Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Omega the Powerfull 07-20-06, 12:12 PM	In lower levels when diplomacy and bluff skill have low total skill bonus there are a lot of restrictions on when to used them. For example: If you want to use diplomacy with little time - 1 full round - you get a -10 penalty. That's usually enough for a player don't try do nonsense things such trying to convince a furious barbarian horde to calm down and go home But when the characters become high level, or epic level (my problem), these penalties don't make any difference. One of my players have a rogue with +49 bonus on diplomacy. By the rules he could make even the nastiest bad guy become his friend. Or with his +49 on bluff he could say that he is not the man the nastiest bad guy is looking for altought he has the same apperarnce, hight, weight of the person he is looking for, but he confused him with someone else. How can I save an adventure from these two terrible skills? :confused:
Abulafia 07-20-06, 12:40 PM	First, make sure you're following the rules correctly. Diplomacy checks to change people's attitudes require at least a minute, and rushed Diplomacy checks (with a -10 penalty) still take a full-round action. Thus, you could not make a rushed check during, say, a surprise round. Bluff rules are a little more complex, but in general Bluff cannot be used to change NPC attitudes. Next, consider the situation from a balance perspective. What has the rogue done to achieve such a high Diplomacy bonus? If he's maxed out his Diplomacy ranks, maxed out his Charisma (through point allocation and Charisma-enhancing magic items), and taken feats such as Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and Negotiator, he has invested a tremendous amount of his available resources into this tactic to the detriment of his other abilities. If he had instead maxed out his Dexterity, taken Weapon Finesse, and bought a sword of subtlety, he would be in line with every other rogue. Give some consideration to what the character has given up to achieve this level of Diplomatic prowess before looking for ways to limit his ability. While considering balance, consider also party interaction. Does the rest of the party complain about his tactics, or appreciate it? Some players do not like their opportunities for head-smashing limited, and would prefer a more straightforward approach to encounters. Others like the roleplay and interaction. If, after consulting the rules and considering party interaction and power balance, you still believe the rogue's use of Diplomacy to be overpowering, there are a number of things you can do. The first (and simplest) is to include more encounters against traps and creatures who can't be sweet-talked. Undead, constructs, animals, and many plants and aberrations are immune or substantially resistant to Diplomacy checks. For that matter, an encounter featuring humans who speak a different language will substantially limit your rogue's Diplomatic efforts. House-ruling various Diplomatic effects would be the next step. To use your example, simply allowing your charging barbarians a Will save against the Diplomacy effect would help. Or you could increase the penalty for rushing the Diplomacy check, or increase the DC's for changing attitudes (possibly adding an additional category -- "furious" -- on the Hostile end of the scale). Or you could simply rule that once hostilities have begun, Diplomacy checks are impossible. Bear in mind again that your rogue has sunk a lot of resources into his Diplomacy skill, and might be resentful that his options are limited -- perhaps allow him to change a feat, re-allocate skill or ability points, or re-create his character entirely. The most important thing is for you and your players to have fun. Good luck!
olshanski_home 07-20-06, 12:41 PM	Please, take you time and do not let "rules" override common sense. Bluff and Diplomacy do not make people retarded. Bluff and Diplomacy will not typically cause a creature to abandon its goals and life dreams. If an athach is very hungry, and it wants to eat you, it will still eat you regardless of your diplomacy result. If its hunger is satisfied first, then it will behave in a friendly manner. If you use diplomacy on a vampire to become a friend, it may decide to turn you into a spawn or dominate you rather than kill you. If you use diplomacy on a necromancer, it may decide to kill you and animate you rather than simply feed your corpse to its ghouls. If you bluff a mechant to believe a sword is magical, common business practice indicates he would still have the sword appraised before purchasing the sword. Even if you got him to believe it was magical, the appraise would reveal the deception. It's like bluffing someone that you own a Ferarri... they might believe you until they see you pull up in your Honda... direct sensory evidence can counter many bluffs. If you use diplomacy on a blackguard intent on world domination, yet you continue to oppose his plans of world domination, he may still kill you. Great power such as world domination may require some sacrifices, including friends. Diplomacy takes a full 10 rounds of negotiation, or else it is done at a serious penalty. Some people may be unwilling to listen to any bluff or entertain any diplomacy regardless of the circumstances. You cannot convince me to buy a new car if I am not interested in buying a new car. Bluff and diplomacy cannot make me want to buy a car if I don't need one.
Mikal 07-20-06, 12:43 PM	useless post info.... .OT: I've... been sigged. :eek: I never thought this day would come :weep:
MerrelBlack 07-20-06, 01:10 PM	Hm. That's a very good question. Recently, I myself had to deal with such a thing when one of my players built a character who was centered entirely around Diplomacy. Mind, at this point I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but he did his research and legally (by all 3.5 rules) put together aa character who did not fight, but at around 6th-7th level had a +50 to his Diplomacy check. The first thing I did was laugh. Bluff and Diplomacy are very useful skills at any level, really, if used right, but they should not overrule your basic common sense as a DM. Just because the paperwork for 3.5 says a PC can make even the nastiest bad guy the character's friend doesn't mean you have to suspend common sense and do so. Sure, using those skills he can fool or charm the regular people, but determined villians or individuals or groups with either magically gained or mundane gained proof that the PC is the person they are looking for will simply ignore those insane bonuses. I guess this may be a rather rustic and simplistic answer, but overall my point is that while you generally can't deny the character his skill bonuses, you can at least subtly state your command as a DM and use basic sense that their enemy is not going to suddenly be their friend no matter how many pretty words the character uses otherwise. Unless you choose to use this to your advantage. A sly or intelligent villian could easily be "bluffed" into helping or taking the PCs into his council. Oh, and that player I mentioned? His goal was to build an army of followers and guards using that skill. I let him go on minor issues, but one particular BBEG who he tried that on just stopped and laughed at him. And I think the character died when something nasty and of animal intelligence outright ate him. So I guess that proves that there are some situations you just can't talk your way out of.
Arganis 07-20-06, 02:58 PM	My own game includes a bard that regularly swings a 54 on his bluff/diplomacy checks. I think Olshanski's advice here is sound: A diplomacy check cannot alter an NPC's basic character. Personally, I've expanded the NPC attitude chart to include Devoted on the high-end and Nemesis at the low-end. An NPC with an attitude of Nemesis is impossible to influence, and a Devoted NPC is practically a follower. When I devise an NPC, I make it a point to write down their current disposition towards the party (or individual party members, depending on the complexity of their relationship with the PCs). I also write (in parenthesis) the minimum and maximum possible relationships. For example: "Bishop Draccus Silverstone - Friendly (Indifferent/Devoted)" Draccus is a cleric of the same god as two of the party members and their immediate superior in the church. Even though they are technically serving him, they have surpassed him in power and as such, unless something drastic happens, he cannot be diplomatically influenced to Unfriendly. In the near future, as the good deeds of the party on behalf of the church continue to grow, Draccus will likely become Devoted, as it is his desire that the party succeed where their mutual deity commands it. "Tal Chammish* - Indifferent (Hostile/Friendly)" Tal is out for himself. Currently, the party is acting in his best interests, but he will only go so far on their behalf. A successful diplomacy check can convince him to offer limited help, but Chammish is not the kind of person to take personal risks for anyone. Similarly, he does not hold irreversible grudges either. *=RttToEEers will recognize Tal as the drug pusher in Rastor. IMC, I re-wrote Tal as a wealthy alchemist merchant-baron who oversaw the delivery of goods to the CRM.
Pegasos989 07-20-06, 03:39 PM	You might be interested in this ruling of diplomacy? http://giantitp.com/Func0010.html the old one is flawed. It really doesn't give any decent guidelines and is too easy. in that link is still a problem cause it has mechanics assuming maxed diplomacy (in this situationj it is good) but a guy who takes a few ranks can't do anything with it. still I prefer it.
dbsdungeon 07-20-06, 04:30 PM	you might have the character take penalties against minions who are under the diplomatic sway of an enemy leader with many ranks in diplomacy. Remember that once people's minds have been made up they rarely change their views unless hard evidence shows them to be wrong. Once combat or a planned ambush begins there is really very little diplomacy will do until the outcome has been decided. On the other hand, if the PCs can somehow find a way to bluff or diplomacy their way to the leader, it is possible he allow them to join his force, revealing his secret plans to them. Also, generally the leadership feat determines followers, not their diplomacy check. Just because you like someone doesn't mean you will follow them into the pit of doom. Their are many ways to limit diplomacy without nerfing it. It is still a powerful skill, and like bluff, sense motive, gather information, and other such charisma or wisdom based checks, it is necessary for true roleplaying that will move the game forward.
Krispieman 07-20-06, 04:47 PM	I should say I agree with Pegasos989, using the Giant's version of Diplomacy is a vast improvement, though we houseruled the synergy skills to remain the same as normal 3.5. With Bluff one should remember the most important thing about it: it's an opposed skill check. Even if your PC has a +49 on his bluff it doesn't make things auto-succes. When he's trying to convince the BBEG he's not the one they're looking for I'd rule it as "the bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider" kind of bluff, granting a +20 to the Sense Motive skill of the BBEG (which any decent BBEG has at least a few ranks in). In the end the problem is only as big as you allow it to be. Roll things behind a screen an just decide if it's the kind of encounter you're okay with if your PC Bluffs/Diplomacies his way out of it, or not. I once tried to convice 2 Marilith's not to eat me. It worked.. sorta. They started attacking the rest of the party. Moral: every sword cuts both ways ;) K-man :cool:
Zerchai 07-20-06, 05:31 PM	I know it's redundant, but I just wanted to show a little *more* support for the Giant's diplomacy variant. I've been using it for a while now, and not only does it make more sense, it also allows you to do so much more with it! It also gives Charm Person a clear definition that is, quite simply, fantastic. I would highly recommend giving it a shot if you're having problems with diplomacy. And the best part is that a character with a +49 diplomacy check will still love using the diplomacy skill, it just won't become ludicrously insane. Like Krispieman, though, we kept the synergy bonuses the same, rather than adopting the Giant's nerfed version.
Archtyrant Terevoth 07-20-06, 09:10 PM	I know it's redundant, but I just wanted to show a little *more* support for the Giant's diplomacy variant. I've been using it for a while now, and not only does it make more sense, it also allows you to do so much more with it! It also gives Charm Person a clear definition that is, quite simply, fantastic. I would highly recommend giving it a shot if you're having problems with diplomacy. And the best part is that a character with a +49 diplomacy check will still love using the diplomacy skill, it just won't become ludicrously insane. Like Krispieman, though, we kept the synergy bonuses the same, rather than adopting the Giant's nerfed version. Actually Giant's version is a lot more powerful in a lot of situations, it just scales. The problem is however that skills scale a lot faster than the DC based on giant's system. Giant's system scales solely by character level, meaning that on 15 + level + wis modifier. Where the diplomacy check is based on your ranks (level +3) + your cha modifier + any other modifiers. And that's whee things get tricky. Take a few skill boosting feats and items, and you can easily be up to a +15 on miscellaneous modifiers, which means you can succeed on almost anything. The old system didn't allow you to do anything other than make the guy your friend. Giant's system on the other hand allows you to make totally ridiculous trades, like trading a bit of string for a castle (as in his example). So get a diplomacy build and you can totally clean out a magic shop. Giant's version is slightly better mechanically (because it scales) but stil flawed (because it doesn't scale enough) and also infinitely more dangerous because it grants the abiltiy to make absolutely ludicrous trades directly in the rules, where the PHB diplomacy makes you friendly and that's it. Both are potentially game breaking, but Giant's version allows you to get infinite wealth.
Limousine_Liberal 07-20-06, 10:07 PM	I second Abulafia's post. A lot of people's ideas about "fixing" Diplomacy amount to making it marginally useful at best. Even Giant's version has some oddities to it (like making wisdom /level of your opponent count against your check...except that when the deal is positive for your opponent, why does his wisdom/experience make him more likely to turn down that "good" deal? The wiser you are, the less likely you'd know a good deal when it's offered to you). That said, Giant's system at least gives some guidance on which deals an NPC will accept and which he will reject, while the PHB rules merely talk about attituides (which isn't as helpful). Diplomacy is the art of dealmaking, as much as it is the art of making friends. Still, it would not be fair to either nerf diplomacy or to spring new diplomacy mechanics on your player mid-game without some negotiating between the player and you in advance.
Rake 07-20-06, 10:31 PM	I heard someone on these boards once say something in the defense of Diplomacy as-is. I don't remember who said it, but it went a little something like this: Diplomacy can change only the attitudes of NPCs, not their goals or personalities. Consider this. A diplomatic paladin makes a high-end Diplomacy check against the BBEG wizard, putting his attitude toward the paladin (but not necessarily toward the paladin's friends) at friendly. On the BBEG's next turn, he turns to the paladin and says: "You are a man of principles, paladin. I admire that. You have entertained me enough for tonight, take your leave. It would only be a waste to shed your blood tonight, and I think you've no lust for blood yourself. Go now, with my respect, and you can even take your ...friends (at this, the wizard wrinkles his nose) ...with you." As the party escapes, the BBEG's henchman asks him: "Why did you let him go, m'lord?" And the wizard answers: "He moved me." Simple, and elegant. Oh, and if the party hadn't taken the evil wizard up on that get-out-of-an-arse-whooping-free card? Then with a heavy heart, our BBEG lets loose with the phantasmal killers, lightning bolts, or summon monster VII's. "A shame, paladin. Truly." After all, friendly means different things to different people. For an evil wizard with an inflated ego, well... consider the way he treats his underlings and allies. Probably they do not get along nearly as well as the PCs do. Why then, would a 'friendly' BBEG treat the party any better than he treats his underlings? Oh, and what to do about a check result high enough to convert the BBEG to 'helpful'? Perhaps he magic missiles a few of his own least minions (not every minion takes orders well) out of the party's way, so that they might escape. That's how I use Diplomacy, at least.
Whisper_Swiftblade 07-20-06, 10:42 PM	well if you want to make him fight I know 3 things you can do. 1) iron golems and other such monsters don't care what he has to say 2) a skilled rogue won't give him a chance to say what he wants, because he will never see him coming. 3) enimies who don't know common can't be talked out of things in common.
dpflibse 07-20-06, 10:53 PM	By this point extra support is probably not necessary, but I'll give it to the Giant system anyway. I know it breaks down when the character gets to epic level (or even before that), and I'd be tempted to add some house rules to make those really insane trades much more difficult, but I currently have no ideas on this. In defense of Rich's system though, it works better than the one presented in the phb, but then again what skill doesn't become hideously overpowering at high levels?
RahHax 07-22-06, 03:25 AM	To this day I have not heard a better D&D story than that of the DM who got sick of a diplomancer in his party. He decided to omit the rule: 'a player is always in control of their characters actions'. The oarty rides onto the open field where the necromancer's army is assembled. Three men from the army ride to meet the adventurers; one full round action later they decide that they don't really want to kill the necromancer and hold no objection whatsoever to letting the necromancer and his hordes go on their merry way. This illistrates how utterly stupid some of the applications of the skill are, there is no way of getting a raging barbarian to not kill you in just a full round, and it's even worse when you jmp about from left to right to do it without provoking an attack of opportunity. Roleplay ALL diplomacy checks and allow the player to make a roll at the end of it if you think it's approprite to do so. As for bluff checks you cannot convince someone of somthing false with a bluff check, say they claim not to be the person that a guard is looking for, they might cause the guard to check the picture of them again, but it won't make the guard stop bothering them; that would require a disguise check opposed by spot. My solution would be to stop the roll-playing diplomacy skill and role-play the skill alot more, It's much more fun for players and game masters, Sure, it detracts from the power of the skill, but I think it enhances the game tremendously.
Always-Late 07-22-06, 04:38 AM	Problem with diplomacy as written is the level 6 +22 to Diplomacy build. Diplomacy moves Joe the Potato Farmer and Lord Evil Lich Guy all the same.
IceFractal 07-22-06, 05:03 AM	Actually, Rich's system has no more brokenness potential than the normal one - see the Fanatic attitude, in the ELH. Make a king Fanatic and you don't even need a piece of string - he'll give you the castle just to help you. Overall, it's a good system - the only problem is that the DCs scale by the target's level. Now while I don't really have a better solution, this does cause the odd situation that high-level people apparently become too grouchy to ever make deals with. For example: Low-level PC: Greetings, great archmage. I and my fellow adventurers have recently discovered some ancient draconic artifacts, and I wondered if you might be interested in purchasing them? Archmage: BAH! Puny weakling! What would a punk like you have to offer me! Get out of my sight before I turn you into a toad! * PC runs away * Archmage: Damn, I really would have liked to study those artifacts. But that guy was just too unskilled, it got on my nerves to even talk to him. Oh well. Or the fact that giants, even the stupid ones, suddenly become master negotiators by virtue of being big. Since when is it harder to trick an ogre than an gray elf?
Pegasos989 07-22-06, 05:05 AM	Actually Giant's version is a lot more powerful in a lot of situations, it just scales. The problem is however that skills scale a lot faster than the DC based on giant's system. Giant's system scales solely by character level, meaning that on 15 + level + wis modifier. Where the diplomacy check is based on your ranks (level +3) + your cha modifier + any other modifiers. And that's whee things get tricky. Take a few skill boosting feats and items, and you can easily be up to a +15 on miscellaneous modifiers, which means you can succeed on almost anything. The old system didn't allow you to do anything other than make the guy your friend. Giant's system on the other hand allows you to make totally ridiculous trades, like trading a bit of string for a castle (as in his example). So get a diplomacy build and you can totally clean out a magic shop. Giant's version is slightly better mechanically (because it scales) but stil flawed (because it doesn't scale enough) and also infinitely more dangerous because it grants the abiltiy to make absolutely ludicrous trades directly in the rules, where the PHB diplomacy makes you friendly and that's it. Both are potentially game breaking, but Giant's version allows you to get infinite wealth. Nah. I think it scales the right speed. You see, DC is 15+character level for trades that are "okay" and even. Like asking for directions. I sure think that if you max your diplomacy, you should have a bit more than 50-50 chance to be able to do even deals. If you spend your feats in it, buy magic items for it, etc. are REALLY diplomacy oriented (like that being all you do), I think you SHOULD be able to succeed in a lot of diplomatic stuff. Also, even if he had example of trading castle for a piece of string, he propably overdid example and didn't actually mean that by taking -10 you could do such a trade. However his system DOES allow that kind of stuff when DM decides "Well... these guys ARE epic... I'll put -20 or -30 on that deal and if they still can make it, they have the castle...". Very flexible. I am not saying that it is perfect system but that it is very good or atleast better than current one.
Pegasos989 07-22-06, 05:14 AM	Actually, Rich's system has no more brokenness potential than the normal one - see the Fanatic attitude, in the ELH. Make a king Fanatic and you don't even need a piece of string - he'll give you the castle just to help you. Overall, it's a good system - the only problem is that the DCs scale by the target's level. Now while I don't really have a better solution, this does cause the odd situation that high-level people apparently become too grouchy to ever make deals with. For example: Low-level PC: Greetings, great archmage. I and my fellow adventurers have recently discovered some ancient draconic artifacts, and I wondered if you might be interested in purchasing them? Archmage: BAH! Puny weakling! What would a punk like you have to offer me! Get out of my sight before I turn you into a toad! * PC runs away * Archmage: Damn, I really would have liked to study those artifacts. But that guy was just too unskilled, it got on my nerves to even talk to him. Oh well. Or the fact that giants, even the stupid ones, suddenly become master negotiators by virtue of being big. Since when is it harder to trick an ogre than an gray elf? That deal with archmage would really be not that hard. Let's say 15th level guy. DC 15+his WIS (propably nor roo high) -5 for favorable, so around 12. If a PC has 4 ranks and +2 cha modifier he can't screw thing up and has a good chance to make a deal. To make even deal is harder and to make deal that is a bit more beneficial to them would be DC 22. I see no problem in this. The odd thing is that WIS modifier affects it, so 20th level cleric is much harder to affect than 20th level wizard.
Limousine_Liberal 07-22-06, 07:36 AM	One other alternative I've seen is for the DM to decide what the NPC's baseline reaction would be (without Diplomacy) then roll opposed Diplomacy checks (character's diplomacy against the NPC's) and use the difference as a basis for modfying the NPC's baseline reaction, favorably or unfavorably, towards the PC. In some ways I like Burlew's system more, though perhaps with some more specific "mechanics" I could grow to like the opposed check idea. Still, I like it more than the PHB system which reads sort of like you are non-magically Charming an NPC by using the skill successfully (though I personally do not think the PHB intended to imply that to anyone...it is how many people interpret the skill).
Wuggadad 07-22-06, 02:41 PM	I think it pays to look at characters in literature who had high levels of Diplomacy and/or Bluff, and how their opponents dealt with it. Saruman, in the book, was about as silver-tongued as you could like. He really could persuade almost anybody of anything, which he stood in their presence. The problem was afterwards. With Diplomancers, the problem is that the persuaded enemy leaves their presence and talks to someone else, and realizes, "You know, that seemed so much more sensible when PC X explained it." Saruman also had a problem when confronted with several groups that he had offered different stuff to in the past, and trying to persuade them with mutually conflicting offers. Take Miles Vorkosigan. His reputation got so great that his enemies were often under orders not to talk to him and definitely not to listen to him. If someone discovers that they have been manipulated, they could easily go right back to Hostile. For certain stunts, the Diplomacy DC would be increased by the targets' Sense Motive ranks. Perhaps even by double the Sense Motive ranks if the Diplomancer is doing a rushed job. It _is_ a problem. How do you keep low level diplomacy useful without making a Diplomancer too powerful? Look to the literature for inspiration. Also, a Diplomancer might be able to con a king out of a castle, Once. After that, reputation would give serious circumstance penalties to his Diplomacy. A more reasonable Diplomancer will try to come up with solutions that everybody will be happy with, which will enhance his reputation.
Bane 07-22-06, 03:24 PM	So you can't trade a piece of string for a castle. Big deal. How about trading a paperclip for a house? (http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.com/)
evangelion1010 07-22-06, 10:11 PM	I think Rich has the right idea for Diplomacy... I think what i'd do is adjust his tables slightly... it'd be a base 10 (or less) + level+ wis mod + misc, and in return i'd have the +/- relationship and risk/reward go to 20,25 or 30. The point? well... the 20th level fighter can't ask the 14th level kings gaurd who arrested him while drunk for directions. (in fact the guard would get quite upset with him...) The bard can still get that castle for the piece of string. This makes it easy to get simple things, but comparably harder to get complex things. Keep in mind that when it comes to skills, at epic level they can be used to do things that are completely impossible.... walking on clouds, swimming up waterfalls... The castle string trade is nearly as impossible. However in terms of magic... flying/walking on clouds is a lot easier than getting a castle for a piece of string. In fact most impossible things are emmulated by 3-4th level spells... and so diplomacy should be about that powerful.
green_yawgmoth 07-23-06, 01:10 AM	To echo the others, remember that the definitions of the catagories is pretty broad. I know that in the sharn book, "friendly" for one of the shady characters is something like "won't break your legs once you leave." A BBEG will still be nice, maybe small talk with you while stabbing you in the face. "you're so nice, it's a pity I have to sacrifice you to my dark god" kind of thing. http://www.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Nyaz 07-23-06, 08:45 AM	The rules should be interpreted sensibly. I already saw a similar post to this once. A 6th level character cannot get +50 on his Diplomacy check unless the DM is doing some ridiculous item awarding (why not throw a +5 vorpal sword of brilliant energy in the bargain?). Say he has a CHA score of 21 (at 1st level cannot have more than 18, 20 if he's of a special race, so let's allow that). That's +5. He maxes out his Dip skill to 9 ranks = +14 He also has 5 or more ranks in Bluff or Sense MOtive = +16 He gets the Negotiator feat = +18 He takes the Skill Focus (Diplomacy) feat = +21 He enhances his CHA score with eagle's splendour = +23 That's not even close to +50. Let's consider the following: He is charged by a horde of angry barbarians and wishes to use his Diplomacy skill to change their attitude towards him. His penalty for quick-using his skill = -10 He is attempting a nigh-impossible task = -20 = -30 total That, with his +23, amounts to a net result of -7. His DC to make the barbarians indifferent is 25. So he has to roll a 32 or better on a 20-sided die = impossible. Also remember that, according to the PHB, "Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good."
green_yawgmoth 07-23-06, 11:46 AM	The rules should be interpreted sensibly. I already saw a similar post to this once. A 6th level character cannot get +50 on his Diplomacy check unless the DM is doing some ridiculous item awarding (why not throw a +5 vorpal sword of brilliant energy in the bargain?). Say he has a CHA score of 21 (at 1st level cannot have more than 18, 20 if he's of a special race, so let's allow that). That's +5. He maxes out his Dip skill to 9 ranks = +14 He also has 5 or more ranks in Bluff or Sense MOtive = +16 He gets the Negotiator feat = +18 He takes the Skill Focus (Diplomacy) feat = +21 He enhances his CHA score with eagle's splendour = +23 That's not even close to +50. Let's consider the following: He is charged by a horde of angry barbarians and wishes to use his Diplomacy skill to change their attitude towards him. His penalty for quick-using his skill = -10 He is attempting a nigh-impossible task = -20 = -30 total That, with his +23, amounts to a net result of -7. His DC to make the barbarians indifferent is 25. So he has to roll a 32 or better on a 20-sided die = impossible. Also remember that, according to the PHB, "Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good." Synergy bonuses stack, and half-elves get a bonus to diplomacy. So if we keep going, he could get as high as +31 if he got half-elf paragon levels. Attempting a nigh impossible task is met with a nigh impossible DC, not a huge penalty. Making someone go from hostile to helpful is DC 50, after all. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Mellowship Slinky 07-23-06, 02:02 PM	Level six build: Half elf Marshall 1/Artificer2/Warlock1/Whatever 3 Feats: Negotiator, Skill focus: bluff, Practiced Spellcaster: Artificer Diplomacy: 18 charisma: +4 Half elf: +2 Negotiator feat: +2 Marshall Skill Focus: diplomacy: +3 Marshall Motivate Charisma: +4 Warlock Least invocation: Beguiling Influence: +6 5 ranks in... ...Sense Motive: +2 ...Bluff: +2 ...Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty): +2 Eagle's Splendor: +4 (remember motivate charisma) Artificer Infusion: Skill enhancement: +5 9 ranks in Diplomacy: +9 --------------- Total: +45 at level six. Even yuckier is bluff 18 charisma: +4 Persuasive: +2 Skill Focus: Bluff: +3 Marshall: Motivate Charisma: +4 Snake Familliar: +3 Beguiling Influence: +6 Eagle's Splendor: +4 Glibness: +30 Artificer Infusion: Skill enhancement: +5 9 ranks in bluff: +9 ----------- Total: +70 Even with the +50 bonus to sense motive when you're trying to instill a suggestion, that's still a net +20 bonus. At level 6.
Wuggadad 07-23-06, 11:22 PM	Glibness bonus does not apply to Suggestion. Glibness is _only_ useful in convincing someone of the truth of one's words. And you need 2 levels in warlock to get Beguiling Influence, right? Because BI is a 2nd level Invocation.
tsuyoshikentsu 07-24-06, 01:04 AM	BI is, as far as I know, a 1st-level incantation... which is why I used it in my record-setting Diplomacy build. The one that, at level 20, could make a rushed diplomacy check as a standard action with no penalty... At +206. Yes, +206. You have no idea how long it took me, too. I know better than anyone except possibly Interested2 (the previous record holder) how stupid the Diplomacy skill is. And yet, I advocate the default rules. Why? Because it's one more way to end an encounter at high levels WITHOUT involving the G-ddamn caster.
Wuggadad 07-24-06, 02:17 AM	BI is a Least Invocation, with an effective caster level of 2nd. At least according to Crystalkeep.com It is still a very power invocation in the right hands. :) I have decided that the elves in my campaign who are closest to the Fey tend to be Warlocks with Beguiling Influence. That way, elves can have a Beauty Glamour, and the whole cold iron thing, and deal in mysterious fogs and that sort of stuff.
Amon_WinterfallIV 07-24-06, 05:22 AM	I'm thinking of going to a seven step system of: Hostile/Beligerent/Suspicious/Ambivalent/Courteous/Amiable/Amourous for social interaction where the base is DC 10 to raise attitude one step, 20 for two, 50 for three, and 100 for four. (250 for the fifth step, for all epic builders out there). Amourous is borderline fanatical, in that they will make serious sacrifices to help you, but they keep their integrity as a person. Ah, but I mentioned that this was that this was the base. The second part is the 'diplomatic resistance' element: People generally don't give in to every sales pitch or every speech. On average, this is a +10 to the check, although it could be as low as 1 or as high as 50 (the guy with a 50 Dip Resist is going to be so self-centered that Hades has nothing on him!) Lastly, there's the matter of how fair a deal is, which I would scale out to +/- 50. If you can get to 50, you've reached the threshold where you are compromising the intregrity of other people. Great power, great responsibility--it's fair game. Yes, you can hoodwink the king out his country, his castle, his possessions, but it's borderline evil to do so. As for bluff, its an opposed roll. And +50 deserves an awful lot...
TarlSS 07-24-06, 11:00 AM	In D&D, diplomacy and bluff are borked. Diplomacy and Bluff should never approach spells in power or duplicate any effects. Diplomacy and Bluff are skills. The resources required to amplify them are insignificant. A +50 to Diplomacy shouldn't have anymore effect on the game than +50 to Use Rope, or +50 to Jump. There's no real balanced reason why a Rogue who places all his stuff into Diplomacy should be more useful than one who places it all into Use Rope, but the fact is that it is. There's no shame in nerfing diplomacy to non-stupid levels. Complete reversals of attitude should come as part of the plot and story, it's always bad form to just have them at the whim of random chance. Just remember, anyone placing all thier resources into a single skill is asking to be gimped. There's no mechanical penalty for focusing on one skill over another, therefore you need to take that fact into account when balancing.
Kimokeo 07-24-06, 12:42 PM	Pg 30 DMG - Circumstance bonuses and negatives. It's a game and let the player perform where they are best. Why ruin their character design? Traps and monsters - I'd expect the character has met these in the past, will be in the present, and forever after. Why suggest to use these? If the DM hasn't even used them, how in the world did the character reach this level in the first place? If you try to fight a raging barbarian horde and you have 1 minute to convince them to change their minds, consider the circumstance bonus/negative and consider the difficulty of the task. If the horde is anything like the Ents and Saruman, the chance of calming them down would be virtually impossible. There are times the rolling of the dice must be concealed for good effect. Imagine the great orator speaking as the mean, nasty barbarian walks up to him, lowering his sword, nodding and keeping eye contact. "Me agree with you. War done!". Turns to walk away and pulls a James Earl Jones move from Conan. "You head come with me. Rest of body, stay."
Amon_WinterfallIV 07-25-06, 05:50 AM	In D&D, diplomacy and bluff are borked. Diplomacy and Bluff should never approach spells in power or duplicate any effects. Diplomacy and Bluff are skills. The resources required to amplify them are insignificant. A +50 to Diplomacy shouldn't have anymore effect on the game than +50 to Use Rope, or +50 to Jump. There's no real balanced reason why a Rogue who places all his stuff into Diplomacy should be more useful than one who places it all into Use Rope, but the fact is that it is. There's no shame in nerfing diplomacy to non-stupid levels. Complete reversals of attitude should come as part of the plot and story, it's always bad form to just have them at the whim of random chance. . I respectfully disagree, mostly on the basis of thresholds. Someone with +50 jump is very useful--they are your Third-story men who can beat half a dungeon by jumping over it. This is very cool, and I believe, matches the jump spell (I believe a feat or ability to eliminate the distance cap may need to be used here). Someone with +50 climb or +50 swim should also be able to do ridicoulous things--They can climb rapidly down a wall made of Ice (not perfectly smooth Ice, but fairly close) or swim out of a whirlpool. Arguably, +50 on perform has the most abuse power, as you can start hawking PP for your efforts. +50 on bluff or Diplomacy should be very serious, and I think moving someone from 'wants to kill you' to 'has no Ill will about you' is that serious, at least as I described it. Castle for String--thats -50 to the deal as the King would resist with every fiber of his being, with an additional penalty that his aides would also be trying to prevail on him otherwise (-70 total). Only heroes need apply.
Tormsskull 07-25-06, 07:55 AM	As some previous posters have mentioned, use common sense. Im my experience, diplomacy tend to work less and less as you get in higher levels, simply because higher level characters are more determined to do what they originally planned. A bloodthirsty warlord who's lifelong ambition is to put the valley that neighbors his homeland to the sword is not going to listen to someone he just met who says "That's wrong." As a DM I use diplomacy as an opposed check as well. When you try to use diplomacy against someone, they get to make a diplomacy check against yours. To me this makes sense because if they are skilled in the art of convincing people, they are more likely to understand when someone is trying to convince them using the same tactics. Also understand that if an NPC believes what a character is saying, diplomacy isn't needed at all. IMC Diplomacy is generally used to get better prices at stores, have an NPC give out more information than he would otherwise, or the like. With standard core rules it seems that nations would never war upon one another. I mean, if you assassinated your neighbors son and heir to the throne, and he begins marshalling his forces to invade, just send the uber diplomat to him. "War is bad" (rolls 15 + 100 = 115) "I see your point good diplomat, I will call off the attack."
Finarin Panjoro 07-25-06, 10:22 AM	I've been thinking about this issue for years and reading this thread I just now had this idea. What if you limit the results by alignment? That is that the best attitude that one can have toward the PCs is limited by how well their alignments...align. Helpful: the PC and the NPC's alignment can differ by no more than one step on one axis. So a lawful good person would be helpful to a lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good person. Friendly: The PC and NPC's alignment can differ by no more than one step on two axis or two steps on one axis. So a lawful good person could be friendly to a Chaotic Good person, a true neutral person, or a lawful evil person, but would never be helpful to them by virtue of a diplomacy check alone. Note that this means a nuetral person can be friendly with anyone. Indifferent: The PCs and NPCs alignments can be anything other than diametrically opposed. Unfriendly: This is the best condition that diametrically opposed alignements can achieve (chaotic evil vs. lawful good). People of matching alignments can have attitudes toward each other ranging from Hostile to Helpful. This does not prevent them from behaving in a Helpful manner if it is in character. A lawful good paladin might be helpful to virtually everyone he meets because he chooses to act that way. But a chaotic evil demon could never use diplomacy to improve his attitude toward him to anything better than unfriendly. A chaotic evil being could choose to be helpful to a lawful good person if it served their goals, etc. This just limits how far a Diplomacy check alone can push a person's attitude. I'd also say that you could use the Bluff skill to emulate an alignment for the sake of making a diplomacy check. So you could bluff a person into believing that you're a different alignment and so gain a more favorable condition. But you would actually have to act in a manner consistent with that alignment in front of the person and avoid obvious evidence to the contrary (detecting as evil when you're bluffing that you're good). What do you all think?
Tormsskull 07-25-06, 10:30 AM	What do you all think? In the situation where the alignment is obvious (Paladin wearing an "I'm a Paladin" t-shirt or demons/most undead) then I'd say it could work. If you're evil and trying to use diplomacy or bluff on a suspected good character you're sure as not to let that person figure out your evil. The same goes for a good character trying to persuade an evil character, in some situations.
Stumm_Dolch 07-25-06, 10:56 AM	From the SRD: Action: Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a –10 penalty on the check. This does not specify which situations the time requirement may greatly increase but I imagine any diplomacy check would require a DIALOGUE otherwise it's just begging. Regardless the first requirement is that they speak the same language and that both parties are willing to exchange atleast a few words. Not only that but I would Definately make him role play this out... what could he possibly be saying to the charging barbarians that would make them halt? If it makes sense to you go for it, but if he's saying something like "You couldn't possibly survive this encounter" guess what... that's intimidate, not diplomacy... if he says "If you win this day all the King's army will hunt down your families" guess what... that's Bluff. Also, if the Mobs are not in the position to make decisions then diplomacy has no effect... If for example they are dedicated soldiers following orders to attack this party then your PC is trying to diplo-speak to the wrong person... at the wrong time (SMACK!)
Finarin Panjoro 07-25-06, 11:25 AM	In the situation where the alignment is obvious (Paladin wearing an "I'm a Paladin" t-shirt or demons/most undead) then I'd say it could work. If you're evil and trying to use diplomacy or bluff on a suspected good character you're sure as not to let that person figure out your evil. The same goes for a good character trying to persuade an evil character, in some situations. I see what you're getting at, but a lot of this would be handled behind the screen. The DM knows everyone's alignment and its not unreasonable to assume that a chaotic evil person and a lawful good person, who are unaware of each other's alignments, are going to have difficulty reaching any kind of accord or finding common ground to stand upon. It even seems reasonable to me that while they might begin with an attitude of indifferent toward one another any attempt at honest negotiation (no bluff to conceal one's own alignment) would result in them disliking each other (descending from indifferent to unfriendly) because their goals/methods/priorities are mutually exclusive. Under this system if the DM knows that the BBEG is diametrically opposed in alignment to the party then it doesn't matter if the PCs get a 200 on their Diplomacy check. I'd also suggest that the DM use a "party alignment" when it seems like the character is acting as a spokesman for the party. That would be the most prevalent alignment in the group. If they're mostly good, but range from chaotic to lawful then the alignment of the party would be considered nuetral good, etc. even if the bard/rogue is himself chaotic nuetral or the paladin spokesman is lawful good. Just some thoughts.
Hakar Maloye 07-26-06, 01:18 AM	Also, if the Mobs are not in the position to make decisions then diplomacy has no effect... If for example they are dedicated soldiers following orders to attack this party then your PC is trying to diplo-speak to the wrong person... at the wrong time (SMACK!) Congratulations, you convinced the king's men to capture you instead of killing you on the spot. You are taken to the king and put on trial, and executed in the morning. You do earn 50 XP though. :)
Stumm_Dolch 07-26-06, 10:16 AM	Congratulations, you convinced the king's men to capture you instead of killing you on the spot. You are taken to the king and put on trial, and executed in the morning. You do earn 50 XP though. :) That would be breaking their orders, and if it's not what the DM wants to happen he's well within his rights to apply such discipline to his soldiers/commander to follow his orders to the letter. Your example only works if they are willing to talk... maybe they are orcish horde who's lead by an Eye of Gruumsh tasked to bring back your unattached heads.
Milandros 07-26-06, 01:00 PM	Diplomacy is also not like Suggestion or Charm Person. You can choose not to allow it to work on you. If Bin Ladin walked into a US special forces camp and started speaking, do you think they would stop to listen to his words? Even if he was truly, wonderfully persuasive? If he made brilliant points of logic in a clear, consistant style, obviously putting together a great argument? Would they be swayed by him? I suspect that there would either (a) be a hail of gunfire or (b) a lot of grabbing, thumping, tying up plus a gag to "stop his lying mouth". Diplomacy simply doesn't work in some situations. Also, diplomacy isn't a power. It at least needs a description of what the argument is. I'm not suggesting that incredible thespian talents are needed on the player's part - just because the player stutters, turns pink speaking in public and is shy doesn't mean the PC is - but it isn't a World of Warcraft area-effect power, either. When the orcs charge, perhaps you can use diplomacy to stop them - but you need to say how. Otherwise: "I use diplomacy to stop the orcs! Yes! Natural 20!" "OK, how?" "I used diplomacy!" "OK, the orcs disarm you and remove your armour. Your hands are tied and you are taken back to their chief..." "Wait! I didn't say we surrendered!" "That's all you could think of doing, you didn't have any better argument to stop them attacking you. Fortunately you were very convincing..."
BOBB 07-26-06, 01:39 PM	I'm sorry everyone but i thought the answer to this one was rather obvious ( or perhaps it's just my sneaky underhanded evil nature to do such things ) - if the player does it just once kudos to them . If they continually do this and try to tell you it's perfectly logical , smile widely and ask them if they really think this is the way it should be . Wait a game or two then just have a BBEG do it back ! Put on some form of hearing protection though , the p!$$!ng and moaning can get pretty loud the first time . Funny enough there has never been a second time . :D
Tormsskull 07-26-06, 01:43 PM	I'm sorry everyone but i thought the answer to this one was rather obvious ( or perhaps it's just my sneaky underhanded evil nature to do such things ) - if the player does it just once kudos to them . If they continually do this and try to tell you it's perfectly logical , smile widely and ask them if they really think this is the way it should be . Wait a game or two then just have a BBEG do it back ! Put on some form of hearing protection though , the p!$$!ng and moaning can get pretty loud the first time . Funny enough there has never been a second time . :D Interestingly enough, the D&D desginers didn't like the idea that an NPC could influence PCs with skills like diplomacy or bluff, so they made PCs immune to NPC diplomacy and bluffs via skill checks.
Some Like It Hot 07-26-06, 02:38 PM	I've always liked the good cop-bad cop method of getting around the "willing to have a few words with you" bit of diplomacy. Use bluff/intimidate to get them scared of you or what-not, then diplomacy to work out a deal (similar to Giant's system) that doesn't end with you or someone else doing irreparable harm to them. Why is it bad for diplomacy to be used to overcome encounters? More things are totally resistant to diplomacy than magic or damage. Spellcasters have such a huge number of possibilities that there are very few obstacles they can't find a way out of, especially if they know it's on the way. Want to shut down a diplomacy fellow? Set him against something with animal intelligence or something mindless. Don't just have it not work because you don't want it to work, especially without telling the player before he makes his character. As for the "charging horde of barbarians" bit, intimidate and bluff are your friends here. Make them believe that hurting you will hurt them more than help. This should buy you the time to use diplomacy to get them to leave you alone, let you go on your way, whatever. History is full of people who survived because they were good at talking, even if they were good at little else. As far as talking BBEG out of their plans, sure diplomacy can work. The problem is talking an evil person out of something will probably boil down to turning an angry dog on somebody else. Not exactly a Good act. You could also play it as something along the lines of a conversion; these can be sudden, especially when the speaker is someone with the sort of ability that so high a modifier suggests. Consider how far someone with a jump check of +200 can jump (200 feet) and weigh that against what you know of olympic athletes. Now imagine someone who is one of the best in the world at speaking, Bill Clinton for example. Now apply the same sort of difference that you found in the jump example here. Someone with a modifier that high is unbelievably persuasive. Why shouldn't they be able to convince people to do something they wouldn't normally do? -SLIH
Bane 07-26-06, 06:14 PM	Interestingly enough, the D&D desginers didn't like the idea that an NPC could influence PCs with skills like diplomacy or bluff, so they made PCs immune to NPC diplomacy and bluffs via skill checks. That rule has apparently been eliminated, as PHB2 has feats like Master Manipulator. Specifically, the Trap of Words use. "If a creature attempts and fails to successfully to use Bluff to lie to you,..." I thought they didn't get to use Bluff to lie to you. You can always disbelieve their words.
TheGroke 07-26-06, 08:51 PM	Large builds that make certain skills outragous can be limited by a DM asking a player to Role-Play Class selection at level advancement. The build in a previous post had 4 different classes at 6th level, 3 of them non-core. Have this character role-play how they jump from one to the other while on the road or in a dungeon, and you find it becomes quite hard to justify the leap from Artificer to Warlock in 1 level. You might get your players to require training from a master before they can take a new class, so if they level up away from a town, perfect builds become hard to maintain. Just trying to Role-Play your way into a Prestige Class can be a fun challenge.
Omega the Powerfull 07-26-06, 11:07 PM	If it wasn't enough to produce one of the best comics I've ever read - the order of the stick - Rich Burlew has an interresting way for dealing with the problem of diplomacy Take a look http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html