re-read the intimidate skill. I find nowhere it specifically states that it can be used on a PC.So it is your belief that NPCs cannot use Intimidate to demoralize PCs? Can NPCs use Sleight of Hand to pickpocket PCs? It doesn't specifically state that the skill can be used on a PC. Can NPCs use Bluff to feint PCs? It doesn't specifically state that the skill can be used on a PC. And before you say, "Yeah, but those skills don't cause PCs to take actions," note that under normal circumstances, neither does Intimidate--the PC is simply shaken, which imposes mechanical penalties (just like feinting with Bluff). Most skills are written from the Players perspective.That's true, but irrelevant. It doesn't mean skills don't work on PCs unless the skill specifically states that it does. Quite the opposite, in fact. Skills work on PCs unless the skill specifically states it doesn't. If that weren't the case, there would be no need for the DMG to specifically call out that Diplomacy doesn't affect PC attitudes. Demoralizing an opponent causes them to become shaken. "Shaken" is a fear effect (PHB, page 308).Hate to say this but there is no such thing on PHB 308. This and all following information is on DMG pg 294 as you have said.PHB glossary (page 308): fear effect: Any spell or magical effect that causes the victim to become shaken, frightened, or panicked, or to suffer from some other fear-based effect defined in the description of the specific spell or item in question. If you want to quibble about whether "shaken" is a fear effect or demoralizing an opponent and causing them to become shaken is a fear effect, go ahead. It matters not in the slightest to my argument. Still this only proves that Fear effects can make a character flee.No, it proves that a skill check from an NPC can be used to make a PC flee...which you said it could not do. Fear effects are cumulative (DMG, page 294). Thus, a PC who is already shaken can be demoralized by an Intimidate check and become frightened. Frightened creatures are forced to flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can (DMG, page 294). Further, a frightened PC can be demoralized and become panicked, in which case the PC cannot even choose his path of flight (DMG, page 294).Also you are not quoting the DMG word for word, so please don't pass it off as a quote...There is not a single quotation mark in the text you are responding to. How exactly am I "passing it off" as a quote? Sure there is, it DEFIES common sense.What defies common sense is thinking that a "get something for nothing" mechanic is appropriate in a game like D&D. In the real world, if you haggle with a merchant, and he stops at a price that you think is too high and won't budge, do you HAVE to buy the item? nope.And yet people find themselves doing so all the time. (See Nom's answer for the rest of what I would say.) Futhermore, the various fear effects, are a condition, not a forced choice on the part of the player."You must flee" is just as much of a forced choice (or "condition," call it whatever you like) as "You must buy this item." Not to mention something that is spelled out in the rules specifically as doable.A house rule permitting haggling but imposing the condition that you must buy the item if you "lose" the opposed skill check is "spelled out" just as specifically. The only difference is that it's a house rule instead of an official, published rule.
Kalarus 06-15-07, 08:27 PM	Besides, I think you're missing the point with haggling. With the mechanic described, the smart way to implement it is that the PC has already decided to buy the item; the haggle check merely sets the price. I really hope that's a joke. Are you seriously saying that when you buy something and haggle over the price, you are going to buy it no matter what the result is, even if the end price is higher than, e.g., a pricetag says, just because the salesman/woman was a smooth talker??? Maybe there's a big cultural difference here or something, but where I live, people who are haggling about the price do not merely threaten to walk out if you don't lower the price, they *will* walk out when you don't lower the price. No matter how good a talker you are, you will never convince anyone to buy things for a higher price than the market value. They'll just walk out and buy things in a place where salesmen aren't insane.
Vegepygmy 06-16-07, 01:56 AM	Are you seriously saying that when you buy something and haggle over the price, you are going to buy it no matter what the result is...?No, he's saying that if you're going to incorporate "haggling" rules into your D&D game, the smart way to do so is have the PC commit to buying the item before he can attempt to negotiate a lower price. Because... The mechanic needs to place some inherent penalty on a PC for a "failed" check, otherwise they may as well wander throughout the town trying one merchant after another, effectively "taking 20".
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 06-16-07, 04:15 AM	If the player loses, the merchant has the advantage, which really does not tell us anything about the buying behaviour of the player. It may mean that the merchant is truly sorry but despite his heartfelt remorse cannot afford to sell the item for a price lower than X because he'd lose money. He will not budge from this opinion since he won the diplomacy, if the PC won he would have budged from this opinion and lowered his price. Nowhere does it require the PC to actually buy the item. .... You could say, if you will, that concerning opposed diplomacy checks, a player cannot wrest an NPC's control from the DM just like a DM cannot wrest PC control from a player. You could say that, but you do realize that, if you do, and the player wins the Diplomacy check, the merchant might still refuse to lower his price below what the PHB says. Your first paragraph above suggests that a merchant must win the Diplomacy check in order to merely avoid lowering his price (with that being the sole "advantage" he gets out of the victory). If that is the case, then in a reverse of the situation, a "win" by the player should simply mean that the NPC hasn't convinced him to pay more that the price the player has requested. That should be the sole "advantage" the player receives. It seems clear to me that referring to the ability to resist a demand for an adverse price change as an "advantage" is to twist the meaning of "advantage" a tiny bit. If you are in a fight and you dodge your opponent's initial attack, that is certainly better than the alternative, but it leaves you no closer to actually winning that fight, without more. In that case, you really haven't gained an "advantage" over your opponent by dodging, you've merely avoided taking damage. While I concede that one might see "not losing" as "advantageous" (even when it gets you no closer to actually "winning"), it strikes me as not the most likely interpretation of the word advantage. To avoid a loss is not necessarily the same thing as "to gain a benefit." In any event, the semantics of "advantage" aside, if there is to be a haggling mechanic at all, then for fairness's and balance's sake (imo) it should treat PCs and NPCs alike. If the PC has the absolute ability to resist a merchant's attempts to increase a price regardless of who wins the diplomacy check, then why should merchants not have the similarly absolute ability to resist a suggested decrease in price? Of course, if that is the case, then haggling is impossible. Everyone will always pay exactly what the books say they should. Anything higher, and the PC will walk away. Anything lower, and the merchant will balk. Since, imo, characters should not have the price lists from the rulebooks memorized in any event, characters (PCs and NPCs alike) when negotiating for the purchase of an item would not know "Aha! +1 full plate always costs 2650 gold" but he might know that a suit of a particular quality will sell for 2500-2800 gold (or some similar range). The player surely knows that the "real" price is 2650, but his character might not. Haggling rules can be explained as taking advantage of the perceived price range. The merchant who wins his roll might well convince the player that the 2800 end of his estimate is more realistic. The problem is, how does the player realistically set his character's expectations. If you simply ask the player "what does your character think this is worth, as a range?" then the player may well consciously or unconsciously bias his estimate based on out of character knowledge. A haggling rule can be used to set these parameters. The range may entirely arbitrary (like say, +/- 10% in every case) or it might be more nuanced (such as taking into account the characters ranks in a related craft skill when setting the range). I do not use haggling rules in my game, but the reason is just that they seem too onerous for something that is meant to be a very minor aspect to the game. With such rules in place every rational merchant would have as many ranks in diplomacy as he or she could afford (or simply hire an assistant who has a great number of ranks), and most parties would find themselves at a relative disadvantage. Only parties with very strong Diplomacy skills would actually want those rules in play.
Kalarus 06-16-07, 08:38 AM	You could say that, but you do realize that, if you do, and the player wins the Diplomacy check, the merchant might still refuse to lower his price below what the PHB says. Your first paragraph above suggests that a merchant must win the Diplomacy check in order to merely avoid lowering his price (with that being the sole "advantage" he gets out of the victory). If that is the case, then in a reverse of the situation, a "win" by the player should simply mean that the NPC hasn't convinced him to pay more that the price the player has requested. That should be the sole "advantage" the player receives. It seems clear to me that referring to the ability to resist a demand for an adverse price change as an "advantage" is to twist the meaning of "advantage" a tiny bit. If you are in a fight and you dodge your opponent's initial attack, that is certainly better than the alternative, but it leaves you no closer to actually winning that fight, without more. In that case, you really haven't gained an "advantage" over your opponent by dodging, you've merely avoided taking damage. While I concede that one might see "not losing" as "advantageous" (even when it gets you no closer to actually "winning"), it strikes me as not the most likely interpretation of the word advantage. To avoid a loss is not necessarily the same thing as "to gain a benefit." In any event, the semantics of "advantage" aside, if there is to be a haggling mechanic at all, then for fairness's and balance's sake (imo) it should treat PCs and NPCs alike. If the PC has the absolute ability to resist a merchant's attempts to increase a price regardless of who wins the diplomacy check, then why should merchants not have the similarly absolute ability to resist a suggested decrease in price? Of course, if that is the case, then haggling is impossible. Everyone will always pay exactly what the books say they should. Anything higher, and the PC will walk away. Anything lower, and the merchant will balk. Since, imo, characters should not have the price lists from the rulebooks memorized in any event, characters (PCs and NPCs alike) when negotiating for the purchase of an item would not know "Aha! +1 full plate always costs 2650 gold" but he might know that a suit of a particular quality will sell for 2500-2800 gold (or some similar range). The player surely knows that the "real" price is 2650, but his character might not. Haggling rules can be explained as taking advantage of the perceived price range. The merchant who wins his roll might well convince the player that the 2800 end of his estimate is more realistic. The problem is, how does the player realistically set his character's expectations. If you simply ask the player "what does your character think this is worth, as a range?" then the player may well consciously or unconsciously bias his estimate based on out of character knowledge. A haggling rule can be used to set these parameters. The range may entirely arbitrary (like say, +/- 10% in every case) or it might be more nuanced (such as taking into account the characters ranks in a related craft skill when setting the range). I do not use haggling rules in my game, but the reason is just that they seem too onerous for something that is meant to be a very minor aspect to the game. With such rules in place every rational merchant would have as many ranks in diplomacy as he or she could afford (or simply hire an assistant who has a great number of ranks), and most parties would find themselves at a relative disadvantage. Only parties with very strong Diplomacy skills would actually want those rules in play. PHB/DMG prices are market values. Depending on local economy these values can fluctuate. A merchant might be able to give a bigger discount in situation A than in situation B. It's generally up to the DM to decide, which is the entire problem with the diplomacy skill to begin with. The DM has to decide what is possible regardless of what diplomacy is used for (similarly the DM decides, in the case of haggling, how much gold the party has to spend in the first place). Diplomacy does not have the power to alter reality, no matter how high your check some things will not be possible.
Tolby 06-16-07, 11:35 AM	As for the OP's question, I think you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're trying to model real social interactions. If I walk into a store and try to haggle, but I'm really rude and obnoxious, the vendor might refuse to sell to me at all, but there's no way to force me to pay more for an item than I want. What if I don't even have any money? If you (sensibly) want to avoid letting the PCs go from shop to shop until they get a good roll, just say you get one roll overall that represents how it goes with all the shops, and the resulting price is the best they can find. Then they can choose to buy it or not at that price. Yes they can always walk away. However, in the real world if you are rude/belligerent or just plain a waste of the merchants time he will just refuse to deal with you. OR call the cops. Same thing in D&D. Getting kicked out of shops is bad. In small towns getting told to leave the only temple and that they will not sell you any more potions of Cure X wounds is bad. In big citys when the Weaponsmiths Guild will not sell you a single weapon anywhere in the city it gets worse. Of course you could always go to the black market and buy a rusty cursed dagger for 150GP. Having the city watch show up and arrest you for harrasment and thrown in jail is also bad. Personally I think that if the PC's wanted to use the diplomacy skill to get discounts thats fine. They would not be forced to buy higher priced goods. Not to get into the raging debate but I would not force my characters into doing anything they didn't want to. But changing a merchants attitude from indifferent to hostile( which means that would take actions to harm you) would mean the merchant would make dang sure your not going to be buying anything in HIS town from any guild EVER again. My 2 cents.
Keyar81 06-17-07, 07:09 PM	You can nitpick whether a fear effect is a forced choice or a condition, and you can say that intimidate can be used on players. It makes no difference because we've been sidetracked from the original discussion. That is a diplomacy based haggling mechanic that forces the player to buy something if he loses. You can say that its my house rule all you want, and you would be correct that you can make that houserule as the DM however you see fit. But I believe such a house rule is not in the spirit of the original rules. You see when you say, that fear causes a forced choice, that is fine, because its been spelled out in the rules to do that. And intimidate has been spelled out in the rules to cause fear effects. Diplomacy has been specifically spelled out in the rules (DMG 128)that an NPC can never use diplomacy or charisma checks to alter a PC's attitude, OR make decisions for them. You can argue whatever you want about any other skill effecting a players choices or attitudes, but Diplomacy cannot under the official rules. If you want to houserule that it can, go right ahead. However I believe their are other more appropriate mechanics for balancing out the whole side of things when a player simply doesn't get a good enough roll to lower a price. Simply look to real life as inspiration. It doesn't matter if People more often than not do buy something at a higher price when they can't haggle the merchant down in real life, the point is there is nothing that forces them to. You can just as easily and more fairly IMO set it up so the merchant simply stops liking said player if they don't buy the item that they haggled over. They could say have a System of points, like a merchant faction, and if you do things to them they dont like, say haggle over an item and then not buy it, he'll charge you higher prices the lower his points score is. That might encourage the player to buy the item. Something like this or similar in spirit would not force the player to do anything, just present him with consquences. If you lose your haggle check or whatever, you get points deducted from your faction standing with that merchant, and the price of everything goes up in his shop for you. In the end vegepygmy, niether one of us is ever going to convince the other of his opinion, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can admit to you being right about some of the other skills, but i'll never say that a diplomacy mechanic can force a player to alter his attitude or make a certain choice. IMO it defies common sense and it specifically spelled out as so in the rules. I guess in my view, the D&D rules and such are more about defining choices, and present consquences good or bad, not pigeonholing a player down a certain path or outright forcing an action.
Nom 06-17-07, 07:56 PM	The trouble with this line of argument, Keyar, is that using Diplomacy for haggling in the first place is a fairly significant house rule. As written, Diplomacy is used to change NPC attitudes, not to achieve a specific outcome (vs Bluff, or Intimidate to induce fear, or ...). Once we introduce a game mechanic to use Diplomacy as a quantative resolution mechanic for a single event, we're outside the DMG guidelines about diplomacy and attitudes. As for "forcing an action"... From the OP: "if you try to bargain in a shop by using the diplomacy skill, you have to accept te outcome". Note the wording "if you try to bargain ... (then) you have to accept the outcome". The PC is not obligated to engage in this contest, but if he chooses to do so he is bound by the result. An analogy is Trip. You're not forced to engage in a Trip attempt, but once you choose to do so you are bound by the result, even if it is actively bad for you. As I understand the originally presented mechanic, it's "I am going to buy that item; now I want to get a better price". The OP's DM has ruled that once you engage in the haggling mechanic you are committed to the outcome, positive or negative. Nothing there is antithetical to the rules design. You might argue that it's a poor way of modelling or implementing haggling, but we're now talking details, not principles.
Manic Man 06-18-07, 01:04 AM	DMG page 15, handling PC actions Ask your DM to read that. If he doesn't get it, there's very little all the explaination in the world can do.
BobbyMac 06-18-07, 03:35 AM	I've been thinking about the Appraise skill and it seems to work ok AS LONG AS YOU DON"T USE A HAGGLE MECHANIC. Lemme splain Lucy... For all intents and purposes, the PCs exist in a world where they don't have a Player's Handbook or a DMG to look up the price of stuff. (See player knowledge, metagaming, what have you threads for reference.) That is what the Appraise skill is for. Here is how it goes: PCs find a piece of art in one of the dungeons. PCs want to sell this art piece for cash. PCs apply Appraise. The Appraise result should give them an idea of how much it's worth. Appraise as written now gives back 1 of 2 or 3 answers depending on the DC. If the art piece is a common piece (Dogs Playing Poker or Velvet Elvis perhaps) then the DC is 12. The PCs roll. On a success and in 1 minute they know the correct value as listed in the PHB or DMG. On a failure they guess. What do they guess. Well they roll 2d6+3 and multiply by 10% to arrive at a value between 50 and 100% of the listed value. (Everybody should be able to guess what a cheeseburger costs at a fast food restaurant.) So far so good. If the art piece is rare or exotic (think the Mona Lisa or maybe that original Farrah Fawcett poster stashed in your closet :) ) the DCs are higher (DC15 and DC20). So the PCs roll. On a success and in 1 minute they know the correct value. But if they fail they don't have a clue! And they can't try again! (If you go to a fancy specialty restaurant and order a rare cheeseburger made with exotic yak meat, if you don't know the price (fail your appraise check) you just don't know) If they still want to sell it the PCs have no choice but to schlep the art piece into town and have it appraised by an NPC appraiser, similar to having an NPC spellcaster cast identify on a suspected magic item. This works pretty well UNLESS you want to model supply and demand with prices fluctuating in SOME sort of economic simulation. Orrr if you want to implement a haggle mechanic. Why? Because implementing a haggle mechanic means that the PC's must be able to figure out a starting price for their art piece which is what the Appraise skill is for BUT sometimes the Appraise skill gives no answer! Also I think that players putting ranks in Appraise should be rewarded for...well...having phenomenal appraisal skill. IOW the better your Appraise roll, over and above the DC that is, the closer to the actual listed price of the item in question you should get. WARNING! the following rewrite of parts of the Appraise (INT) skill in order to fit in with a haggle mechanic and also make it more ...err... realistic? are NOT polished, and perhaps not even usable. Having said all that, I went ahead anyway and used a spread sheet and dang if I didn't like it and am going to implement it next game... Appraise (Int) Check You can appraise common or well-known objects with a DC 12 Appraise check. Failure means that you estimate the value at 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%,) of its actual value. Appraising a rare or exotic item requires a successful check against DC 15, 20, or higher. If the check is successful, you estimate the value correctly; failure means you cannot estimate the item’s value. The DM rolls secretly in response to the PCs asking, “How much do I think this item is worth?” to which the DM responds with a value in gp and a confidence level. Confidence levels give the player an idea of how confident his PC is in the appraisal. If the PC has High Confidence he is fairly certain of his appraisal. If he has Low Confidence the perhaps he should get a second opinion from another PC or an NPC appraiser for hire. Confidence levels correspond to how high above the DC the character rolled. Roll exceeds Confidence % of Market to obtain Roll DC by Level Price this Range Failure Abysmal ±50% or no guess 50%-150% 2d6+3 x 10% +1 Low ±30% 70%-130% 2d4+5 x 10% +5 Medium Rare ±25% 75%-125% +10 Moderate ±20% 80%-120% 2d3+6 x 10% +15 Medium Well ±15% 85%-115% +20 High ±10% 90%-110% 2d2+7 x 10% +25 Well done ±5% 95%-105% (Note: If you don’t implement a spreadsheet just remove the three levels of confidence (sorry I couldn't think of good intermediate confidence level names..:D ) without dice rolls and ..errr..roll the dice to figure the return value.) A failure can be handled in a couple of ways. 1. It returns the lowest or highest value whichever is least beneficial to the player. He failed after all. 2. It returns a no guess answer and the PC must seek appraisal elsewhere. A magnifying glass gives you a +2 circumstance bonus on Appraise checks involving any item that is small or highly detailed, such as a gem. A merchant’s scale gives you a +2 circumstance bonus on Appraise checks involving any items that are valued by weight, including anything made of precious metals. These bonuses stack. Action Appraising an item takes 1 minute (ten consecutive full-round actions). Try Again No. You cannot try again on the same object, regardless of success. Special A dwarf gets a +2 racial bonus on Appraise checks that are related to stone or metal items because dwarves are familiar with valuable items of all kinds (especially those made of stone or metal). The master of a raven familiar gains a +3 bonus on Appraise checks. A character with the Diligent feat gets a +2 bonus on Appraise checks. Synergy If you have 5 ranks in any Craft skill, you gain a +2 bonus on Appraise checks related to items made with that Craft skill. Untrained For common items, failure on an untrained check means no estimate. For rare items, success means an estimate of 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%).
Daeva 06-20-07, 12:32 AM	so let me get this right. your saying that if oyu went to a convention, and saw a uber magic or whatever card for sale for 20 bucks, and was willing to pay 15, but haggled ****** the guy off and he siad fine for oyu 25, your saying youd still buy it becuase youd be so mentally owned that you couldnt control yourself?
Radiant117 06-20-07, 04:13 AM	DMG page 15, handling PC actions Ask your DM to read that. If he doesn't get it, there's very little all the explaination in the world can do. To everyone who's too lazy to reach for the rulebook, I'll provide the exact quote: Handling PC actions The important point to remember regarding the actions of player characters during an adventure is that each player controls his or her own character. Don't force a character to take a specific action (unless the character is under a magical compulsion; see below). Don't tell a player character what his or her character's emotions are. Even if an NPC with a high Charisma score attempts to persuade a character, no mere die roll should force a character into doing something. Some rules in the game apply specifically to NPCs and not PCs, the most significant of which are the rules concerning NPC attitudes (see NPC attitudes, page 128, and the Diplomacy skill on page 71 of the Player's Handbook). These rules should never be used to enable an NPC to change the way a player character views that NPC. When running an NPC, feel free to try praising, misleading, tricking, cajoling, or maligning a character, but don't use your authority as DM to exert control over what a player character does. So that's it. There IS, in fact, such a rule. Diplomacy doesn't work *on* a PC. <<<the following is rules-lawyering>>> It should be noted that, technically, Diplomacy is an "active" skill. It is used to accomplish something, not to avoid something. That's why Diplomacy DCs to influence NPCs are fixed and not an opposed skill check. It doesn't depend whether the NPC you're trying to influence is diplomatic himself or not. Even the most uncharismatic person can just tell you to buzz off if you fail the check. However, there can be opposed Diplomacy checks. Suppose you and an evil advisor are trying to sway the gullible king to your respective sides - that calls for an opposed roll. Debates in a court can also be based on Diplomacy for PCs (vs Profession (lawyer) of the opposed side: bards winning cases via their eloquence are quite genre-appropriate and, actually, historical). In case of haggling, an unopposed check (changing attitude) can provide you with a discount (introduce an appropriate DC modifier), and an opposed Diplomacy check, in certain cultures, might force the vendor to give you a discount so as not to lose face in front of other customers (whether this is possible is only for the DM to decide, and I'd rule that the drawback of a successful Intimidate check should apply, i.e. the vendor becomes unfriendly/hostile).
Kalarus 06-20-07, 08:27 AM	DMG page 15, handling PC actions Ask your DM to read that. If he doesn't get it, there's very little all the explaination in the world can do. *tosses the page at Vegepygmy* Man did I ever look silly claiming PCs control their own characters except for magical compulsions ;) Pity I didn't find the page a couple of days ago :P
Vegepygmy 06-20-07, 11:55 AM	Man did I ever look silly claiming PCs control their own characters except for magical compulsions ;)You still do. The DMG page you're referencing contains advice (good advice, but still just advice) on how to handle PC actions. The "rule" you claim exists (that PC actions cannot ever be dictated by non-magical influences) does not exist and has been disproven by examples. All the DMG is saying on pages 15-16 is that the DM shouldn't "take over" a PC without good reason. This in no way implies that a DM cannot create a house rule allowing PCs to haggle at the risk of having to pay more than they normally would for an item, and it's just silly to claim that it does.
Kalarus 06-20-07, 04:48 PM	You still do. The DMG page you're referencing contains advice (good advice, but still just advice) on how to handle PC actions. The "rule" you claim exists (that PC actions cannot ever be dictated by non-magical influences) does not exist and has been disproven by examples. All the DMG is saying on pages 15-16 is that the DM shouldn't "take over" a PC without good reason. This in no way implies that a DM cannot create a house rule allowing PCs to haggle at the risk of having to pay more than they normally would for an item, and it's just silly to claim that it does. The OP asked for rule support for his DMs behaviour, not wether or not the DM was in his right to create houserules. People don't come here posting questions to hear "The DM can decide to make anything optional and houserule whatever he wants", they want to know what is written in the Core Rulebooks. That's what it says on the front of the DMG you know, "Core Rulebook II". It contains rules. His DMs houserule says nothing about Diplomacy as far as the rules are concerned, it says nothing about how the game is written. The fact that you now call his behaviour a house rule, rather than something that is not forbidden by any rule, reflects that you are already convinced that his rule modifies the game from how it should be ran according to the rules.
Vegepygmy 06-20-07, 06:22 PM	The fact that you now call his behaviour a house rule...If you interpreted anything I said at any point in this discussion as even implying that the OP's DM's "you can use Diplomacy to haggle" rule was anything other than a house rule, you misunderstood me. As to how the game "should be ran," there is only one rule: it should be fun. If using Diplomacy to haggle is fun for the OP's group, then they should use it to do so. If being forced to buy an item at some markup due to a botched Diplomacy roll is not fun for them, then they should not allow Diplomacy to be used that way.
Nom 06-20-07, 07:13 PM	reflects that you are already convinced that his rule modifies the game from how it should be ran according to the rules.Well duh! There's no specified mechanic in the PH or DMG for using Diplomacy to resolve a haggle check, thus we're automatically into house rule territory. That said, there's a world of difference between proactively using a social skill to tell a player how their PC thinks or feels contrasted to allowing the PC to voluntarily enter into a opposed social check in which a failure places the PC in a worse situation than if they did not attempt the check. Contrast: "You enter the store and look around. The merchant convinces you to buy item X." and "If you decide to buy the item, you may engage in haggling with the merchant. Whoever is more successful adjusts the amount you pay in his favour." In the former case, the DM tells the player what his PC does. In the latter, the player has the option to engage in an opposed check that may compel him to make an unfavourable decision, but at no time does the DM force the player's hand. (Exception would be if the DM didn't tell the player that the haggle check may have an unfavourable result - as long as the player knows this up front and is not forced to engage in the activity, the player is in control) Of course, the problem with any haggle mechanic is that D&D quite deliberately uses an extremely simplified fixed-price trading mechanic. Introducing any "merchant-specific" haggle interaction completely breaks that model and requires a much more complex system to prevent exploitation.
Tinari 06-20-07, 09:53 PM	so let me get this right. your saying that if oyu went to a convention, and saw a uber magic or whatever card for sale for 20 bucks, and was willing to pay 15, but haggled ****** the guy off and he siad fine for oyu 25, your saying youd still buy it becuase youd be so mentally owned that you couldnt control yourself? Incorrect. They're saying you go to a convention, and saw an uber magic or whatever card for sale without a price tag, wanted to spend 15 bucks on it, but the guy says it initially costs 25 and convinces you that you won't get it for less than that, so you buy it for 25, since you didn't know what the correct value of said card was in the first place. That is what I believe the subject matter here is trying to convey. Now, if you SUCCEEDED your appraisal check, you could should be able to make a more educated decision (A bonus to your diplomacy roll to haggle, perhaps?) as to the price of the item you want in question. I don't know about you, but I don't imagine my D&D world's to have shopkeepers putting little stickers and tags on every item in their shop. I expect them to have a selection of wares handy and ready, and willing to haggle and negotiate prices with anyone who wants to buy them to try to make the most optimal profit they can, since typically speaking, a lot of people who're trying to buy arms and armor aren't on the higher end of the intelligence pool, and if they are, usually aren't masters of appraisal and diplomacy.