For instance. A player decides to use diplomacy to get a bigger reward for a mission. If he just says "I would like a bigger reward, we want 50 gold each" I'd roll with whatever was his diplomacy versus a DC of 15 (1st level character)
if however he says " Something like, sir our hearts want to help you in the fight against this scourge, but our pockets are poor, and we need to better arm ourselves to end this plight on your land, We would require no less than 30 gold now, and 30 gold upon completion of this deadly mission.
Now for something like that,, I'd probably give him a +2 bonus.
If your DM did that, would you think he was taking too much away from the rules, or do you think thats good dming?
and how about the same for physical skills as well. If he describes a new, cool way of attacking someone from a swining vine or something, should I reward good and clever tactics, versus someone who just says (I swing down and kick him)?
In my humble oppinion, ...
You are either playing a tactical, combat oriented game, using some fancy words like "swords, shields, magic missile" etc.
or
You are roleplaying. If you happen to be "gifted" with a player, who can and would like to roleplay, then give him a boost whenever you can, to encourage roleplaying, to have more fun AND...
... AND because the diplomacy check was created for players who can't roleplay, but their characters can.
...and how about the same for physical skills as well. If he describes a new, cool way of attacking someone from a swining vine or something, should I reward good and clever tactics, versus someone who just says (I swing down and kick him)?
You should check the description of the skill acrobatics (page 180), if the character has the skill and tries to use it in a funny/entertaining/effective/"whatever, doesn't matter, but the rest of the group likes it" way you should give him a low dc or +5 or +10 to his skill check, if he does not have that skill, give him a dexterity check with very low dc, or something else. Being a DM doesn't mean you have to follow the rules everytime, you should judge the moment, either to stick to the rules, or bend them and make the game even more fun.
You might be interested in this article:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080917
You could also change up the DC to reflect the innovation as another course of action. I wouldn't necessarily grant an automatic success in most circumstances.
I would give him an automatic success.
In my humble oppinion, ...
You are either playing a tactical, combat oriented game, using some fancy words like "swords, shields, magic missile" etc.
or
You are roleplaying. If you happen to be "gifted" with a player, who can and would like to roleplay, then give him a boost whenever you can, to encourage roleplaying, to have more fun AND...
... AND because the diplomacy check was created for players who can't roleplay, but their characters can.
I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess that's what I do too.
If they declare what their character says, "I ask him to help us" then there is a roll. If they speak in character, "Please help us, You're our only hope" then there is no roll. I've just sort of always naturally done it that way.
EDIT: And now that I think about it, I played for a while with this other DM who made us roll no matter what we said, and it always made me mad. I would make some epic monolog, only for him to say Roll Diplomacy. I felt like it cheapened my roleplaying somehow. It's weird, but that's how I felt about it at the time.
... AND because the diplomacy check was created for players who can't roleplay, but their characters can.
No, it was created to show that your CHARACTER can do Diplomacy. The game is about your character doing things, not you. You shouldn't be able to overcome challanges just because you as a player are an actor. Would you let people waive a check to climb for thier level 1 8 STR Wizard just because the player is an Olympian who mountain climbs every Friday?
No, it was created to show that your CHARACTER can do Diplomacy. The game is about your character doing things, not you. You shouldn't be able to overcome challanges just because you as a player are an actor. Would you let people waive a check to climb for thier level 1 8 STR Wizard just because the player is an Olympian who mountain climbs every Friday?
This. If you'd hand an automatic success to the player of an 8 Cha dwarven fighter because his/her player came up with a good speech, then you're making the paladin's 18 Cha and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) worthless.
But an automatic success is too much. I also would be less likely to indulge if the proposition was CLEARLY out of character and obviously a ploy on the players part to get more monies for his character through metagaming. However there are few characters who I would consider the statement in question completely out of character.
Well for some it would be a bluff check instead of diplomacy.
This. If you'd hand an automatic success to the player of an 8 Cha dwarven fighter because his/her player came up with a good speech, then you're making the paladin's 18 Cha and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) worthless.
Are you making the Rogue's high physical stats and Skill Focus (Athletics) worthless when the fighter gets an automatic success because she chose to climb the stairs instead of scaling the outside of the building?
Are you making the Rogue's high physical stats and Skill Focus (Athletics) worthless when the fighter gets an automatic success because she chose to climb the stairs instead of scaling the outside of the building?
That is hyperbole. What we were talking about was two characters attempting the EXACT SAME ACTION, but one gets an auto succcess because of PLAYER SKILL.
If they don't try to roleplay at all or are roleplaying in a way that is actually counter their goal, the DC might go up.
This. If you'd hand an automatic success to the player of an 8 Cha dwarven fighter because his/her player came up with a good speech, then you're making the paladin's 18 Cha and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) worthless.
Amen.
Are you making the Rogue's high physical stats and Skill Focus (Athletics) worthless when the fighter gets an automatic success because she chose to climb the stairs instead of scaling the outside of the building?
Let me put it this way. Suppose I'm playing a character with an 8 Strength. My friend the 18 Str fighter steps up and makes an attack roll at +6 (using cleave and Power Attack) with his greatsword; he succeeds, and rolls 1d10+7 for damage.
I step up to the same badguy and describe in detail how I lead with a jab to bring his hands up, follow up with an uppercut into his short ribs, and finally step back to deliver a roundhouse kick to the same spot. I then explain exactly how the shockwaves are transmitted around his body, injuring not only the spots where I hit him but the ribs on the opposite side of his body, as well as straining the muscles in his upper back as they try to compensate for the sudden lack of tension in his chest. The DM declares that I automatically hit, deal 15 damage, and knock the badguy prone.
***
The situation described by the OP is good DMing: he's rewarding players for putting some effort into their RP, without penalizing the players who would rather say "I roll a Diplomacy check to convince him we need more money." The situation described by Manion and defended by Stormknight is not as positive, because it is directly analogous to what I described above.
If someone invests character resources into being good at something, then that investment should be reflected by their success at that task. Conversely, if someone doesn't invest character resources in that skill, then declaring him or her successful by fiat is massively unfair to the rest of the table.
This. If you'd hand an automatic success to the player of an 8 Cha dwarven fighter because his/her player came up with a good speech, then you're making the paladin's 18 Cha and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) worthless.
In my opinion, it is useless, if you have good roleplayers around the table, and you are having fun, why would I need to focus on this?
An average human has cha around 10, and I'm sure everybody can convince someone about something trivial.
If you would like to convince the local thief master, to donate a huge amount of money to the local orphanage not even the highest point value of diplomacy skill will convince the crime lord to do so, if he doesn't want to.
Ofc. if he had a bad past, his childhood wasn't that great, and he tends toward helping some poor children then there is a chance to convince him, you can do this either with a skill check, or by roleplaying.
Diplomacy skill is for those who don't want to roleplay.
I'm talking strictly about the diplomacy skill here, not combat, or the other skills.
f you would like to convince the local thief master, to donate a huge amount of money to the local orphanage not even the highest point value of diplomacy skill will convince the crime lord to do so, if he doesn't want to.
Why not?? Isn't this the whole point of D&D? To play heroes who can accomplish things that might seem impossible at first. YOU may not be able to, but don't tell me or my players they won't be able to convince that crime lord to donate his life savings to poor children, because that's exactly the kind of epic tasks a true hero might accomplish one day.
Diplomacy skill is for those who don't want to roleplay.
I'm talking strictly about the diplomacy skill here, not combat, or the other skills.
WRONG. Just as others have stated, Diplomacy represents your character's skill at negotiation, etiquette and presence, just as your Strength represents you character's ability to lift, push, and smash things.
I'd like to think the most uncharismatic player could play the most dazzling rogue in game. And, the weakest player could roleplay the strongest hero in the land.
Why not?? Isn't this the whole point of D&D? To play heroes who can accomplish things that might seem impossible at first.
So you mean it is a good idea to use diplomacy as a charm person at will power?
WRONG. Just as others have stated, Diplomacy represents your character's skill at negotiation, etiquette and presence, just as your Strength represents you character's ability to lift, push, and smash things.
I'd like to think the most uncharismatic player could play the most dazzling rogue in game. And, the weakest player could roleplay the strongest hero in the land.
I'm sure I'm not wrong. In my opinion if the characters run around dungeons, forests and other outdoor places, killing and looting goblins and other monsters, they aren't that prepared at the etiquette of far, distant nobles, and royal courts.
The other thing, charisma represents your presence, not your diplomacy skill.
So you mean it is a good idea to use diplomacy as a charm person at will power?
That's not what he said or implied. Diplomacy got a serious overhaul in 4e.
I'm sure I'm not wrong. In my opinion if the characters run around dungeons, forests and other outdoor places, killing and looting goblins and other monsters, they aren't that prepared at the etiquette of far, distant nobles, and royal courts.
Radagast probably got his ideas from here:
Diplomacy (Charisma)
You can influence others with your tact, subtlety, and social grace.
Finally, you say you use this rule only for Diplomacy, not for combat or any other skill. Can you explain what the inherent mechanical difference is between, say, Diplomacy and Bluff? Why is one resolved by a die roll, and the other by how much the player impresses you?
That's not what he said or implied. Diplomacy got a serious overhaul in 4e.
I don't really get your point? You like to apply the rules by the letter, thats ok for me.
You like to let your players make diplomacy checks whenever they want, you just assign a high dc check, thats ok for me.
I can't understand why it irritates you, that I think it is better to give an automatic succes for diplomacy challanges if the player did roleplay well?
Because I bend the rules to have more fun?
What we were talking about was two characters attempting the EXACT SAME ACTION, but one gets an auto succcess because of PLAYER SKILL.
Ok, I'm sorry here - I only looked at your response here (and saw a very typical argument that I disagree very strongly with), not really at the post you were replying to, which did indicate that effectively "talking in character = automatic success". That's not even rewarding player "skill", that's simply saying "style A wins, style B doesn't".
However, the point I made I think is very important to keep in mind for social situations - or other in game situations. Given any task, there are roughly three types of tasks one might take to accomplish it.
For example, to get to the top of a building, you could:
A) Flap your arms and hop and down trying to fly.
I put this in the "no reasonable chance of success" category. I don't care how good your athletics skill is, I don't think this should have a chance of working.
B) Climb the outside.
Well, climbing a building sure isn't easy, but its not impossible either. Here's a skill check.
C) Go inside and use the stairs.
Unless you're doing this in the middle of a fight, I really don't think climbing the stairs needs a skill check. This should be an automatic success.
Some actions should wind up in the 'too easy to bother with' category, and if you get one it will probably be by specifying what you are doing as opposed to simply requesting a skill check. There's no need to bluff your way past the guards if you know the password.
To play heroes who can accomplish things that might seem impossible at first.
To me, the point of D&D (outside of playing a fun game) is to play heroes that accomplish interesting and exciting things. "I walk up to the villain and change their outlook via my magical mind control diplomacy skill. Next." is neither interesting or exciting. Persuading a crimelord to have a change of heart would be very interesting if it were backed by appropriate story elements, probably built up over time. Straight out of the blue based on one stray skill request? That's in the "flap your arms and fly category".
Diplomacy skill is for those who don't want to roleplay.
What's the appropriate way to approach the Queen of the Un'goks?
What kind of bribe will be seen as reasonable without arousing suspicion?
How much can you make the offer in your favor and still have a chance at negotiations?
How good an overall impression does your character make at the several hour banquet that nobody really cares enough about to play out in detail?
All excellent uses for diplomacy, even if you are into roleplaying out most social situations.
A Dwarf fighter with 8 Charisma doesn't steal the show from a 18 charisma Diplomacy trained Paladin if I give him only a +1 bonus for good roleplaying. Besides good roleplayers and gamers in general I think should be rewarded, so possibly influencing others to join in on the fun as well. I do think automtic successes are a bit too much as for obvious reasons stated above.
as for physical skills, I think it might apply as well, of course not in the case mccowen relayed. (Dwarf doing lots of damage over the fighter) It would have to be very subtle. For instance in use of stealth.
The party theif says "I hide behind the pile of dead bodies:
I roll his stealth he makes it.
The party Fighter says, "I hide IN the pile of dead bodies and position some bodies on top of me"
I roll his stealth with a +2
he fails, but he still had a greater chance than he normally would have because of clever roleplaying.
I don't think the game should rely strictly on mechanics alone,, if that was the case we wouldn't need other players, we could sit at home playing all the characters ourselves. I think human interaction is just as important as the game mechanics. That being said however, goodroleplaying shouldn't kill the mechanics of characters, that takes the game in the opposite direction of what granting bonuses was supposed to do,, make it more fun.
a dwarven fighter in our party had a spear with a cross bar in the middle (to prevent stabbed people from sliding up the rod and getting in striking distance as in the story of Morte Du Arthur)
anyway we are in a Dragon's lair and the Dwarf circles around to a cave entrance above the dragon. He jumps off and rides the spear like a pogo stick, sharp end pointed down. So with a 50 foot fall, a 300lb fat dwarf that called for some serious adjustments to the rules. a basic spear attack would not apply here.
The Dm decided to multiply the spear damage by a D20 roll. The guy rolled a 1, so it didn't pan out, but it was still cool anyway.
So you mean it is a good idea to use diplomacy as a charm person at will power?
Why would I mean that? I never said anything of the sort, and never implied anything of the sort. I simply said Diplomacy is a skill that represents your character's ability to negotiate and if a player attempts to negotiate I'm all for having them roll a Diplomacy check in almost EVERY case. And, I don't care if you bake me brownies and rattle off a 10 minute monologue, if your Dwarf of Charisma 8 with no training in diplomacy rolls poorly, sorry pal, you are just not that likeable no matter how much you attempt to "butter" them up.
Like others have said, a +1 or +2 bonus suffices in saying "Hey, good description and roleplaying!" There's no need for automatic success and it DOES take away from those players who have invested feats, skills, abilities and powers into social aspects of their characters.
n my opinion if the characters run around dungeons, forests and other outdoor places, killing and looting goblins and other monsters, they aren't that prepared at the etiquette of far, distant nobles, and royal courts.
Perhaps in your campaign the characters are all rapscallions who don't have a lick of sense when it comes to interacting with important NPCs in the world, but in my campaign, and I'm sure others, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Insight, etc... are valuable skills that can be a great source of information, and/or help develop and push the plot along.
I just don't think I'd ever punish my timid, soft spoken player who can't find it in herself to yell and scream out loud, but she certainly wants her character to be able to and so she invests in Intimidate and a high Charisma. Sorry.
To me, the point of D&D (outside of playing a fun game) is to play heroes that accomplish interesting and exciting things. "I walk up to the villain and change their outlook via my magical mind control diplomacy skill. Next." is neither interesting or exciting.
I just love how people take quotes completely out of context and simply ignore language in the sentence right there in front of them.
Notice I said, "...at first." The whole point was, maybe not at first level my characters wouldn't be able to convince a scoundrel to give up his dough for poor children, but that doesn't mean it isn't impossible. A truly epic hero might just do that with a simple 5 minute conversation with the scoundrel. He might change that fella's life in one conversation.
Some people are just THAT charismatic.
Hell, look at what Adolf Hitler convinced a whole nation to do. That's a real world character. Now, put someone of incredible high charisma into a world full of dragons and magic - and guess what? Anything is possible...
Persuading a crimelord to have a change of heart would be very interesting if it were backed by appropriate story elements, probably built up over time. Straight out of the blue based on one stray skill request? That's in the "flap your arms and fly category".
See above. I'm not saying you cut out all of this stuff. Obviously a first level character isn't going to waltz around convincing kings to give them their gold and lands... That's not the point.
Some people are just THAT charismatic.
No, they aren't.
Sorry. I just don't believe this.
Hell, look at what Adolf Hitler convinced a whole nation to do.
By using massive amounts of propaganda and indoctrination, with a government and media support sytem, longstanding social issues, and an economic and societal situation that quite a few government leaders warned could lead to disastrous consequences. And even so, it took at least a few years of effot.
Had he gone door to door saying "Come go on a war of conquest and racism for me!", he'da been locked up in some loony bin before the second block.
By using massive amounts of propaganda and indoctrination, with a government and media support sytem, longstanding social issues, and an economic and societal situation that quite a few government leaders warned could lead to disastrous consequences. And even so, it took at least a few years of effot.
Had he gone door to door saying "Come go on a war of conquest and racism for me!", he'da been locked up in some loony bin before the second block.
I don't think he meant the analogy to be an exact point for point example. However Hitler was indeed Charasmatic, and this shows what a Charasmatic person can do given enough time and resources. Surely you can see the analogy in this and apply it to other situations involving difficult situations and acts of extreme charisma. What if they also use a good amount of time and resources? Say an entire campaign to get the rich Theives guild to pay for another orphanage to be built. its not that fantastical of an idea.. wait aren't we talking about fantasy here... oh well in that case it should be entirely possible!
No, they aren't.
Sorry. I just don't believe this.
Agree to disagree. I find that even in our own world incredibly charismatic people exist. I don't find it hard to believe that in a fantasy world where humans can eventually rise to demi-god status that there shouldn't be an incredibly charismatic character...
By using massive amounts of propaganda and indoctrination, with a government and media support sytem, longstanding social issues, and an economic and societal situation that quite a few government leaders warned could lead to disastrous consequences. And even so, it took at least a few years of effot.
Had he gone door to door saying "Come go on a war of conquest and racism for me!", he'da been locked up in some loony bin before the second block.
Via Wikipedia:
In July 1919, Hitler was appointed a Verbindungsmann (police spy) of an Aufklärungskommando (Intelligence Commando) of the Reichswehr, both to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate a small party, the German Workers' Party (DAP).
Hmmm... A first level Hitler??
Eckart became Hitler's mentor, exchanging ideas with him, teaching him how to dress and speak, and introducing him to a wide range of people.
Sounds like he got training in Diplomacy to me...
By early 1921, Hitler was becoming highly effective at speaking in front of large crowds.
Skill Focus anyone???
Hitler gained notoriety outside of the party for his rowdy, polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians (including monarchists, nationalists and other non-internationalist socialists) and especially against Marxists and Jews.
Paragon Tier?? Gaining notoriety! Oh my!
Gradually they noticed Hitler and his growing movement as a vehicle to hitch themselves to.
Even more important people are taking notice... Bigger adventures I'd say!
When they realized the loss of Hitler would effectively mean the end of the party, he seized the moment and announced he would return on the condition that he replace Drexler as party chairman, with unlimited powers.
Wow. That must have taken quite a Diplomacy roll - maybe even a crit!
Hitler's demands were put to a vote of party members. Hitler received 543 votes for and only one against.
Sounds fairly convincing. I'd say he's probably 15th level by now...
Hitler's beer hall oratory, attacking Jews, social democrats, liberals, reactionary monarchists, capitalists and communists, began attracting adherents.
Do I sense a character with incredible charisma, diplomacy, intimidate, and most definitely bluff?? I THINK I DO!
Hitler also assimilated independent groups, such as the Nuremberg-based Deutsche Werkgemeinschaft, led by Julius Streicher, who became Gauleiter of Franconia. Hitler also attracted the attention of local business interests, was accepted into influential circles of Munich society, and became associated with wartime General Erich Ludendorff during this time.
Man.. What the hell could these people have saw in this guy? His following has grown from ONE guy to what sounds like thousands!
He declared that he had set up a new government with Ludendorff and demanded, at gunpoint, the support of Kahr and the local military establishment for the destruction of the Berlin government.
Ah... Hitler just got Skill Focus INTIMIDATE.
During Hitler's trial, he was given almost unlimited time to speak, and his popularity soared as he voiced nationalistic sentiments in his defence speech
WOW! Dude's on trial for treason and he uses HIS SPEECH to talk his way out of it! MAN! He must be close to level 18 or 20!
It goes on and on and on... Obviously, Hitler didn't just roll one diplomacy check and take over a nation of people. He graduated through the levels and did a variety of things. But, eventually, he'll just need one more roll to convince a nation of people to commit genocide!
Sounds like an epic feat to me...
p.s. I'm using Hitler as an example. Obviously he is quite evil and has committed some of the worst atrocities known to man. He should be an Epic Villain the PCs should take down!
I don't think he meant the analogy to be an exact point for point example. However Hitler was indeed Charasmatic, and this shows what a Charasmatic person can do given enough time and resources. Surely you can see the analogy in this and apply it to other situations involving difficult situations and acts of extreme charisma. What if they also use a good amount of time and resources? Say an entire campaign to get the rich Theives guild to pay for another orphanage to be built. its not that fantastical of an idea.. wait aren't we talking about fantasy here... oh well in that case it should be entirely possible!
Indeed! Thank you.
What if they also use a good amount of time and resources?
And thus you'll notice I originally said:
"Persuading a crimelord to have a change of heart would be very interesting if it were backed by appropriate story elements, probably built up over time."
And thus you'll notice I originally said:
"Persuading a crimelord to have a change of heart would be very interesting if it were backed by appropriate story elements, probably built up over time."
You honestly don't think a 30th level rogue trained in Diplomacy, Skill Focused, and probably some sort of Epic Powers couldn't convince a 2nd Level Crimelord to give his 500 gp to the local orphanage with a long chat?
What about a 30th level dragon doing the talking?
Thing is I just don't ever mention it.
I assume that the rules-laywers at the table (who rarely speak in character & merely express thier actions in stated +/-/modifiers/#s) will eventually catch on that the role-players (those speaking/acting in character & vividly describing things) seem to be getting some sort of bonus. While at the same time their own DCs seem to be a point or two higher.....
Is this "fair"? Probably not. But D&D is as much about storytelling as anything else. So make it interesting, entertain me.