or
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bard.
One of the things that I see brought up way more than it should be is the 'brokenness' of Diplomacy in 3.5. This always makes me shake my head and wonder if people have bothered to actually look at what they are playing. To that end, I've written this little blurb to help dispel some of the more egregious oversights of diplomacy use, and 8 months later, I'm going to post it. ;)
There are 3 major points when using Diplomacy that have to be considered:
1) The skill check.
Note that the DCs listed in the skill are basic DCs by the skill's own admission. They are not set in stone, and there are rules already in place for them to be modified. This leads us to the DMG, pg. 30 where it tells you that favorable circumstance gives a +2, and an unfavorable circumstance a -2. But down below that, it says that it is acceptable to modify the roll/DC from +/- 2 to 20.
This means that changing a creature from Hostile to Unfriendly (i.e. stop attacks, but not necessarily ending combat) in combat could easily be a DC of 50 (DC 20 base, +20 to the DC due to circumstances -10 penalty due to rushed). To make a creature friendly or helpful could be at least a DC of 70 from hostile if you have the 10 rounds to Diplomacy. DC of 80 if you have to rush, all under RAW and RAI.
While certainly not beyond the scope of good optimization, in most normal games, skill checks aren't going to be hitting those number reliably until later levels, if at all, and by that time magic is a far more pressing concern.
2) Diplomacy does not work on everything.
Magical beasts and animals are already excluded from the list. It's safe to say that other things (notably golems and mindless undead) would also be immune.
In fact Pg. 65 of the PHB clearly spells it out: The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible. I.e. the DM is perfectly within the rules to say that using diplomacy to influence the BBEG is an impossible task. RAW and RAI.
3) Changing the attitude of the NPC may not help much.
No matter the check, the final outcome is still in the DM's hands.
Converting the Chaotic Evil overlord to friendly doesn't mean he's going to start saving puppies and feeding orphans, he's friendly, not good. In his mind, a friendly act maybe putting you to a quick death rather than torturing you for weeks on end, or maybe raising you as the head of his undead army. Diplomacy with a demon may spare that village of innocents, but he still needs some souls, so you may just have doomed another village, or even he may spare the village and take your lives instead.
By the same token, even a Good aligned person may not provide much help when moved to a helpful attitude. The Gatekeeper may suddenly be your friend, but it's still his job (dare I say, privileged duty?) not to let you into the castle. He may point you in the right direction now though, or even bend some rules (a risk to him), but there's a difference between being helpful and taking some risks and throwing away his life or livelihood for you.
Epic Diplomacy
Epic Diplomacy doesn't work on anything that would be immune to mind effecting effects. This is often glossed over when players think they can turn a god fanatical to them with a single Diplomacy check, or that high or epic level creatures are helpless against the skill. Even with this it still conforms to all of the above points (especially point 2). Even if it is allowed, and successful, the Chaotic Evil overlord may start killing everyone who has ever wronged you, no matter how slight the offense (You didn't say 'Kord bless you' when he sneezed! *offs random bar wench*, you didn't read your son a bedtime story once! *offs PC's mom*).
This doesn't mean that diplomacy is a dead end as far as the PCs are concerned. It can be unusually rewarding depending on how the DM handles it when telling the story, but it's not even remotely as 'broken' as most people make it out to be.
Changing this, that's fine. We're all for that. I use custom DCs for my diplomatic checks in all my games. Now, that's fine and good. But those aren't the rules that I have at my fingertips as guidelines in the SRD. I suggest to you, gently, that you are wrong, and diplomacy as written, is a ****ing hellhole, a smoking gaping wound in the side of the game. RAI, it's totally fine and I really like it, and I houserule it and change the DCs.
You're right about the fanaticism bit being blocked by mind-affecting, but moving them to friendly status isn't and frankly that's sufficiently-bad for me.
One level of Binder lets you take 10 on Diplomacy and use it as a standard action. That takes a lot of the guess work and randomness out of things, and gets rid of the -10 penalty most people have to take to do that.
Diplomacy is also a very easy skill to optimize. You can get a +13 just from being a half-elf, taking a two feats, and putting 5 ranks each in three skills. And we haven't gotten into a lot of the more powerful things, like dipping into Marshall, magic items and spells, etc. So we can hit quite high DCs if we optimize around it, even at moderate levels.
So even if the DM is arbitrarily adding +20 to any diplomacy DCs he doesn't want us to make, we still might make them at the mid to upper levels. I will also add that I think it is very unfair for a DM to just "nerf" things on the fly like this, especially if the player doesn't expect this kind of thing beforehand. This does lead to my next point though.
I agree that in real games, diplomacy is probably hardly ever "broken", because most DMs will not allow it to work as written, at least all the time. This isn't something that can be discussed very easily when talking about "builds", though, because not all DMs are the same. Unless we're helping someone build a specific character for a specific game, the only common ground we have to stand on when discussing building characters are the rules as written. The effects of diplomacy are fuzzy enough that even making a successful check can have a wide variety of effects within the rules, which does not lend itself to discussions on here very well. So all you hear about is what could happen, according to a (favorable) literal interpretation of the RAW. What really happens in games is almost certainly going to be less spectacular than that.
I'm playing a binder with some focus on diplomacy in a game right now, and I made sure to discuss with the DM just how powerful (or weak) the skill would be in his game. I would highly recommend anyone thinking of optimizing a character around this skill to do the same before even starting to make their character. Otherwise, you can easily wind up with injured feelings on either, or both, sides. This particular DM said that it will be useful in many situations, but you're not going to solve every problem with it. For example, you might get a hungry troll to stop and chat with you for a few minutes, but ultimately his stomach is probably going to win over any arguments you might have against him eating you, even if he does like you. That's just the way things are. He's a hungry troll, and you're a tasty morsel.
I'd also suggest not making diplomacy the only thing your character can do, but then again I'd advise against ever playing a one-trick pony. They are too easy to counter, and often you either destroy encounters or are left being useless, and not much in between. This is especially true for diplomancers.
I'm playing a binder with some focus on diplomacy in a game right now, and I made sure to discuss with the DM just how powerful (or weak) the skill would be in his game. I would highly recommend anyone thinking of optimizing a character around this skill to do the same before even starting to make their character. Otherwise, you can easily wind up with injured feelings on either, or both, sides. This particular DM said that it will be useful in many situations, but you're not going to solve every problem with it. For example, you might get a hungry troll to stop and chat with you for a few minutes, but ultimately his stomach is probably going to win over any arguments you might have against him eating you, even if he does like you. That's just the way things are. He's a hungry troll, and you're a tasty morsel.
+1
It's not that diplomacy as written is necessarily bad*, it's that it can lead to some serious tension in a player base or between a player and a GM and that's far worse than birthing a theoretical pun-pun.
*My feeling is that it is very poorly written, and lends itself to little-shop-of-horrors-effects.
So even if the DM is arbitrarily adding +20 to any diplomacy DCs he doesn't want us to make, we still might make them at the mid to upper levels. I will also add that I think it is very unfair for a DM to just "nerf" things on the fly like this, especially if the player doesn't expect this kind of thing beforehand. This does lead to my next point though.
Here is where we run into problems. The DM's role is to make decisions about what the DCs and are and what modifiers to add. This isn't even a question, it's a statement of fact.
Practically impossible Tasks
Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more to the DC).
Practically impossible tasks are hard to delineate ahead of time. They’re the accomplishments that represent incredible, almost logic-defying skill and luck. Picking a lock by giving it a single, swift kick might entail a +20 modifier to the DC; swimming up a waterfall could require a Swim check against DC 80; and balancing on a fragile tree branch might have a DC of 90. [u]The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible.[/u] Characters with very high skill modifiers are capable of accomplishing incredible, almost unbelievable tasks, just as characters with very high combat bonuses are.
If the DM doesn't think Diplomacy will work, it doesn't. It does not matter how high the skill check is. Just because you don't agree with this, doesn't mean that using the RAW and RAI is nerfing the skill. That's smacks of player entitlement.
I agree that in real games, diplomacy is probably hardly ever "broken", because most DMs will not allow it to work as written, at least all the time. This isn't something that can be discussed very easily when talking about "builds", though, because not all DMs are the same. Unless we're helping someone build a specific character for a specific game, the only common ground we have to stand on when discussing building characters are the rules as written.
The first 2 points are in fact RAW. Hence, the page numbers and references, and a fantastic point to stand on when discussing such builds, especially when discussing where they stand in relation to making the needed checks and what those checks may be, of if they even can make those checks.
So all you hear about is what could happen, according to a (favorable) literal interpretation of the RAW. What really happens in games is almost certainly going to be less spectacular than that.
Except that what could happen is often completely wrong by the RAW.
Changing gods into your fanatical followers? Wrong.
Being able to end any fight instantly with a single check? Wrong.
DCs being set and always low? Wrong.
Diplomacy always has a chance? Wrong.
Diplomacy works on everything? Wrong.
Yes but those are house rules. House rules which I definitely approve of and think are great. Here's your asbestos suit, I'm outta this thread. Phaedrus is a good and reasonable dude, you could not hope for a better debating partner.
*sighs* Those are not house rules. They're printed in the book.
I can pull out any book, and show them to you. You might claim that the specific values are house rules, but we still have upper and lower bounds on them, and clear times when the skill does and does not work. To say that every game is exactly the same and that the DM is never forced to set DCs is misguided at best and idiocy at worst.
If you call the DM saying that a skill does not work for a situation a house rule; it's stated in black and white in the book to make that exact call by the DM. How that RAW is a house rule I have no idea.
It's not a house rule, it's... :: thinking, gesturing at the air :: It's a reasonable thing, yeah. Like, yes, I'm almost exclusively a GM, so I tend to make rulings like that regularly. The base effect, however, is laid out pretty cleanly. Viability of it is up to the GM, which means that while it's not a house-rule persay, it's as we coders would say, implementation specific.
This, to me, is only another indication that the skill is broken-as-written. If it requires serious and careful adjudication of the GM just to make a core portion of the system viable for steady and casual play, then it's not done right or it shouldn't have rules at all. I don't, mind you, mean brokenly powerful. I mean broken as in unplayable out of the box, or unsuitable for beginning game-masters for who the rules still look like rules.
I've seen it happen a number of times, and really cause some upset. I think our perspectives may be different.
This is the set of rules that I use, and it corresponds to the OGL content in the core set of books. There's no mention of a variation in there.
Actually there is. It is noted in your own link that the DCs are only the basic DCs in the very first line of the skill.
Epic limitations are listed, and while the actual -20 penalty for the practically impossible tasks isn't listed in explicit form in the document, a search for "practically impossible" shows that it does still exist.
I presume that the actual text differs, but for the most part, the OGL content is considered to be the definitive set of rules, as it defines the SRD. I'm not trying to be derogatory at all, but I actually don't own the PHB, so you really :: laughing :: would need to pull the book out and show me.
An advantage of owning the books rather than the stripped down version I would say.
This, to me, is only another indication that the skill is broken-as-written. If it requires serious and careful adjudication of the GM just to make a core portion of the system viable for steady and casual play, then it's not done right or it shouldn't have rules at all. I don't, mind you, mean brokenly powerful. I mean broken as in unplayable out of the box, or unsuitable for beginning game-masters for who the rules still look like rules.
How is it broken for would be game masters? Are they incapable of saying "no that doesn't work." and not allowed to? Are the unable to modify the DC? Is there something about a DC35 check that is unwieldy 'out of the box' for novice DMs and players? What is the maximum Diplomacy DC you can get using just the SRD?
Saying that the DM making a decision is what makes something broken is a path that you wouldn't want to purse at all.
How is it broken for would be game masters? Are they incapable of saying "no that doesn't work." and not allowed to? Are the unable to modify the DC? Is there something about a DC35 check that is unwieldy 'out of the box' for novice DMs and players?
Saying that the DM making a decision is what makes something broken is a path that you wouldn't want to purse at all.
Mabye that is not a good path to go down but you just said it would require a house rule. The DM can modify the check but rules have been laid down as to how far they can modify it. These rules can at mose increase it to +30 while several builds I have seen clear the fanatic dc by at least that much. As for not allowing it/not allowing it to work on certain individuals this is just further evidence for the brokeness of the system as it needs a house rule.
Mabye that is not a good path to go down but you just said it would require a house rule.
No, I specially pointed out that it doesn't take house rules. That's pretty much been my whole point this entire time. Diplomacy in normal play is fine as is with the rules as written in the book, that was kind of the point of providing specific page number references.
The DM can modify the check but rules have been laid down as to how far they can modify it. These rules can at mose increase it to +30 while several builds I have seen clear the fanatic dc by at least that much. As for not allowing it/not allowing it to work on certain individuals this is just further evidence for the brokeness of the system as it needs a house rule.
Again, not a house rule. Saying 'that's impossible' is not a house rule. If you think it is, you clearly have not been reading or understanding what has been said. It is in print in the rule books.
In 2004 when the Diplomacy first started to reared it's head, a DC 80 check wasn't even a 50% success rate before level 15. And while yes, some builds, that use 8+ books and some optional rules and dragon magazines have gotten to 130+ results (which doesn't mean anything as -any- skill can be gotten to into the thousands or millions), doesn't show any inherent flaws with Diplomacy.
I've only been using what is printed in the books (RAW and I dare say RAI) for my first 2 points.
I can get a +300~ with just one additional book. It's called Eberron Campaign setting, it sees a lot of play. ;) This is without a rules hack.
I keep sounding like a dick?! Whyyyy?
---------
On the other hand, leaving the very viability of the test in the hands of the GM is one of the best options. The issue is that here is a player who's built his toon around doing a thing. He likes doing a thing! Will you deny him that thing, knowing that he is a good dude and probably a close friend?
The best bet, I think, is a strong player-GM rapport, and a set of house-rules and gentleman's agreements about the scope of diplomancy.
I can get a +120 to a skill in core only.
Higher than I recall. Could you post a build, or link? I would be interested in seeing how.
On the other hand, leaving the very viability of the test in the hands of the GM is one of the best options. The issue is that here is a player who's built his toon around doing a thing. He likes doing a thing! Will you deny him that thing, knowing that he is a good dude and probably a close friend?
It's not a you can't ever use it thing, I'm not advocating that in the least. What I am advocating is that using diplomacy is not the instant win everyone thinks it is, and that for the absurdly high checks, the DM can always say no, and do legitimately with the rules backing him up.
The best bet, I think, is a strong player-GM rapport, and a set of house-rules and gentleman's agreements about the scope of diplomancy.
The best bet is a strong GM-player rapport. Anything else is unneeded. ;)
Those guys can definitely talk their way out of a troll's lair, or convince Gods to listen to them, all arguably in the same high-fantasy genre that most campaign settings are built in. Look up some of those Gods, or the Gods with similar flavors. Very few have skill checks higher than +80, even in their 'chosen areas'. One must assume, then, that skill checks of DC +100 are 'the kinds of things that challenge gods'... so if my character can make those checks...
One problem with the skill system in general (diplomacy being a big case example), at least for me, is the variability in skill levels possible. Lets take a farmer... who farms his whole life... is probably a level 2 commoner with skill focus and garbage stats... maybe a masterwork quality farm tool worth most of his net value. He has a skill check of +12 or so, with maybe... a dozen farm hands helping him out (aiding another), maxing out at about +20.
Joe the adventure is a Cleric... he could burn all his other feats for all he cares and still be functional at his job. Although not optimal, Joe decides that he will take a bunch of stuff to help his farming check... he never farms, but whatever. Good for a laugh.
He optimized a bit and gets a +100 skill check. He is while doing it as a side hobby to his adventuring career, a 5X better farmer alone than a well organized farm house is... and probably a better farmer than a God of agriculture.
We can say 'impossible' all we like, but most precedent in the game says 'impossible really means a very high skill DC' as far as skills are concerned (just look at some of the ridiculous stuff some epic skills can do... squeeze through the gaps in a wall of force my #*@)... and with the gross variability of skill levels, that means no matter how hard... somewhere someone will be able to do it easily and consistently.
We can say 'impossible' all we like, but most precedent in the game says 'impossible really means a very high skill DC' as far as skills are concerned (just look at some of the ridiculous stuff some epic skills can do... squeeze through the gaps in a wall of force my #*@)... and with the gross variability of skill levels, that means no matter how hard... somewhere someone will be able to do it easily and consistently.
No, practically impossible and impossible are very different things, and the PHB notes this. It specifically notes this. Once again, because I love to repeat myself:
Practically impossible Tasks
Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more to the DC).
Practically impossible tasks are hard to delineate ahead of time. They’re the accomplishments that represent incredible, almost logic-defying skill and luck. Picking a lock by giving it a single, swift kick might entail a +20 modifier to the DC; swimming up a waterfall could require a Swim check against DC 80; and balancing on a fragile tree branch might have a DC of 90. [u]The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible.[/u] Characters with very high skill modifiers are capable of accomplishing incredible, almost unbelievable tasks, just as characters with very high combat bonuses are.
It is impossible to use swim to swim through the air as if flying.
it is impossible to intimidate a standard stone golem.
It is impossible to use wilderness lore to talk to a tree.
It is impossible to use diplomacy on the Tarrasque.
We say impossible because there are things that it is impossible to do, no matter how good your skill check.
Also, that enters the realm of DM Fiat. Too many interesting things are DM fiat.
And I thought 3e was supposed to get rid of making the DM come up with rules as he went along. It's better than 2e, sure, but not quite up to snuff. Too many things specifically say: "Ask your DM" without offering adivce on how DM should rule. Of course the choice is up to the DM, that's what much of the DMG says, why do you need to keep saying that!
Why can't we Diplomacy the Tarrasque? It has 3 Int, after all.
Also, that enters the realm of DM Fiat. Too many interesting things are DM fiat.
And I thought 3e was supposed to get rid of making the DM come up with rules as he went along. It's better than 2e, sure, but not quite up to snuff. Too many things specifically say: "Ask your DM" without offering adivce on how DM should rule. Of course the choice is up to the DM, that's what much of the DMG says, why do you need to keep saying that!
Pretty much. This is why I say Diplomacy is a bad mechanic. Most of the 3.X rules are fairly explicit on how they work. This mechanic seems like something out of a crappy White Wolf game. Yeah, maybe it isn't "broken", but it certainly isn't up to par with how most of the rest of the game works.
Previn, I agree with your basic sentiment that as-written Diplomacy isn't as broken as a lot of CO board members often say it is, simply because most DMs don't just use the given DCs for a situation - they add situational modifiers or have a successful check only mitigate or delay the challenge.
That said, handling a runaway diplomancer is a tough challenge for a novice DM, almost as difficult as dealing with an optimized wizard in a party full of core-only monks. It would be nice if the system in place were cleaner and easier to use -> something as simple as a chart ala the Tracking feat that lists a few dozen possible (mostly negative) modifiers, and a list of possible diplomacy attempts and the results they could have.
Why can't we Diplomacy the Tarrasque? It has 3 Int, after all.
Also, that enters the realm of DM Fiat. Too many interesting things are DM fiat.
Not DM fiat nor a house rule. Diplomacy specifically does not work on magical beasts or animals as per RAW (one of the things I pointed out originally). The Tarrasque is a magical beast. It instead requires Wild Empathy.
Pretty much. This is why I say Diplomacy is a bad mechanic. Most of the 3.X rules are fairly explicit on how they work. This mechanic seems like something out of a crappy White Wolf game. Yeah, maybe it isn't "broken", but it certainly isn't up to par with how most of the rest of the game works.
This I would agree with, having the DM to judge and implement I think is both the weakest and strongest part of the skill.
That said, handling a runaway diplomancer is a tough challenge for a novice DM, almost as difficult as dealing with an optimized wizard in a party full of core-only monks. It would be nice if the system in place were cleaner and easier to use -> something as simple as a chart ala the Tracking feat that lists a few dozen possible (mostly negative) modifiers, and a list of possible diplomacy attempts and the results they could have.
I agree whole heartedly.
Not DM fiat nor a house rule. Diplomacy specifically does not work on magical beasts or animals as per RAW (one of the things I pointed out originally). The Tarrasque is a magical beast. It instead requires Wild Empathy.
Forgot about the whole Magical Beast clause. Ignore me and my tired ramblings.
But only when I'm wrong. When I'm a genius, pay attention, would ya? :D
To be fair, this is also partially a result of trying to impose d20 results on what should be a primarily RP moment.
Bah, how good your character is at talking someone into something, or convincing someone to like you should *not* be impacted by how good you yourself are at it. Just like a being a martial artist in real life doesn't give any impact on the in game mechanics, neither should being a smooth talker in real life have any impact on the dice rolls. "Primarily a RP moment..." the player can say what he wants, but the rules and dice determine how well the *PC* says it. Just because a martial artist can perform the perfect take down every time, doesn't mean his PC can. And just because an excellent talker can convince anyone of anything all the time doesn't mean his PC can. We can role play in combat all we like, but in the end, the result is determined by the dice. The same goes for social situations.
[/pet peeve]
Edit: the above of course also goes for how bad you are at something personally. Talking or fighting.
Bah, how good your character is at talking someone into something, or convincing someone to like you should *not* be impacted by how good you yourself are at it.
+1
If you want your DM to be "fair" then you need to be considerate of his game balance in what you bring to the table and/or consult him privately before pushing that limit.
That said... I have a rule.
Each character can go infinite once. Just once. Have you seen Hero? I think it is a lovely film, a really superb articulation of what I think of when I think heroic adventure.
Would you tell me that you would be upset if your game played out like that?
Because mine do. Infinite once. Break the game once. After that, maybe you die, maybe you attract terrible attention, maybe you ascend. It's a well known rule at my table though, and players understand that they must husband their resources carefully.