Post/Author/DateTime	Post
olshanski_home 10-14-05, 01:47 PM	The first question: Is there a game term for a character's "ability" with a certain skill. For example, a fighter may have a wisdom of 10 and 6 ranks of Survival. A druid could have NO ranks in Survival, but a 16 wisdom and 5 ranks of Knowledge (Nature). If you put these characters side by side, the Fighter scores a 16 when he takes 10 on a Survival check and when he takes 20 he achieves a 26. The Druid scores a 17 when he takes 10 on a Survival check, or 27 when he takes 20. The druid clearly is better at Survival skill than the fighter, even though the druid has no ranks and the fighter has 5 ranks. Is there a defined term for the combination of ranks+modifiers for a certain skill? If there is not a defined term, what is an easy way of describing it? SECOND QUESTION: If I have an encounter with an NPC: I might expect the players to use diplomacy or some other method to gather information. If they succeed at the check, the NPC directs the players to thier goal. If the players fail, the NPC directs the players to a monster. The way this works out is that the players would earn more experience overall for doing poorly at the skill check. Is there some way to make this fair? Perhaps assign a challenge rating to the NPC equal to what the random encounter would be? and only allow players to earn the experience if they succeed on thier first meeting with the NPC? Or else, if the NPC is already assigned as a CR4 challenge, then defeating the monster encounter (after a failed negotiation) should be worth no more than CR4, regardless of how difficult it actually is?
Thynass 10-14-05, 02:03 PM	On the first question, I personally call it Skill Total. Dunno whether there is a corrct term, but skill total seems pretty logical. It's your total modifier with a given skill. As to the second question, you can assign a challenge rating for the whole encounter. The encounter is making the diplomacy check. If they pass and get to where they are going, they get the experience. If the fail, fight the monster, and get to where they are going, they still get the same experience. The disadvantage for failing the check is losing HP, spells, potions etc. fighting the creature. In my opinion you should never give expierience for monsters, but encounters. That way it allows PCs to be creative. It will encourage them to find solutions to encounters that doesn't involve smashing. If you just award experience for monster (or award more for killing them), PCs will go on monster hunts, deliberately finding every foe they can to get maximum experience. This discourages stealth, diplomacy etc. Or at least that's the theory. My party doesn't do that. But they're all warrior classes, so don't have any other skills...
Ogmug 10-14-05, 02:06 PM	The first question: Is there a game term for a character's "ability" with a certain skill. For example, a fighter may have a wisdom of 10 and 6 ranks of Survival. A druid could have NO ranks in Survival, but a 16 wisdom and 5 ranks of Knowledge (Nature). If you put these characters side by side, the Fighter scores a 16 when he takes 10 on a Survival check and when he takes 20 he achieves a 26. The Druid scores a 17 when he takes 10 on a Survival check, or 27 when he takes 20. The druid clearly is better at Survival skill than the fighter, even though the druid has no ranks and the fighter has 5 ranks. Is there a defined term for the combination of ranks+modifiers for a certain skill? If there is not a defined term, what is an easy way of describing it? Actually, the druid gets a 15 on survival checks(when taking 10). Wisdom bonus (+3), with a synergy bonus of +2, and only in above ground environments. I am not sure where you come up with your number of 17, unless you are switching out Knowledge(nature) for survival.This makes the figher a better "survivor" overall, since his rank advantage would increase his check in a dungeon (in a dungeon or otherwise unnatural environment for the druid, he would lose the +2 synergy bonus) As for the term, "what is your skill at survival" is fine. As for how to describe it, it is simple. It is learning plus common sense. Most skills that can be used untrained could be said to employ common sense. However those that take ranks in the skill are said to have "learned" more about it than the common man. SECOND QUESTION: If I have an encounter with an NPC: I might expect the players to use diplomacy or some other method to gather information. If they succeed at the check, the NPC directs the players to thier goal. If the players fail, the NPC directs the players to a monster. The way this works out is that the players would earn more experience overall for doing poorly at the skill check. Is there some way to make this fair? Perhaps assign a challenge rating to the NPC equal to what the random encounter would be? and only allow players to earn the experience if they succeed on thier first meeting with the NPC? Or else, if the NPC is already assigned as a CR4 challenge, then defeating the monster encounter (after a failed negotiation) should be worth no more than CR4, regardless of how difficult it actually is? Why even have the NPC direct them to a monster at all. It is more likely that a failed diplomacy check will just yield no information. A Failed Diplomacy check does not result in a slipping of the attitude, but rather a more resolved character to stick to thier starting attitude (ie, if they were nuetral to begin with, they are even more resolved to be neutral. If they were friendly, it does not slip it to neutral) Now if you were using Intimidation instead, that has a chance (and it does after the initial effect) of changing the attitude 1 shift towards the negative. (edit: see revelation below on the fact that i missed the bonus a druid gets to survival)
Thynass 10-14-05, 02:20 PM	Why even have the NPC direct them to a monster at all. It is more likely that a failed diplomacy check will just yield no information. A Failed Diplomacy check does not result in a slipping of the attitude, but rather a more resolved character to stick to thier starting attitude (ie, if they were nuetral to begin with, they are even more resolved to be neutral. If they were friendly, it does not slip it to neutral) Now if you were using Intimidation instead, that has a chance (and it does after the initial effect) of changing the attitude 1 shift towards the negative. What if they were already unfriendly, and the check is to try and make them friendlier? If they fail by a large margin, I would rule that hey have insulted the said NPC and they thus go down a "level of attitude" (so to speak). And it assumes that olshanski_home is using attitude levels. Too ridged for my liking.
Ogmug 10-14-05, 02:29 PM	What if they were already unfriendly, and the check is to try and make them friendlier? If they fail by a large margin, I would rule that hey have insulted the said NPC and they thus go down a "level of attitude" (so to speak). And it assumes that olshanski_home is using attitude levels. Too ridged for my liking. There is no such thing as a critical failure on skill checks. You either succeed or your don't. Diplomacy does not state that it will cause a slipping in attitude, unlike itimidation. It doesn't matter if they roll a 1 or a 20. edit: Caveat: Degrees of failure. Certain tasks imply a risk when taking them. Such as Disable device. The DMG on page 33 gives circumstances, and the rest are UPTO THE DM. So if he wants, it is upto him. However the rules do not advocate it for diplomacy and imo would be adding unnnecessary complications, especially if you want to avoid giving the "extra exp" for failures.
Thynass 10-14-05, 02:34 PM	It is possible to critically fail with skill checks, such as when climbing or attempting to disarm traps. While there might, however, be nothing in the rules that states that you can critically fail with diplomacy checks, there is no reason why you could not make it possible to critically fail if you wanted to.
FriendoftheDork 10-14-05, 02:36 PM	[QUOTE=olshanski_home]The first question: Is there a game term for a character's "ability" with a certain skill. For example, a fighter may have a wisdom of 10 and 6 ranks of Survival. A druid could have NO ranks in Survival, but a 16 wisdom and 5 ranks of Knowledge (Nature). If you put these characters side by side, the Fighter scores a 16 when he takes 10 on a Survival check and when he takes 20 he achieves a 26. The Druid scores a 17 when he takes 10 on a Survival check, or 27 when he takes 20. The druid clearly is better at Survival skill than the fighter, even though the druid has no ranks and the fighter has 5 ranks. Is there a defined term for the combination of ranks+modifiers for a certain skill? If there is not a defined term, what is an easy way of describing it? [QUOTE] Skill rank+ability modifier+any other modifier=Total Skill modifier, or skill mod for short. Your example seems wrong though, as the fighter with survival (+6) is clearly better than the druid with 16 wis and +2 synergy bonys... 3+2=5, not 7. Unless the druid gets +2 from another place, such as class (I don't remember), in which case he's better. Then again he's a druid in tune with nature so I don't mind.
Ogmug 10-14-05, 02:40 PM	AHA! that is the case Druids get a +2 bonus to Knowledge(nature) and survival checks this indeed does make the druid +7 on his checks (but only in outdoor surroundings. He is +5 when underground)
Thynass 10-14-05, 02:41 PM	Didn't you point that out before in your first post?
Ogmug 10-14-05, 02:42 PM	Nope. only counted the synergy form knowledge nature Druids total skill is +3 wis +2 knowledge nature synergy +2 druid bonus to survival ---- +7 total survival skill (but only if outdoors or in natural environment, then it is only +5)
Thynass 10-14-05, 02:46 PM	Fair enough. Oh, and I missed the second paragraph when you said there is no such thing as a critical failure. Oops.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-14-05, 04:06 PM	The first question: your total modifier with a skill is just that; a modifier. You just put the name of the skill in front of it to make it more specific, in this case Survival modifier. A positive modifier is a bonus, a negative modifier is a penalty. So the Druid, despite having no ranks, has the higher Survival bonus. Second question: Yes, if you feel they should be rewarded for successful Diplomatizing, then by all means assign a challenge rating to the NPC. Treat him like a trap, just using a different skill. Barring that, you could just have a fixed amount of quest XP that they get at the end of this story arc, regardless of how they got there, and apply bonuses to certain characters that really shined. Er, shone. ...proved to be really shiny. Yeah. To be fair though, they should get more experience for slaying the monster than for just being really convincing.
Thynass 10-14-05, 04:08 PM	Dunno whether it's gramatically correct, but "shined" reads best...
olshanski_home 10-15-05, 12:03 AM	Ok, I've heard "skill modifier" that sounds pretty good. I'll go with it and see how it looks. Also, I apologise if I wasn't totally clear on how the druid got the result of 17. I thought saying "the druid gets the druid class ability bonus" would be redundant. As far as the failure of diplomacy: Imagine the party meets a non-aggressive, evil elf. The elf is indifferent upon meeting the party. He is willing to talk for any amount of time, especially if the party is polite and respectful. The party wants to find a wellspring of special water, they hope the elf knows where it is. If the party uses diplomacy to change the elf's attitude from indifferent to helpful, the check is DC15 (per page 90 of PHB). If the diplomacy fails or is not attempted, the elf is still indifferent to the party. Since this elf has a mean streak, he will direct the party on a dangerous path prone to landslides that leads past the den of a dire lion before ending at the wellspring. If the elf becomes "friendly" for whatever reason, he will put aside his normal tendancy for malice and direct the party on a safe path to the wellspring. My problem: A landslide is a CR7 encounter, a Dire Lion is a CR5 encounter. The easy path through the forest is no CR. I don't think the people who fail to negotiate should get more experience than the party that uses thier non-combat skill wisely. I am thinking along the lines of assigning the whole episode CR5, that if you successfully negotiate, you get the CR5 experience, if you fail, you get the two encounters, which combined would be worth only CR5 experience (even though the draw on resources is higher). How is a failed roll bad playing? Well, if the party is rude to the elf I can increase the DC by 5 for diplomacy, or not even bother with the diplomacy roll. If a PC elf does the negotiating they might gain a +2 to the roll... and perhaps any bard could just take 10 on the diplomacy and succeed... as long as the party is patient... Team 1: "You know where the wellspring is, tell us or suffer!" (sent to the lion) Team 2: "I want to talk to this guy for a while to gain his confidence, feel him out, act friendly, you know, butter him up... then, once we are friends, I'll ask him what he knows about the spring." (sent to easy path).
Ogmug 10-15-05, 12:56 AM	One thing to remember is that a diplomacy roll should not be the only thing that happens. Dm: You see an elf who appears to know where you need to go, but he is just ignoring you Player: I use diplomacy DM: Ok roll. Nope. You fail. It should require a little more thought on the players part, and if necessary, coaxing from the DM. DM: You see an elf who appears to know where you need to go, but he is just ignoring you Player: Ok I want to use diplomacy on it to make him more friendly. DM: Well, that is good, but what do you say? player: *goes into a synopsis of the discussion* While you shoudln't penalize the players for not knowing how to negotiate (that is a learned skill in real life and often takes years to perfect), you should reward them if they can convey their thoughts in a convincing manner (using the DM's Best Friend, the DC Modifier).
olshanski_home 10-15-05, 01:26 AM	One thing to remember is that a diplomacy roll should not be the only thing that happens. Dm: You see an elf who appears to know where you need to go, but he is just ignoring you Player: I use diplomacy DM: Ok roll. Nope. You fail. It should require a little more thought on the players part, and if necessary, coaxing from the DM. First: I am going to assume this was written before my post, as my example above clearly is more than just "I use diplomacy". Second: If players want to play exactly as listed in your example above, that is sufficient according to the rules. Most players and DMs like to add flavor text... saying what they are doing in real-life terms rather than reducing it to pure mechanics. It certainly promotes a better mood and I find it makes the game more enjoyable. However, if the players and DMs don't want that level of "flavor" or roleplaying, the game doesn't need it. Player: I'll search the chest for traps. I take 20 for total of 29. DM: You found a magic trap of some sort. Player: I'll disable it. I rolled a 22. DM: You didn't disable it, but luckily you didn't set it off. Player: I'll try again. This time I rolled a 24. DM: The trap is disabled. I am not sure that "coaxing" by the DM is necessary under any circumstances, except perhaps where the DM is adding flavor text because the player is shy or inexperienced. DM: You see the elf who matches the description of a man known to frequent the wellspring that you are looking for. Shy player: Um, can I talk to him with diplomacy? DM: Are you asking right off the bat where the wellspring is? or are you taking your time? Shy player: I take my time. My diplomacy is +8 DM: You take your time talking to the guy a while. He seems like kind of a jerk, a bit prejudiced, he has a cruel sense of humor. You are agreeable and go along with his misguided opinions, and you sense that the guy has grown friendlier. Eventually you get around to asking him about the wellspring and he says that you should take the north trail and turn left at an the intersection where a huge oak tree was split by lightning."
Ogmug 10-15-05, 01:32 AM	In your examples, team one is not using diplomacy. It is using intimidation, and that is perfectly acceptable to send them to a more detrimental ending. Diplomacy skill explicitly says that a failed roll does not shift the attitude to towards a negative. However, if as you say, the person is ready to send them to the lion, then a failed roll will not change that. If that is the case, then thier attitude is unfriendly, as a neutral attitude would not send someone to thier death on a whim. And your assumptions are wrong, I simply misread your post due to the lateness of the hour.
olshanski_home 10-15-05, 03:03 AM	In your examples, team one is not using diplomacy. It is using intimidation, and that is perfectly acceptable to send them to a more detrimental ending. Diplomacy skill explicitly says that a failed roll does not shift the attitude to towards a negative. However, if as you say, the person is ready to send them to the lion, then a failed roll will not change that. If that is the case, then thier attitude is unfriendly, as a neutral attitude would not send someone to thier death on a whim. I gave a poor description of Team 1, you are correct that it looks like intimidation. I meant for it to sound like absolutely no social skill at all. I usually play an attitude of "indifferent" means the person follows thier normal course of action. An attitude of "friendly" means the person goes out of thier way to provide aid. A good natured person might be indifferent, but he always gives the correct answer when asked for directions, because it is his nature. If he was made friendly, he might actually lead them to their destination. If he was hostile, he might refuse to answer or pretend not to know (doing harm through inaction). An evil person might be indifferent, and he might give sloppy, incomplete, or inconvenient advice when when asked for directions, because it is his nature. If the evil person were made friendly, he might provide useful advice. If he was unfriendly, he might direct the players to the wrong place. I play that a hungry lion can be indifferent to the players, but since he is hungry and the players are food, he would still choose to eat them if given the opportunity. A hostile lion attacks even when it is not hungry. A friendly lion might overlook its hunger and let a party pass in peace... To continue with the lion: providing a food source to a lion that is indifferent (but hungry) could mean the difference between getting attacked and being ignored. Giving the lion food did not change its attitude, but it did change its hunger. It would be perfectly fair and within the rules if you said that all hungry lions were unfriendly, and all sated lions were friendly or indifferent. I prefer to roleplay animals as instinctual and emotionless wherever possible. (obviously a mother protecting her young becomes quite emotional) I don't think the rules explicitly state where the differences are between good and evil and how they effect attitudes such as unfriendly, indifferent, and friendly. I couldn't seem to find the descriptions of what attitudes mean in the DMG... it must be the lateness of the hour.
Ogmug 10-15-05, 05:05 AM	The only description of attitude is on page 128. NPC attitudes is also listed on page 72 of the phb, as such, the attitude you list your elf as having is more unfriendly than neutral Unfriendly----Wishes you il-----Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult versus indifferent-----doesn't care much-----socially expected interaction. As a general rule of thumb, Good alignment will be towards the friendly side, unless they specifically know or think the people they are dealing with are evil, then it typicall reverses. Evil on the other hand will tend to be on the hostile side no matter what, though a Lawful evil might be a bit more friendly than a chaotic evil. This stems from the descriptions of alignments, in which good generally tends to be self sacrificing and for the betterment of its fellow man. This howerver doesn't make much of a difference in reality. You did not state the npc's attitude in your OP. You very well could have had it be unfriendly to begin with in which case you are absolutely correct in the direction you take the PCS. This however wasn't your question, was it? The question was can you assign a CR to an NPC that the player must talk to, and if they fail to get the NPC to a friendly status, or at least nuetral, they will encounter another creature(s). The answer is yes. The obstacle to overcome in this case is the attitude, the DC is what you set it as, and the skill to check the DC is the diplomacy skill (or intimidate if you think they can do that). The CR of the encounter is what ever you feel is fair. If 'defeating' this encounter nets you the same exp as someone who fights a cr4 monster then it is well within your power to award that exp. I know I would not consider it wrong. It is a challenge, and your players met the challenge and bested it.