Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ck2001wendt 09-29-04, 11:32 AM	The Character: A Monk 2/Favored Soul 7/Risen Martyr 0 (heh heh...tried to talk down the campaign's "anti-party" and found out even Orc Barbarians can make a DC 18 Will save...) with Vow of Poverty and Vow of Non-Violence. Diplomacy Check: Somewhere in the low-mid 30s. Not to mention the "Calming Aura," a DC 22 (will soon increase) Will Save effect. The Problem: How should I go about consistently challenging a player like this in RP interactions, when theoretically any time he can get his opponents to talk he should be able to persuade them to at least be "friendly" in their interactions. The party is stuck in a slaver city with 2000 guards looking for them, and I don't want him to just walk into the town square and talk everyone down.
Board_Rider 09-29-04, 12:01 PM	If he talks down everyone, or at least enough people, to get along then that should be good enough. If, however, he can't (which is probably more likely) then he can then a)run or b)let his party fight as he hekps with healing. That is why I personally discourage the Vow of Non-Violence Feat as it can sometimes disrupt, unintetionally, the other party members at times.
PaladinKD 09-29-04, 12:09 PM	I'm not sure how much this will help you, but someone else on these boards showed me these alternate Diplomacy rules and they work so much better in my group. Very realistic without adding a great deal of complexity. http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html
Kialindo 09-29-04, 12:14 PM	all I can think of when I read the situation you are describing is mob mentality..... have you ever been in a large group of people and done something that you NEVER thought you would or that you knew was wrong ... well there you go .... at least a few people will roll a 20 on their save and those few could quite easily encite a riot :headexplo ...... And just as a side note using diplomacy to change a persons attitude take 1 min or 10 full rounds of combat.... Let's just hope that he lasts long enough to get people to liste to him.....
Blaine_Furntog 09-29-04, 12:20 PM	And just as a side note using diplomacy to change a persons attitude take 1 min or 10 full rounds of combat.... Let's just hope that he lasts long enough to get people to liste to him..... -10 to the check, and you can do it in one standard action. Giant is smart....
Steelborn86 09-29-04, 12:29 PM	If if tries to talk people who are already in combat do not forget the -10 on his diplomacy for a rushed check as mentioned above. To get around his aura just use archers/crossbowman and according to the campiagn wizards and clerics might be guards as well. Keep a captian/marshal with motivate charisma, 18 Charisma, and diplomacy maxxed behind your ranks away from said player and if his troops are pacified have him just shout more commands at them. With a superior officer nearby barking orders I would give the monk a circumstance penalty to diplomacy for trying to tell the soldiers what to do. Or you could already have said soldiers fanatics to their country/city which I would figure it is harder to talk to a fanatically hostile attacker, in addition fanatics get +2 to will saves i think. But I just thought of something cruel. If he talks his way around low ranking soldiers have these soldiers later report back and are punished for their incompetence and executed. Make sure the said player finds these soldiers and finds reasonable clues as to why they were executed.
Stormbright 09-29-04, 03:22 PM	Remember situational modifiers. If the evil overlord has ordered the PCs' capture, I imagine there's a dire consequence attached to it. If he said "capture them or die" then I'd swing a +20 sit modifier to the NPCs. Perhaps there are some that would fail their roll, and this would be the PC offering an argument so persuasive that he's convinced the NPC that his cause is worth dying for, but that's the way of it, when you've got a +30, then yeah, you're that good.
White rabbit 09-29-04, 03:35 PM	You could just have it as an opposed roll vs. willpower.
devinmdp 09-29-04, 04:08 PM	Most ridiculous Diplomacy checks are usually going against some very heavy factors. First, you can have another person trying to sway the crowd HIS way, against the PCs. Now you are into opposed Diplomacy rolls and you can set the NPC's Diplomacy as high as you feel like. Someone gave the example of peasants going against their overlord. The Overlord should have gotten an Intimidate check to set the DC. Also, Diplomacy is not magic. It is not Charm or Dominate. There are some situations where, even with a high Diplomacy, you simply have to say, as the DM: "The orc is awestruckby your speech, and tears even come to his eyes. He sniffles and say 'I've never felt this bad about killing a human before....but Gruumsh is my god and he requires a sacrifice...better you than me my friend. But I shall always think upon you and remember you fondly.' Then down comes the axe on your neck." Devin
Board_Rider 09-29-04, 04:26 PM	Also, Diplomacy is not magic. It is not Charm or Dominate. There are some situations where, even with a high Diplomacy, you simply have to say, as the DM: "The orc is awestruckby your speech, and tears even come to his eyes. He sniffles and say 'I've never felt this bad about killing a human before....but Gruumsh is my god and he requires a sacrifice...better you than me my friend. But I shall always think upon you and remember you fondly.' Then down comes the axe on your neck." Exactly, it may just change their mood from Hostile to Unfreindly. Meaning that the PC and NPC are still not seeing eye to eye so to speak on what or how things should be.
R-man 09-30-04, 05:58 AM	Use encounters that can not be spoken to! Golems, Animals, Undead, Intelligent outsiders that speak a language that the PC doesn't. Let the Pc learn other languages and let him have a temporary advantage. Make the PC realize that he is up against a powerful enemy who is aware of his "Golden tounge".
MortalPlague 09-30-04, 06:40 AM	I have a similar problem in a high level campaign I'm running for a solo character... Lothar the Barbarian (you may have heard of him in my other thread) has an astronomical intimidate check... similar proportions to the mentioned diplomacy check. It's frustrating that he can go up against big, ferocious monsters and suddenly make them scared by intimidating them. Then again, there's nothing to say that intimidate will make them more than just wary, so if taken in that context, it becomes more manageable.
Luminosity 09-30-04, 07:12 AM	Show him this post: <sing> "Anything you can do, I can do better!" </sing> DM: <roll> Before you can raise your mighty fists against the Balor, he says, "May I have a word?" You agree, and then he explains that he needs the Amulet of Ultimate Burnination to destroy the universe, and calmly explains why this is a good idea. You are stricken by his words and happily give him the Amulet. Static DC Abuser: But that's not fair! My character wouldn't do that! You're a mean old railroading DM! DM: Hey, he beat the DC listed under the Diplomacy skill fair and square, including the -10 for being in combat. Matter of fact, you're now fanatically loyal to him. I guess a Lawful Good Monk couldn't be fanatically loyal to a Chaotic Evil Demon, so your alignment changes to match his. Uh oh, looks like you lose those exalted feats and can't advance as a monk anymore. SDCA: Fork this, man. Joo suxxorz. DM: How 'bout this. You stop being a Diplomacy schlong and I'll ignore the FACT that according to the rules, you'd perform "special services" for basically any socially-focused intelligent being with a CR equal to yours. Deal? (Or you could find a variant Diplomacy system. Either way, your munchkin will feel like he's been bent over the barrel.)
ck2001wendt 09-30-04, 09:57 AM	Luminosity said: DM: How 'bout this. You stop being a Diplomacy schlong and I'll ignore the FACT that according to the rules, you'd perform "special services" for basically any socially-focused intelligent being with a CR equal to yours. Deal? Well, Luminosity, that's being rather unfair to the player. He did it by the rules, and I let the PC in the campaign. And he roleplays him excellently (basically a Jesus type...complete with unnerving calm and eerie pacifism), so it's not like he's munchkining. He's just very, very optimized. The -10 for Diplomacy on a standard action is just stupid, and I think that might get houseruled out, or at least massively modified (like -10 for 5 rounds, -20 for a full round, and -40 for a standard action). I'm liking the idea of some sort of opposed check between the Diplomacy of our Uber-Diplomat and the Indimidate check of the force he's opposing, kind of like a Caster Level check. So our Diplomaster is going to have no problem talking down a bunch of bandits (even high level bandits) because while they're hostile there's nothing exactly forcing them into attacking the party. The 40HD DRAGON WARLORD, on the other hand, will be VERY persuasive when he tells his minions that it's "kill those interlopers...or prepare to join me for dinner!"
thugpoetry 09-30-04, 10:58 AM	This helps illustrate something that is quite wrong with the diplomacy rules. It's not so much the static DC (although I think that could be changed). It's the idea that the PC's are somehow invulnerable to certain effects that they can use. I like the example given above about how the PC has no choice once she gets diplomacized. And, I like the end of it, where the DM gives the monk the choice. In my opinion, this type of character is very disruptive to the game that most people expect. However, if the party is cool with it, then I'd be cool with it. I'd also use the same broken mechanics against the PC's. :) I'm a big believer in balance. Not so much game-balance, as I tend to think that anything you allow the PC's is balanced. Not mechanic's wise, but the fact that whatever the PC's can do, others in the world can do. There's a thread floating around somewhere that a poster stated "and of course there's no way that I can make my own save." Hmm. Now I've got an idea for an essay. :) Excellent!
Sildatorak 09-30-04, 11:21 AM	The -10 for Diplomacy on a standard action is just stupid, and I think that might get houseruled out, or at least massively modified (like -10 for 5 rounds, -20 for a full round, and -40 for a standard action). Might want to be careful about giving out penalties that big if you want to maintain realism. Otherwise a cheery, "Hi! How are you? That's a nice hoe." will make an indifferent peasant hostile for anyone but the most min/maxed of diplomats. I don't see what the problem is, though. If the guy has +30, and he's trying to sweet talk hostiles as a standard action then he will consistently hit DC 30 or so. That is only enough to make someone indifferent if they were hostile to begin with. If they are a guard that is supposed to be arresting him, then their "socially expected interaction" is probably that they won't brutalize him when they take him into custody.
ck2001wendt 09-30-04, 12:47 PM	Sildatorak said: Might want to be careful about giving out penalties that big if you want to maintain realism. Otherwise a cheery, "Hi! How are you? That's a nice hoe." will make an indifferent peasant hostile for anyone but the most min/maxed of diplomats. True enough, on the OTHER hand, when are you going to need a rushed diplomacy check EXCEPT in combat (perhaps to talk to someone while you're on the run to convince them to help you, but even then a full-round isn't a big deal...and they're only indifferent). I think I've found a solution. From the SRD: "Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party." Okay, so once during an encounter, if there is a "Hero" level NPC on the other side (someone with at least half the levels of the PCs) I'll let them roll an opposed Intimidate or Diplomacy check against our Diplomacy Monster, sort of a "Leadership" check. He'll probably lose, but D6 style I'll take the difference between their scores, then determine the outcome. This way, a rushed opponent with Maxed Indimidate (say, 17 ranks at lvl 10) SHOULD be able to take enough of the edge off the "Jesus" speech to keep the opponents at least indifferent...and still willing to kill the party (their "socially expected expectation").
Luminosity 09-30-04, 02:10 PM	Well, Luminosity, that's being rather unfair to the player. He did it by the rules, and I let the PC in the campaign. And he roleplays him excellently (basically a Jesus type...complete with unnerving calm and eerie pacifism), so it's not like he's munchkining. He's just very, very optimized. In which way does my solution break the rules, and in what way is it different from what your player is doing? PCs should not be immune to any effect just because they are PCs. If he wants to abuse the static Diplomacy DC system, he should expect his enemies to do the same.
Board_Rider 09-30-04, 02:21 PM	You gotta give some kudos for Luminosity's post though it was funny. I agree with what was said. Good Times!!!
CrippleMrOnion 09-30-04, 02:28 PM	Having played a "diplomacy monster" myself, I have to say that many of the supposed problems with diplomacy come from the DM. There are times when situational modifiers to a diplomacy DC would make the check unbeatable. On top of that, it takes a LONG time to truly make a diplomacy check; it's not like a spot or listen check. Lastly, just like others have suggested, it should work the same way against the PCs as it does on NPCs, meaning that no matter how good of a check a player may make, the NPC still gets to make a choice; it's not dominate. My DM allowed the checks frequently, and I had a chance sometimes, and it worked some of those times. He didn't let it disrupt the game any more than any other skill might. Also, I understood (when I was being good) as a player that though my character would ALWAYS try talking first, if the NPCs didn't want to talk then it was butt-kicking time. A PC like the one you've allowed to be created is a monster in a game not designed ENTIRELY around that principal. I'm a firm believer that exalted characters can only really fully function in a campaign designed around them, which I also believe about evil characters, monstrous characters, etc. It not only disrupts game play to have one person out the party be so extraordinarily different, it also hurts the suspension of disbelief necessary to really "get into the game." That being said, if the party is fine with, then run with it. Make it fun for all of them. But if even ONE person is complaining (including you), then something needs to be done. D&D is a party-based game, not a single player game (though it can take on that form). If any one player is creating a problem for the rest of the party, then that problem must be neutralized one way or another. It's the DMs job to handle such things as well as to not let problems like that develop by using good judgement in the first place.
Gedrin 09-30-04, 02:38 PM	There are a wide variety of situations which will negate/mitigate the uber-diplomat. Throng of Battle: Yes, you might be able to talk your way out of the battle but unfortunately you can only focus your attention on one soldier at a time, then again, it's so noisy they can't really hear you over the screams of the fleeing townsfolk, dying soldiers and the clash of weapons and armor. I'd love to, but they'll kill me: Many orginizations, of all alignments, kill traitors and those who otherwise abandon duty or aid the enemy. I'm not sure what the DC modifier is to convince someone to help you when they know they'll be killed. In this case "they" are fellow soldiers, superiors or secret police. They'll kill my kids/burn my home/other hostage situation: What is the DC modifier to get a soldier to betray a tyrant who will kill him and his whole family? This is actually a fairly common tactic among the LE's. In this case "they" is the secret police or similar orginization. I'm loyal to my cause: While unispired or leaderless people are probably apropriate for the normal DC's, those with good leadership are less likely to betray that leadership. This also works pretty well for those who fear (are Intimidated by) their leaders. I've heard of you!: Specific warning about the ways of the enemy is a good defense against their propaganda. Famous: This is probably the biggest, and most dangerous, of the probelms with hyper-charisma, and becomes even more dangerous for those who make a practice of being publicly charismatic (AKA Diplomacy). Famous leads to a host of other issues. Followers: Many charismatic people who use diplomacy to solve problems develop a following. These followers are not always "useful". In fact, often they are peasants who have been so stricken by the magnificence of their leader that they've left their lives and homes behind to follow the charismatic. Of course, followers can be an advantage or disadvantage. Politics: Many a charismatic spiritual leader has run afoul of the political situation of their region. Political forces can be powerful, and often agressive. Since they control the local law and order, it's usually dangerous to earn their emnity. Publicly Discredited: Due to the actions of opponents, the diplomat is assigned penalties on his diplomacy rolls until alegations of womanizing/murder/scandal of the week are purged. Usually these things are very hard to get rid of. Take a look at the various political scandals of modern times. Assassins: Famous, charismatic, diplomats have frequently been assassinated. Why? They're just dangrous to the current order/goals of the plotters. Assassins are permanent and final, though they run the risk of martyring the target. Combined with Publicly Discredited, the "husband of the woman" can be the assassin, and the "martyr problem" is neatly dealt with. Just some ideas.
Didge 09-30-04, 03:07 PM	Well there are some good ideas posted above. I like the big long list from Gedrin of why they can't comply because of this or that reason. I would also suggest having the diplomat-machine encounter non-common speaking individual(s). This works very well until the PC picks up the language. Some options that havn't been addressed: The Silence spell. - This is a great one to use. Especially if the bad guys KNOW about a crafty PC and his 'persuasive abilities'. Ready an action for when the PC opens his mouth to speak and you can insert this flavor text. "The Diplomat begins to speak in an attempt to sway the crowd/person to his viewpoint like so many times before when suddenly his voice fades and looming silence is all you can hear..." Cultural Customs - Have the diplomat-machine have to make knowledge-local checks to realize that the word he wants to use is actually taken negatively in this culture. I.e., The diplomat-machine says, "Do not fear repercussions, for I shall free you from your bonds." The phrase "free you from your bonds" may mean kill you and let your spirit wander with your god. Something someone may not be quite ready for, and thus applying a nice negative.
ck2001wendt 09-30-04, 03:20 PM	Luminosity said: DM: How 'bout this. You stop being a Diplomacy schlong and I'll ignore the FACT that according to the rules, you'd perform "special services" for basically any socially-focused intelligent being with a CR equal to yours. Deal? (Or you could find a variant Diplomacy system. Either way, your munchkin will feel like he's been bent over the barrel.) Luminosity: My problem wasn't with the suggestion, which is frankly what I'm leaning toward (in the form of opposed Diplomacy checks, or at least something that removes the Static DC). Instead it was: 1. Calling one of my players a "schlong" and a "munchkin" without ever meeting him, or having me give any indication in the lead thread that this was the case. 2. Turning the game into "it's the Players versus the DM, and only one can win." The object is for all of us to have fun, not for me to "beat" them. The player's not a munchkin. He's just playing a very non-traditional character, and I want to find ways to still be able to challenge the party, rather than letting the Diplomacy Monster walk through every encounter with his (modified) +26 Diplomacy check as a Standard Action.
crazysamaritan 09-30-04, 03:30 PM	The easy way to fix it is to make diplomacy a full-round action, and make the static DCs a modifyer to the opposed check. Also, I kinda like giant's idea that "liking" someone should be based on Role-play, not pure charisma check. This way the ugly half-orc barbarian might agree to let him go, but the powerful sorcerer is more likely to just fireball him.
Luminosity 10-01-04, 07:06 AM	Luminosity: My problem wasn't with the suggestion, which is frankly what I'm leaning toward (in the form of opposed Diplomacy checks, or at least something that removes the Static DC). Instead it was: 1. Calling one of my players a "schlong" and a "munchkin" without ever meeting him, or having me give any indication in the lead thread that this was the case. 2. Turning the game into "it's the Players versus the DM, and only one can win." The object is for all of us to have fun, not for me to "beat" them. The player's not a munchkin. He's just playing a very non-traditional character, and I want to find ways to still be able to challenge the party, rather than letting the Diplomacy Monster walk through every encounter with his (modified) +26 Diplomacy check as a Standard Action. <world's smallest violin> Yeah, because "monster" is such a positive term. Sorry if I skipped sensitivity class, Susan, but I was busy examining your problem and contributing information that you self-admittedly intend to use. Dry your tears on the hem of you muu-muu, please, and practice what you preach, PC monkey.
Master Agnald 10-01-04, 07:34 AM	Do like in real life. Put a sniper in the roof and shoot him down. They'll be in combat before they can even say their names. Or put some sort of very-difficult-to-convince wizard to oppose them or something (a Saruman vs Gandaf sort of thing, you know).
Master Agnald 10-01-04, 07:37 AM	**ops, sorry about the double posting**
deadDMwalking 10-01-04, 08:21 AM	First of all, if you did not look over this website, please do. http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html The basic point of contention is that the diplomacy skill is not well defined. If a player rolls a 116 diplomacy, what exactly are the effects? If they roll a total of 4, what are the effects? I am actually playing a diplomacy monster in an Eberron campaign. At 4th level I had a +7 from ranks, +6 from synergy, +2 from the negotiator feat, +3 from skill focus, and +2 from traits (unearthed arcana). Throw in my charisma modifier (+2, gotta get that up) I had a +22 at 4th level. Even though it is not to my advantage, I just convinced the DM to switch to Rich Burlew's system. Then I have a reasonable chance of determining what I can expect with a good roll. Just to note, I have only used the skill a few times (new character) but I have not rolled less than a 16 on a diplomacy check yet. The basic aspect of the system is a diplomacy check requires a base DC of 15 + Level of the Person You're trying to convince + Highest wisdom modifier in the group. The point is not "making people like you" but instead "making them do what you want". For example, if you want to convince a King (level 15), who has an advisor (Wis 18), the base DC would be (15+15+4) = 34. That would be for an equal trade. If you're asking for something more or less unreasonable, the DC changes. If you know the king, (ie, friendly), it lowers the DC. For example, if you have charmed him, you get a +7 on the check (according to the alternate system) so the DC would only be 27. If you have charmed him and are offering him a fantastic deal, it gets even better. For example, if I wanted permission to kill all of a particular monster threatening his realm, but he doesn't have to pay me anything, I'll just keep the loot he wouldn't have anything to lose. That lowers the check to 17 (-10). If I rolled a diplomacy check and fail by less than 5 (lets say I get a 15) the King makes a counter-offer. Perhaps he wants 5% in the form of a tax. I can then accept his counteroffer, or try to make a new offer. Anyway, read it because Rich Burlew does a better job describing his system. It did cost me +4 in synergy bonuses (from +22 to +18), but I was allowed to redistribute my skills, so I have no complaints.
ck2001wendt 10-01-04, 09:27 AM	Yeah, because "monster" is such a positive term. Have you ever heard the term "Combat Monster?" It's a farily common RP term, refering to a character that has been built for the sole purpose of entering into and winning combat, and it in no ways denigrates the the player who has built one. Ask around, and see if my belief that it's common knowledge is confirmed. Sorry if I skipped sensitivity class, Susan, but I was busy examining your problem and contributing information that you self-admittedly intend to use. Dry your tears on the hem of you muu-muu, please, and practice what you preach, PC monkey. Unfortunately, your inability to approach the situation, or the thread poster, in a mature manner far outweighs any useful advice you've given, and generally makes you come off looking like a jackass who uses these boards as an anonymous forum to work through personal insecurities. Please refrain from posting on this thread again.
Luminosity 10-01-04, 12:56 PM	Have you ever heard the term "Combat Monster?" It's a farily common RP term, refering to a character that has been built for the sole purpose of entering into and winning combat, and it in no ways denigrates the the player who has built one. Ask around, and see if my belief that it's common knowledge is confirmed. Have you ever heard the term "Monster Manual"? How about "Monster Manual 2"? How about "Monster Manual 3"? If you haven't, let me clue you in. They're books of what we here in the biz like to call "monsters". Most of 'em are evil, despicable things. Tell ya what. You list a work in which "monster" is referred to in a positive light, then I'll list one in which it's used negatively. You're three behind, so get crackin. Or you could admit that you called your player a "monster" (growl) and that that word did plenty to set the tone for other epithets. Pardon my verbosity, kiddo, but us English speakin' folks gots lotsa words, and doggone if we ain't usin' 'em. Unfortunately, your inability to approach the situation, or the thread poster, You mean...YOU? Luminosity big! Luminosity strong! Luminosity speak in third person! in a mature manner far outweighs any useful advice you've given, and generally makes you come off looking like a jackass who uses these boards as an anonymous forum to work through personal insecurities. Oh, Dr. Freud, you cut me to the quick! You've masterfully honed in on my poor sense of self caused by the years my Daddy didn't give me hugs! Or not. You're the one getting sand in your crevasse over my oh so painful words, and using profanities like the dreaded "j-word" in the process. Won't the pink and purple PC police catch on to you if you do that? I know your head's in a dark, warm place right now, but even you should be able to see your own hypocrisy. So what did that cute little bicycle-shorts-wearing limp-wristed slapfighting post you just tossed granny-style to me contribute to the thread you so love and hold dear? Is there some strategy on Diplomacy I missed? Some grand solution (in addition to the advice I offered)? Didn't think so, slap-happy.
devinmdp 10-01-04, 01:01 PM	Talk about someone way too impressed with himself. Luminosity, you are not wowing anyone with what you must consider your rapier wit. You just end up looking rather pathetic. So give it a rest. Monster is a generic term in D&D and there are PLENTY of good or neutral aligned monsters in all of the manuals you have cited. In addition, the creatures in the Book of Exalted Deeds are also referred to as Monsters. Indeed, the term "Monster Truck" in real life hardly connotes anything negative. The term "Monster Win" is common in sports parlance for a very significant win. Again, nothing negative. The poster used the term Diplomacy monster to mean someone who had specialized to an overwhelming extent in Diplomacy. Apparently, everyone else on these boards got that but you. 20 million flies can't be wrong. Think about it. Devin
ck2001wendt 10-01-04, 01:14 PM	I know your head's in a dark, warm place right now, but even you should be able to see your own hypocrisy. So what did that cute little bicycle-shorts-wearing limp-wristed slapfighting post you just tossed granny-style to me contribute to the thread you so love and hold dear? Is there some strategy on Diplomacy I missed? Some grand solution (in addition to the advice I offered)? And THAT's how you get yourself reported to the WizO's, something I'd never thought I'd have to do before today. Anyway, thank you all (well, almost all of you) for your good advice. deadDMwalking, I'm liking that article you sent, and it sort of clarifies some of the things other people have been saying on these boards. Namely, Diplomacy is all about Persuasion, but persuasion doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to be able to account for other people reacting to your words and trying to sway the crowd (or guards, or whatever) back to their side. I've done something like this once already, when I had a BBEG and the party Cleric (a different Diplomacy Monster) debate the merits of rounding up and executing the Thieves Guild. I did an opposed check, and I'll try and develop something similar for my next session Tuesday.
Luminosity 10-01-04, 01:20 PM	Talk about someone way too impressed with himself. Luminosity, you are not wowing anyone with what you must consider your rapier wit. You just end up looking rather pathetic. So give it a rest. Uh, oh! Look out, Opie! Someone's using insults in YOUR thread! Better do something quickly! Honestly, Devin, I didn't ask for your opinion. The original poster DID happen to ask for mine, and when I offered it to him in a creative and amusing way, he chose to insult me. I'm not here to wow anyone. I'm pleased enough with myself already. I just happen to like popping balloons. If Opie hadn't chosen to be a jackass (She said it: am I therefore allowed to say it? Is Big Brother on the way?), I wouldn't have been drawn into this little soire. Monster is a generic term in D&D and there are PLENTY of good or neutral aligned monsters in all of the manuals you have cited. In addition, the creatures in the Book of Exalted Deeds are also referred to as Monsters. You almost seem to be suggesting that I'm not trying very hard! Of course I know it's generic in the MMs. Well, not totally generic: there are more evil monsters than good and neutral put together, but hey, why let facts get in the way? Indeed, the term "Monster Truck" in real life hardly connotes anything negative. The term "Monster Win" is common in sports parlance for a very significant win. Again, nothing negative. Quasimodo was deeply hurt being called a monster, as was the Elephant Man of movie fame. How 'bout Adam, Frankenstein's "monster" was he fond of the term? Anyway, why don't I just deflect the whole line: Ahem, I used the term "munchkin" and "diplomacy schlong" in a positive manner. Thank you. The poster used the term Diplomacy monster to mean someone who had specialized to an overwhelming extent in Diplomacy. Apparently, everyone else on these boards got that but you. I got it, guy. I just don't care. You see, I'm not the one who chose to start this little conga line. /left right KICK! Here's my prediction, if I may go all prescient on ya: Opie will chase down a mod now and make a tearful appeal. Let's observe.
Luminosity 10-01-04, 01:28 PM	And THAT's how you get yourself reported to the WizO's, something I'd never thought I'd have to do before today. OH BABY! Who called it? Nice way to handle losing an argument there. Anyway, I hope Mr./Ms. Mod notices the deeply insulting epithets you yourself have used here, Opie. I must declare that I'm mentally scarred by your stinging remarks and I'm afraid I shall have to go to grief counseling now. By the way, you're welcome for the advice.
deadDMwalking 10-01-04, 02:25 PM	: Points finger at luminosity and laughs.
Luminosity 10-01-04, 02:48 PM	: Points finger at luminosity and laughs. Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses.
Board_Rider 10-01-04, 06:30 PM	Well hasn't this post just progressed nicely? While I am not here to cross either side of the proverbial lines drawn in the sand I gatta say Luminosity is pretty funny. Don't agree? No need to start a Flame War over it! We are all roleplayers, love D&D (to some degree) and there are plenty of people out there who think that we're weird enough already. So lets not bash each other!! Let's calm down..step away from the ever growing Yellow Puddle...put the Big Un's away.....realize were all stallions... and just move on. NO reason to critique the humor of each other!! *AHEM....clears motherly voice* As far as the ORIGINAL question... Could'nt you just have the Player roleplay the scenario? You (DM) acting as the NPC and, based on the Diplomacy roll, could make the encounter easier or more difficult. Oh last thing...this IS shameless...if you think he is POWERGAMING take my quiz. Below.....keep hope and my thread ALIVE bruddah(sistah?)!!!!
ck2001wendt 10-01-04, 08:45 PM	Oh last thing...this IS shameless...if you think he is POWERGAMING take my quiz. He's no more powergaming then someone who maxes out Ranged Combat or Unarmed Combat. He's simply very, very good at what he does, and what he does is "Diplomacy." I've made it fairly clear at this point that I've approved of what he's doing. If I didn't, I wouldn't have let his PC in the campaign. And if we were to bring down to "Roleplaying," then the particular player would always get a BONUS to his Diplomacy checks...he's one of the two strongest RPers in the group. Honestly, I don't see why some people treat this as a "your players suck, so try and screw them over" situation. I've provided a problem (which is a more general problem in the game, I think), not because I want to "beat" my players, but because I am at a loss as a DM as to how to deal with this. I want them to create PCs they like playing, then challenge them in a way that is interesting, but not forced. This is a group effort, intended to maximize everyone's fun.
Scion of Coldshard 10-01-04, 09:23 PM	Remember, pc's get to choose how their characters will respond. It doesnt matter if your incredible npc gets 20, 200, or 2,000,000 on his diplomacy roll. If the player says, 'my character is not impressed' then that is what happens. Still, this thread might be enlightening to some extent. thread (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101109&page=1&pp=20&) Diplomacy is a hard one to adjucate properly. Remember to be consistant over all levels though. If something at +5 has a chance of succeeding then likely a +15 will do much better and a +25 will do virtually magical things. However, if it stays about the same always (with +5 he could convince bob, at +15 he still can convince bob, and at +25 he still can convince bob, but he is doing it no better) then it will be very bad. Every skill point should be worth 'something'.
Board_Rider 10-02-04, 12:00 AM	He's no more powergaming then someone who maxes out Ranged Combat or Unarmed Combat. He's simply very, very good at what he does, and what he does is "Diplomacy." I've made it fairly clear at this point that I've approved of what he's doing. If I didn't, I wouldn't have let his PC in the campaign. And if we were to bring down to "Roleplaying," then the particular player would always get a BONUS to his Diplomacy checks...he's one of the two strongest RPers in the group. Honestly, I don't see why some people treat this as a "your players suck, so try and screw them over" situation. I've provided a problem (which is a more general problem in the game, I think), not because I want to "beat" my players, but because I am at a loss as a DM as to how to deal with this. I want them to create PCs they like playing, then challenge them in a way that is interesting, but not forced. This is a group effort, intended to maximize everyone's fun. Whoa...easy killer. I was just joking. I never said that the person was a powergamer..I just wanted you to take my quiz to keep my thread alive. Furthermore I never said, ALTHOUGH MAYBE SOMEONE HAS, that it is simply time to screw over the character. Additionally you are making it very difficult to receive help. My suggestion had nothing to do with his roleplaying ability, but yours. I said that use his rolls, no bonus because the PLAYER is god at RP'ing, and roll a sense motive check for the NPC that you represent. Based on what your needs are despite the rules you can modify the PC to your NPC interaction. I thought my post was funny...go figure!!! :confused:
ck2001wendt 10-02-04, 12:58 AM	Sorry, BoardRider...I read your post out of context, and I'm certainly seeing red today...in general, it's safe to assume that insults against me or my players (when the poster has not met or spoke with the player in question). Similarly, my players don't need to come to these boards to find that people have been ignorantly talking s*** about them. I'm not saying you're denigrating my players (or anyone's players), but it seems like so much of this Forum (and the one for Players) becomes "because A falls into category X, A sucks. Shoot him with a hammer." That's about the most unconstructive line of argument I can think of, and it makes me wonder if RPGers don't deserve the bad rap they get. As for your suggestion, which was a valid one: I'd be less inclined to use something that is essentially a "judgment call" system of determining success (if I think you did a good enough job, you'll get a pass); at that point, why have dice at all? Just take the Expected Value from the Diplo roll, then RP the scenario. I tend to be less free-form and more juridical, even if some things get house-ruled. So I do think a lot of the posts that are present up thread (opposed checks, modifiers based on opponent's wisdom/position) essentially get at what I was going for...a more balanced mechanic for dealing with Diplomacy. Or at least a series of situations where it woudn't be possible. I'll toy with the mechanic presented by deadDMwalking over the weekend and see how I feel about it.
deadDMwalking 10-02-04, 08:50 AM	Although I do like the mechanic, I'm considering that the DC may be too high. I like the fact that it scales, but the 15 + level + modifiers may be too much. I'm going to have to playtest it. I think that 10+level might be better. The system they propose does something to punish a character that has put all their resources into diplomacy. I've played a high level fighter, and the only way to miss on your first attack is to roll a 1. I think a High Level Diplomat should be able to deal with powerful creatures with near the inability to fail. At 1st level a character could have a maximum of +17 with a +4 charisma, +4 ranks + 3 Skill Focus, +2 Negotiator, +2 (traits from Unearthed Arcana), +2 (racial bonus or synergy from bluff). At first level they won't have the two feats unless they are human, in which case they won't have any racial bonuses. If we allow two other synergies (know:nobility, sense motive), it bumps it to +21. Average result of a diplomacy roll is going to be something like 31. To convince a 4th level person with a +2 wisdom modifier, you need at least a 21, which is certainly doable. However, if they are hostile, you will need a 31 just to convince them not to accept a deal that is "equal". If the deal is "fairly bad," I think that gives another 5. So, if you want them to surrender, but you'll make sure they're treated well, the DC would jump to 36. I guess a 1st level diplomacy monster could do it. On a roll of 19 or 20. Considering the amount of resources applied though, it seems just a little unfair. Compare the general effectivness of diplomacy to bluff. With a bluff score that is that high you can convince anybody of anything..... I think you see where I'm going. I want to make sure that a character has an option to try to "diplomacize" before combat starts. With another -10 penalty for trying as a standard action "Wait, don't fight. Maybe we can work something out." will always fail. The diplomacy skill can start very high, but it won't get better very quickly (normally about 1 point per round). So if you start with a +19 at 1st level, you'll have +24 at 5th, and +29 at 10th, and +39 at 20th. This assumes of course that you have not changed your charisma. If it is anything like a standard game, you'll always be dealing with people more powerful than you. If they are not more powerful, they can be easily defeated in combat, so it does seem a little unfair. The use of feats (which you get so few of) should be rewarded more than Rich Burlew is doing. A 10+DC makes it a little better, so I think I would go with that. With what follows I'm toying with making the DC 0+everything. Also, I would allow someone to oppose with a diplomacy check. Even without ranks and a charisma of 10, they can reduce your effective diplomacy by 20 points. Their score should count as a penalty to your own roll. So, if you needed a 15 "to get them to accept an even trade" and you rolled a 25, you think you're good. But they roll a 15 on their dice, raising it to DC 30. Instead of accepting an even trade, they're going to ask for something "favorable" (lowering the DC down to 25). This will probably better represent haggling.
ck2001wendt 10-02-04, 09:00 AM	deadDmWalking: Yeah, I see what you're saying. There's also the important point that, if the Diplo Monster goes down (again) and the rest of the party has to do some spot negotiations, I don't ease off on the mechanic.
deadDMwalking 10-02-04, 11:37 AM	I wouldn't ease off on the mechanic. Remember that untrained they should be able to get someone indifferent to help them out if it doesn't cost anything. Of course, if they are a lower level, it will still be DC 15. HERE IS AN IDEA. Instead of DC 15 + level of the person, it could be 15 + DIFFERENCE IN LEVEL. Essentially, you get a bonus if you are a very powerful person when dealing with minions, even if you are not a good negotiator. A level 20 fighter that has no ranks in diplomacy trying to convince a Level 1 commoner would have a DC 15 - 19 for a DC of -4, before applying modifiers for relationship and quality of the deal. A 10th level fighter trying to convince a 15th level character of 15 + 5 = 20 before we apply wisdom modifier, relationship modifier or deal modifier. I think that will help a person with high ranks still get something out of the skill, but not make it useless for others.
WizO_TheCheat 10-04-04, 04:57 PM	My computer goes down and this is what I come back to. Let's just keep it clean folks. I know this is after the fact, but I didn't want it thought that what happened in here was okay. General warning to the group.