# Diplomacy +23 at 3rd level??? Help, my player must be wrong!!!



## Emirikol (Sep 16, 2004)

Help, we've got a player who dun' git' himself a Diplomacy skill of +23 for a 3rd level without magic items:

    * 6 ranks
    * 5 ranks in each of Bluff, Knowledge (nobility) and Sense Motive gives +2 synergy each - +6
    * Half-elf gives +2
    * Negotiator feat gives +2
    * Charisma 18 gives +4
    * Skill Focus feat gives +3


Are there any stacking limitation errors here?

jh


----------



## kerakus (Sep 16, 2004)

Taking a gander at my PHB, it seems perfectly legit to me.  Wow.

Q


----------



## BSF (Sep 16, 2004)

It's correct by my understanding.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 16, 2004)

All I can say to that is wow.

The ONLY way I could see this not working is if Synergy bonuses didn't stack...


----------



## Crothian (Sep 16, 2004)

While it works, its really not as gamebreaking as one might think.


----------



## Henry (Sep 16, 2004)

Yup. Dead Straight. All unnamed bonuses, so they stack.

However, it's not much different from the guy who makes a 20 STR 1st level half-orc barbarian, who has a +8 to hit when raging, and doing 1d12 +10 damage with his greataxe. It's maxxed out to the frame.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a curb to such monumental bonuses, you can house-rule that the skill synergy bonuses are named - circumstance bonuses or the like. Do that, and he drops about 4 to 6 points. On the other hand, it takes TEN ROUNDS of talking to change someone's reaction, so it's not that unbalanced. If the enemy is attacking you, most combats are done and over with in one minute anyway.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 16, 2004)

With help from the BoED, you can get higher... +29 on level 3 is possible.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Sep 16, 2004)

If the character is a bard, then there's nothing wrong with it...

:\

AR


----------



## Greybar (Sep 16, 2004)

Hey, the player has focused the character to the max.

I hope your game has good intrigue and social plots so that he can make good use of all of that, and it wasn't just a "hah, look what I can do!"

john


----------



## nhl_1997 (Sep 16, 2004)

It certainly seems like your player is correct.  There are many options to keep in mind, however.  Points 1 and 5 are the ones I recommend.

1) Do your best to adjucate the diplomacy skill "correctly" (or at least consistently.)  In order to use the skill, the opposing party or parties must be willing to at least listen.  If someone simply attacks on sight, diplomacy won't have any use.  I'm not saying that you've adjucated the skill in that fashion, but I've seen GMs give diplomacy too much power.

2) I would recommend against this since your player is obviously attempting to make his or her character a skilled diplomat, but per page 66 of the PHB, "Your DM may limit certain synergies if desired."

3) I doubt this argument is valid.  Even if it is, I would not recommend it for the same reason as above.  Do synergy bonuses grant "synergy bonuses" or "unnamed bonuses."  If they grant synergy bonuses, then they should not stack.  However, from my understanding, the bonuses are unnamed (and stack).

4) Reading the Diplomacy description to the letter:
*Synergy:* If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

Since this is one statement instead of three separate statements (according to grammar rules), you only get one +2 bonus.  However, if everyone starts looking at the grammar of the core rule books, the game is pretty much unplayable (thus, this argument is even worse than the one made above.)

5) Is this breaking your game?  If it is, work with the player to allievate the problem.  If it isn't, let the player have fun.


----------



## Boss (Sep 16, 2004)

I couldn't find anything on synergies stacking, but I did find the following (PHB, pg. 66) "Your DM may limit certain synergies if desired, or he may add more synergies for specific situations."

Other than that little caveat, looks like your player did a great job finding all the bonuses he could.

Personally, I would limit him to one synergy bonus according to the situation.  It is unlikely that both a Bluff and Sense Motive Synergy would work at the same time.  And when you are dealing with peasants about to revolt, Knowledge (Nobility) doesn't do much.

Just my 1/4 cent.


----------



## Vlos (Sep 16, 2004)

As Boss stated some synergy bonuses may not be appropriate at all times, but probably can be used.

For example I sense motive of the pesants why they are about to revolt, then using my knowledge of Nobles I bluff my way through telling them not to revolt because the nobles would react this way or that way? or maybe not even care, etc.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 16, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it takes TEN ROUNDS of talking to change someone's reaction, so it's not that unbalanced. If the enemy is attacking you, most combats are done and over with in one minute anyway.




Don't forget the little rule at the top of p72 in the PHB - you can "rush diplomacy" e.g. to head off a fight as a full round action with a -10 penalty.



Emirikol, although it seems really bad at the moment, it doesn't get much worse - there are no other synergies of feats to get which will boost it beyond the 1 rank per level and any boost from attribute increases or items.

I speak from experience because I have a Twilek noble in a Star Wars campaign were I did basically the same thing. It was great fun, and not unbalancing at all (especially considering all the feats which were used for that rather than for some kind of combat)

Cheers


----------



## rkanodia (Sep 16, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Don't forget the little rule at the top of p72 in the PHB - you can "rush diplomacy" e.g. to head off a fight as a full round action with a -10 penalty.



Wow.  And the character can still do it on a 7 or better.  By level 9, he'll never fail!  Static diplomacy DCs = ba-roken?


----------



## Henry (Sep 16, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Don't forget the little rule at the top of p72 in the PHB - you can "rush diplomacy" e.g. to head off a fight as a full round action with a -10 penalty.




Oh, I know, but a +13 bonus is MUCH easier to deal with than a +23.  You don't start influencing reactions to friendly until 30, I believe, and having to roll a 17 makes 'em sweat a little. Of course, at least as long as he can push them to indifferent, it's cool.


----------



## Flynn (Sep 16, 2004)

It looks legit to me. As for my thoughts on the matter, I'd say that, in a well-rounded campaign where a variety of encounter types occur, there will be points where the Diplomat will shine, and there will be points where diplomacy will be ineffective, and the weakness of being specialized in only one area will shine.

Given that diplomacy probably doesn't dictate reactions to creatures that are immune to mind-affecting powers OR are too stupid to do anything but react, such things as oozes, constructs and possibly even undead will remain undeterred by the extreme knowledge this character has in diplomacy.

As a DM, I would make sure to write in at least one encounter where the diplomacy would be effective, and one encounter where it would not, into each adventure. That way, the PC gets his moment in the sun, and then there will be points where the other characters can shine on their own.

All that for just two coppers,
Flynn


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Sep 16, 2004)

Um, he is a Half Elf & has used 2 feats. This character outside of diplomacy is going to bite big time.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 16, 2004)

Diplomacy isn't a non-magical _dominate_ spell.  It doesn't turn everyone who atttacks you into your bestest friend.  If an NPC has no reason to be diplomatic (hired to kill the PCs, for instance) he isn't suddenly going to turn into your PC's lapdog.  I'd let the bonus stand.  This PC has already burned 2 feats to jack up that diplomacy bonus, which is only situationally useful.


----------



## Scion (Sep 16, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> he is a Half Elf & has used 2 feats.




And 21 skill points. And put an 18 int cha.

Really, how many resources does one have to spend before they deserve to be good at something??


----------



## adwyn (Sep 16, 2004)

Use the same modifiers as Bluff has for believability, and establish circumstance bonuses for certain stuations/occupations.


----------



## Christian (Sep 16, 2004)

Or, find a good house rule.


----------



## rowport (Sep 16, 2004)

The key, as others have posted, is that this character is a very, very effective diplomat, but (relatively) weak at other skills, combat, etc.  This is inherently balanced, and IMO less game-breaking than a similarly focused combat machine.  There is no problem here.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 17, 2004)

A good rule of thumb which I use to adjudicate Diplomacy is to ask yourself what requests you would agree to from a random stranger off the street (Indifferent), an ordinary friend (Friendly), and a close companion (Helpful). Diplomacy is not _dominate person_. It doesn't make everyone the character meets into mindless automatons.

If you asked a guard to let you see what he's guarding, an Indifferent guard might tell you to push off, a Friendly guard might turn you down nicely, and a Helpful guard might bring the matter to his superior. Using diplomacy to get the BBEG to give up his grand plan is probably useless, especially if he places no value on friendship.

When there is a character who is good at diplomacy, the DM should plan ahead and decide how creatures and NPCs will react, and what help (if any) they will give at various reaction levels. The character should get some value from his investment in the skill, but it doesn't always have to go his way.


----------



## Wonred (Sep 17, 2004)

It sure doesn't look like your player needs help or correction, they seem to have a great handle on properly min/maxing a character. Way to squeeze every last bonus out of a character! Their choice of skills to min/max was encouraging too. How many DM's have any player in their group with competent ranks in Diplomacy? The player may be min/maxing, but at least it's a skill they can roleplay with. 

I would be very interested in seeing this character after a few more levels have been gained, if the poor bastard can sweet talk himself into surviving.


----------



## JBowtie (Sep 17, 2004)

I had a similar player once. She was playing a Courtier (from Rokugan) and had a similar bonus at level 2.

So I sent them to the local lizardman tribe to negotiate with their leader. Thanks to the horror/terror rules from Ravenloft, they were quite disturbed to discover the tribal queen was a dragon. Several characters developed mental problems as a result.

So this second-level character talked an old green dragon out of eating the party. (Mind you, the dragon wasn't really hungry, and had a streak of vanity a mile wide...). 

That's how you give a character like this a chance to shine. And make the player curse their decision to min/max to such a degree (since there was a fair amount of sweating going on during the Diplomacy checks).


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2004)

I hope this guy is, or can get to be, a Marshal. That would just be incredible


----------



## fujaiwei (Sep 17, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> I hope this guy is, or can get to be, a Marshal. That would just be incredible



What's that?


----------



## Romnipotent (Sep 17, 2004)

If they were a Marshal it would be higher, and if they were in forgotten realms it would be a little lower. 

Marshal is a class in the Miniatures handbook, they have Auras that use there CHA mod to certain things, such as:
Dexterity checks, like balance and initiative
Damage while flanking
Charisma based checks like diplomacy and bluff
*Marshals also get Skill Focus (Diplomacy) for free, leaving room for a free feat

In Forgotten realms the feat Smooth Talker (regional) allows you to perform a diplomatic action as a full round action at a -5 penalty, not the normal -10. Diplomacy is WEAK,  since the opponent must be willing to listen. If they dont want to or cant hear the skill is useless.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 17, 2004)

First of all, count yourself lucky.  Many DMs would love to ever see a PC that is minmaxxed for something other than average damage per round.

Second of all, it is not imbalanced.  Lots of precious resources have been spent.

Third of all, Diplomacy is not mind control and will not erase the strong motivations of an NPC.  As I see it, a Friendly NPC is always open to suggestions that can change a conflict to a "win-win" solution, and may even make obvious suggestions of his own.  But that does not mean the NPC would be willing to abandon his goals or duties in general.

"I feel you are the rare kind of man who can understand me.  I attack the town because I need the human sacrifices for my experiments.  Is there a different source of subjects you can suggest?  No?  I think there is no more to discuss.  You and your friends may part in peace.  If you further interfere, I will destroy you."


----------



## Dog Moon (Sep 17, 2004)

*Be Glad It's Not Bluff*

As the title says, be glad it's not bluff.  Bluff is a buff skill.  Even at level 7, one of my player's can Bluff another into believing stupid crap, even with bonuses to the Bluffed for stuff he/she wouldn't normally believe.  It is a _very _ useful skill, even more useful than Diplomacy, and not just for Rogues either.  It isn't as situational as Diplomacy and can even be used in battle.  Heh.  Well, I guess there's my little bit of ranting for the day.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 17, 2004)

Dog_Moon2003 said:
			
		

> Bluff is a buff skill.  Even at level 7, one of my player's can Bluff another into believing stupid crap, even with bonuses to the Bluffed for stuff he/she wouldn't normally believe.



PCs can't use Bluff against each other.  The player always decides what his character believes.


----------



## CapnZapp (Sep 17, 2004)

nhl_1997 said:
			
		

> 4) Reading the Diplomacy description to the letter:
> *Synergy:* If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
> 
> Since this is one statement instead of three separate statements (according to grammar rules), you only get one +2 bonus.  However, if everyone starts looking at the grammar of the core rule books, the game is pretty much unplayable (thus, this argument is even worse than the one made above.)



This argument doesn't hold water. Look at the descriptions of each of the three skills:

_If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sleight of Hand checks, as well as on Disguise checks made when you know you’re being observed and you try to act in character._
_If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty), you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks. _
_If you have 5 or more ranks in Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks._

The rules clearly give a unnamed bonus for each of these synergies: you get three bonuses that clearly stack.

So you don't need to involve grammar to say that the example character get +6.


----------



## buchw001 (Sep 17, 2004)

As nhl_1997 pointed out, *Synergy:* If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

Based on this I would have to say the answer to your question is yes.  Your player is wrong because of the "OR" in the sentence.  However, it is only by a few points.  

As others have also pointed out, I think you should be happy if the player is role playing these numbers.  I personally would love to see some one use up some crucial stats and feats for something like this, as long as they played the character accordingly.




			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> PCs can't use Bluff against each other.  The player always decides what his character believes.




Is this a rule?


----------



## buchw001 (Sep 17, 2004)

Sorry CapnZapp must have been posting at the same time I was.

In any case, I would like to change my position to UNDECIDED based upon his/her post.

Since each skill is listed as giving the +2 bonus, I would say there is a clear conflict in these two rules statements.

However, I am leaning to the fact that the stacking should be allowed and the synergy discription should read:
"Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus _*for each * _ on Diplomacy checks.

_*empahsis mine*_


----------



## BSF (Sep 17, 2004)

I play a high CHA, strong Diplomacy character.  Big deal.  Sure my character can make most people friendly towards him.  It's a matter of getting them to listen.  That friendliness is wonderful, but it hardly does anything beyond greasing the wheels.  It isn't mind control.  It gives him a strong bargaining position.  It helps pry out a little more slack and maybe even advice, but it doesn't force an NPC to suddenly kowtow to the PC.  You are just changing attitudes.  

If a person you considered to be a good friend suddenly needed you to co-sign on a loan for a new corvette, would you do it?  Well, you might.  But you would probably consider things like your friends driving history and your opinion on how well he handles finances.  You probably would not acquiese to your friends desire for a spiffy new car just beause you are friends.  

So the PC with a +23 to Diplomacy at 1st level is very likable.  That's really all it is.  If the player is thinking that Diplomacy is some sort of charm/domination ability, then you should speak with the player about that assumption.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Sep 17, 2004)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> Wow.  And the character can still do it on a 7 or better.  By level 9, he'll never fail!  Static diplomacy DCs = ba-roken?




He'll never fail, except against opponents who don't speak the language he's trying, or who are deaf, or are under some external mental control, or who (like an awful lot of monsters in an awful lot of adventures) don't have the intellect to communicate in the first place.  Probably other stuff I didn't even think of off the top of my head.

I don't see the problem.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 17, 2004)

buchw001 said:
			
		

> > PCs can't use Bluff against each other. The player always decides what his character believes.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a rule?




No, it's metagaming.


----------



## nhl_1997 (Sep 17, 2004)

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> This argument doesn't hold water. Look at the descriptions of each of the three skills:
> 
> _If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sleight of Hand checks, as well as on Disguise checks made when you know you’re being observed and you try to act in character._
> _If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nobility and royalty), you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks. _
> ...




I agree.  At least two of the options I presented (and maybe three of them) are feeble attempts at best.  However, as others have pointed out, it's up to the GM to determine in what situations synergy bonuses apply.  The answer to that should be "almost always," but not always.

The fifth point I made is the most relevant.  Does this break the game?  In my opinion, if the diplomacy skill is handled carefully (and consistently,) then it shouldn't break the game.  If however, it is breaking the game, work with the player to resolve the issue.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 17, 2004)

Christian said:
			
		

> Or, find a good house rule.



I want to second this:  I think it's a fantastic reworking of the skill.

Briefly, it does the following things:
* Considers all diplomacy checks to constitute "deals" that the character is offering to another character;
* Takes into consideration the value of the deal that the diplomatic character is offering
* Takes into consideration the attitude the audience has toward the diplomat
* Takes into consideration the power level of the audience; and
* Takes into consideration the wisdom of either the audience, or of the audience's advisor.

Although there are numbers attached to all these things, it's very easy to wing the system, and it makes it so that you can never have "too much" diplomacy; instead, a higher diplomacy allows you to get increasingly powerful, increasingly wise, and increasingly hostile characters to agree to deals that are increasingly favorable to you.

Daniel


----------



## Dog Moon (Sep 17, 2004)

*My bad.*



> Originally posted by *Lord Pendragon*:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Dog_Moon2003
> Bluff is a buff skill. Even at level 7, one of my player's can Bluff another into believing stupid crap, even with bonuses to the Bluffed for stuff he/she wouldn't normally believe.
> ...




Ah.  Oops.  I meant to say 'can Bluff another PERSON into believing stupid crap.'  Guess missing that one word changed the meaning a bit.  My bad.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 17, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Help, we've got a player who dun' git' himself a Diplomacy skill of +23 for a 3rd level without magic items:
> 
> * 6 ranks
> * 5 ranks in each of Bluff, Knowledge (nobility) and Sense Motive gives +2 synergy each - +6
> ...




Does the Negotiator Feat give any other benefit other than +2 to Diplomacy?  If not, it is essentially the same thing as Skill Focus (but for only +2) and I don't think they should stack.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 17, 2004)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Does the Negotiator Feat give any other benefit other than +2 to Diplomacy?  If not, it is essentially the same thing as Skill Focus (but for only +2) and I don't think they should stack.




Well...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *NEGOTIATOR [GENERAL]*
> Benefit:[/i] You get a +2 bonus on all Diplomacy checks and Sense Motive checks.




...and...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *SKILL FOCUS [GENERAL]*
> Choose a skill.
> _Benefit:_ You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill.
> _Special:_ You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.




Notice how they are both unnamed bonuses?

Therefore, they stack.  Also, it would seem pretty silly if they didn't...


----------



## Nail (Sep 17, 2004)

As many others have said: "Don't worry about it."

It is crucial, however, to talk with the player about everyone's expectations.  Diplomacy (much like illusion magic) is highly dependent on the DMs style.

On another note: Boy-howdy, would this guy make a great Thaumaturgist.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 17, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Although there are numbers attached to all these things, it's very easy to wing the system, and it makes it so that you can never have "too much" diplomacy; instead, a higher diplomacy allows you to get increasingly powerful, increasingly wise, and increasingly hostile characters to agree to deals that are increasingly favorable to you.




The house rules you linked include someinteresting ideas, but they basically break the skill system in a very ugly way.  

The fundamental problem is that the rules scale poorly and thereby make Diplomacy an absolutely useless skill at higher levels unless you have max ranks.  If you have only a handful of ranks of Diplomacy to round out your PC and travel in the company of high HD NPCs, you need to roll high to buy a drink at the bar or convince your lover to give you the time of day.  Literally.


----------



## scholz (Sep 17, 2004)

I have three words.
 "Other Party Members"
Just keep this character around the other player characters and they will do what you need to keep this character from getting out of a control. If super diplomat uses his stellar ability to make friends of the local orcs, let the other party members say something and odds are that will undo all the diplomacy. 
In my experience at least one player will be hostile, cajoling, threatening, cruel, untrusting, opportunistic, or unfair with regard for the npcs.
This tends to work for charms as well.


----------



## Talon5 (Sep 17, 2004)

My God!  Why?  Why would you want diplomacy that high?  I mean- my God, why?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 17, 2004)

Talon5 said:
			
		

> My God!  Why?  Why would you want diplomacy that high?  I mean- my God, why?




Because, occasionally, it's *fun* to talk the dragon out of its scales.


----------



## rkanodia (Sep 17, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The house rules you linked include someinteresting ideas, but they basically break the skill system in a very ugly way.
> 
> The fundamental problem is that the rules scale poorly and thereby make Diplomacy an absolutely useless skill at higher levels unless you have max ranks.  If you have only a handful of ranks of Diplomacy to round out your PC and travel in the company of high HD NPCs, you need to roll high to buy a drink at the bar or convince your lover to give you the time of day.  Literally.



I took a look at those rules, and I think they work pretty well for cases where the deal is about something of substance and/or the PCs have an ulterior motive.  An argument can definitely be put forth that higher-level people should (generally) be harder to convince to agree to something; their time is more valuable than that of commoners, and the resources they commit to a plan will be more significant.

All sorts of skills break down when exposed to trivial cases.  If a DM is making people roll Diplomacy to buy a drink or get the time, then their PCs probably aren't thrilled when it takes them 1d4+1 hours to find out the Soup of the Day using Gather Information or when they can't get Rex the Dog to come over and accept a pat on the head because they don't have any ranks in Handle Animal.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 17, 2004)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> buchw001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it's a core rule.  I believe the relevent text is in the DMG under Adjusting NPC attitudes, if memory serves.  Skills like Diplomacy do not work when used by one PC on another.  The player always gets to decide how his character will react to any given statement (barring magic.)

So this 3rd-level super-diplomat can't use his Diplomacy skill to convince the rest of the party that they'd be better off if _he_ held on to all the magic items they find.  Or it'd be a good idea if _he_ rode the paladin's warhorse.  etc. etc.

This came up before in a thread where a PC sorceress was trying to use a high diplomacy score to basically make the party fighter into her personal servant.  RAW, it doesn't work.







			
				Dog_Moon2003 said:
			
		

> Ah. Oops. I meant to say 'can Bluff another PERSON into believing stupid crap.' Guess missing that one word changed the meaning a bit. My bad.



Np.   Just clarifying.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 18, 2004)

> On another note: Boy-howdy, would this guy make a great Thaumaturgist.



  Heh, the image I had was this guy being a sorcerer that focused on summoning and planar magics (would require tweaking the sorc class skill list a bit, but we'll ignore that for now).


Planar Binding, whistle up something huge and terrible, keep it bound and then go on to the negotiations stage of things...

Demon:  "Wait, wait.. let me see if I've got this right.  You want me to raze this city to the ground, grand temple and all, single handedly.  All at great personal risk to myself.  And in exchange, you'll give me a couple cans of Fresca, and an old leather hat."

Sorcerer:  "Yep.  That's the deal."

Demon:  "Well... alright.  You seem like an okay sort of guy.  I'm in."


----------



## Romnipotent (Sep 18, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> No, it's a core rule.  I believe the relevent text is in the DMG under Adjusting NPC attitudes, if memory serves.  Skills like Diplomacy do not work when used by one PC on another.  The player always gets to decide how his character will react to any given statement (barring magic.)
> 
> So this 3rd-level super-diplomat can't use his Diplomacy skill to convince the rest of the party that they'd be better off if _he_ held on to all the magic items they find.  Or it'd be a good idea if _he_ rode the paladin's warhorse.  etc. etc.
> 
> This came up before in a thread where a PC sorceress was trying to use a high diplomacy score to basically make the party fighter into her personal servant.  RAW, it doesn't work.Np.   Just clarifying.




We call this Roll Playing... not Role Playing. The best response to a roll is one of the following:

I assume by your current interest in my position you wish for me to follow you
ARGH! What is that THING? (points at the d20 the person just threw at them)
I see this as a political position, my free will, and will treat it as such, however i will roleplay against you, and the DM will award myself victor for simple efforts
yeah, so you can roll a dice, so can I. What is it you want?
I have a spork!
Please treat me as a party member not a tavern wench... ignore those ranks in profession (wenching)
*best ever* Narf?

The main reasons we respond like this is because we're there to interact, not throw dice around at each other... much. Outside of combat the dice can become pointless as a good set of roleplayers will dispatch of such modifiers and take care of things. We've even had the barbarian act as diplomat to a group of orcs... lucky we did too, he walked up and said some ego inflating things and we all got through without much effort; the barbarian wasn't too smart anyway, but it suited the character.
I may not be able to find an in-book reference where you cant, but I personally find it quite rude that you dont partake of effort with myself in a game.

-Romers


----------



## shilsen (Sep 18, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> No, it's a core rule.  I believe the relevent text is in the DMG under Adjusting NPC attitudes, if memory serves.  Skills like Diplomacy do not work when used by one PC on another.  The player always gets to decide how his character will react to any given statement (barring magic.)




Interestingly enough, that section only says that "NPCs can never influence PC attitudes" with a Diplomacy or Cha check and that the "players always make their characters' decisions." No reference to PCs using Diplomacy against other PCs. That being said, I agree with you that it shouldn't be possible.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 18, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, that section only says that "NPCs can never influence PC attitudes" with a Diplomacy or Cha check and that the "players always make their characters' decisions." No reference to PCs using Diplomacy against other PCs. That being said, I agree with you that it shouldn't be possible.



That's the part.  i.e. Regardless of Diplomacy rolls, "players always make their characters' decisions."  I wish I had the search feature, I'd pull up the previous thread that delved into this.  That thread was, conversely, a DM irritated that he couldn't use Bluff/Diplomacy on his PCs, when running NPCs, and then of course devolved from there. 

Basically, neither the DM nor another player can tell a player how his PC will react to a proposal, regardless of a +1000 Diplomacy roll.  And that's absolutely the way it should be.


Although my 9th-level bard would be more than happy if one of my current DMs ruled it the other way.  Hel-lo, Overlord of the PC group!


----------



## Sejs (Sep 18, 2004)

> Basically, neither the DM nor another player can tell a player how his PC will react to a proposal, regardless of a +1000 Diplomacy roll. And that's absolutely the way it should be.



  *nod* and it's a pretty easy rule to work with as a DM - you just make a couple rolls (or consult his handy-dandy list of pre-rolls so the dice don't tip the players off) comparing the NPCs appropriate social skill vs the PCs sense motive, and use that as a guideline on how to play the NPC out - should he come across as slick and believable, or stumbling and obviously up to something. 

For PC to PC interaction, however... yeah... not all that useful.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 18, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *nod* and it's a pretty easy rule to work with as a DM - you just make a couple rolls (or consult his handy-dandy list of pre-rolls so the dice don't tip the players off) comparing the NPCs appropriate social skill vs the PCs sense motive, and use that as a guideline on how to play the NPC out - should he come across as slick and believable, or stumbling and obviously up to something.
> 
> For PC to PC interaction, however... yeah... not all that useful.



 Good point. That's how I tend to run bluff and diplomacy for the NPCs vs. the PCs. If the NPCs lose, I'll roleplay them appropriately and 'slip up' on purpose. What's sad, however, is when an NPC is really obviously lying through his teeth and the PCs believe him anyway. Well, not _that_ sad


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 18, 2004)

I dislike the idea of my stats doing the wheeling and dealing for me. I at the game to play, not be played.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Sep 18, 2004)

I hope they get Rich Burlew to work on D&D 4th edition, since I really like his proposed changes to problematic rules.  He did a similar analysis and fix for polymorph.




			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I want to second this:  I think it's a fantastic reworking of the skill.
> 
> Briefly, it does the following things:
> * Considers all diplomacy checks to constitute "deals" that the character is offering to another character;
> ...


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 19, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Basically, neither the DM nor another player can tell a player how his PC will react to a proposal, regardless of a +1000 Diplomacy roll.  And that's absolutely the way it should be.




While I agree a player should never be forced, I would also expect good roleplayers to take another person's skills and stats in consideration when interacting.

If a party member has an uber charisma and diplomacy skill, then I would expect other players to at least listen to him when he offers a proposal. They could argue back of course, but at least be open to the ideas instead of just blowing them off.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 19, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The house rules you linked include someinteresting ideas, but they basically break the skill system in a very ugly way.
> 
> The fundamental problem is that the rules scale poorly and thereby make Diplomacy an absolutely useless skill at higher levels unless you have max ranks. If you have only a handful of ranks of Diplomacy to round out your PC and travel in the company of high HD NPCs, you need to roll high to buy a drink at the bar or convince your lover to give you the time of day. Literally.



Hmm...looking at them again...

Okay, I'm fifteenth level, and I'm going to ask my lover for the time of day.  She's also fifteenth level, and has an 18 wisdom.

This is a DC 34 check.  
The fact that she's an intimate is -10 on the check.
It may seem there's neither risk nor reward to her acceding to the request--but of course she knows that if she's rude to me, she's likely to lose my affection.  Assuming she likes me, I'd say this is a fantastic deal:  no risk whatsoever to her acquiescing, and significant benefit (my continued lovin'.)  Another -10 on the check.

This is a DC 14 request.

Granted, that might be a little too high--but I think that the general idea is good.  Frankly, I think that nobody in the history of the game has ever required a diplomacy check for getting your lover to give you the time of day; there's no reason why Burlew's rule would suddenly require such a check.

In any case where a reasonable person is going to go along with a deal, just have it happen.  You only make the diplomacy check when the NPC has a chance of not going along with the deal.

So, you make checks in the following situations:
-Get the librarian (whom you don't know) to allow you into the reserve stacks.
-Get the town guard to tell you whether anyone in a yellow cloak has been through the gate today.
-Get the ogres to agree to give you passage through their lands, in exchange for your not blasting them with a fireball.  (Take an intimidation bonus while you're at it--or just use the intimidate skill instead).
-Convince the cleric that your mission benefits their church, and that they should therefore hook you up with some hot healing action.

You don't make checks in the following situation:
-Get the librarian (whom you've worked with for years) to allow you into the reserve stacks, given that you've been using them for years.
-Get the town guard to tell you how to properly bind your weapons before entering town.
-Get the ogres to agree to give you passage, after you've paid them the toll they've been demanding on travelers.
-Convince the cleric to sell you holy water at the normal price.

Treated sensibly, I think this is a great system.

Daniel
-Convince the cobbler to trade you a pair of boots for your gold coins.
-


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 19, 2004)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I took a look at those rules, and I think they work pretty well for cases where the deal is about something of substance and/or the PCs have an ulterior motive.  An argument can definitely be put forth that higher-level people should (generally) be harder to convince to agree to something; their time is more valuable than that of commoners, and the resources they commit to a plan will be more significant.
> 
> All sorts of skills break down when exposed to trivial cases.  If a DM is making people roll Diplomacy to buy a drink or get the time, then their PCs probably aren't thrilled when it takes them 1d4+1 hours to find out the Soup of the Day using Gather Information or when they can't get Rex the Dog to come over and accept a pat on the head because they don't have any ranks in Handle Animal.




First of all, those house rules fail outright when applied to characters who are not more or less maxxed out in skill ranks.  The author has admitted as much.

Second of all, you are mistaken about the 3e skills breaking down so easily for two reasons.  The character can Take 10 and automatically succeed at trivial actions.  Truly trivial actions have DCs of 5 or less, usually much less, so failure will rarely occur even if you are forced to roll for some reason (and if circumstances are so extraordinary that a roll is require we are no longer dealing with a trivial case).


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 19, 2004)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> While I agree a player should never be forced, I would also expect good roleplayers to take another person's skills and stats in consideration when interacting.
> 
> If a party member has an uber charisma and diplomacy skill, then I would expect other players to at least listen to him when he offers a proposal. They could argue back of course, but at least be open to the ideas instead of just blowing them off.



Well, there I disagree with you.  Some people aren't open to diplomacy.  Just because a character is good at it doesn't mean _my_ character need be receptive to it.

I'd hope a good roleplayer would be consistent, not being swayed by some NPC but never by a fellow PC, but being unresponsive to Diplomacy is certainly a viable character trait.


----------



## rkanodia (Sep 19, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> First of all, those house rules fail outright when applied to characters who are not more or less maxxed out in skill ranks.  The author has admitted as much.
> 
> Second of all, you are mistaken about the 3e skills breaking down so easily for two reasons.  The character can Take 10 and automatically succeed at trivial actions.  Truly trivial actions have DCs of 5 or less, usually much less, so failure will rarely occur even if you are forced to roll for some reason (and if circumstances are so extraordinary that a roll is require we are no longer dealing with a trivial case).



I guess I see Duke Lord High Muckity-Muck, 16th level Sorceror, as being more or less unresponsive to the overtures of someone who is uncouth and unsophisticated in the arts of diplomacy and negotiation.  He's hard to impress.  His participation in a plan represents a large investment compared to that of a commoner.  My view is that, no matter how little risk and how much reward my offer entails, the big boys aren't going to want any part of it if I sound like a rube.  Your mileage (and expectations) may vary.

I see that I said 'all sorts of skills' would break down.  That was a poor chose of words.  I didn't mean to imply that _all_ skills break down when trivial cases occur.  I think that most skills handle trivial cases quite nicely.  For instance, if I say 'Use Rope is broken because it can stop me from tying my shoelaces,' then I'm dead wrong.  With an average Dex and no ranks in Use Rope, I can still take 10 (just as you said) and perfectly hit the DC for 'Tie a knot'.  If I'm under pressure, I might fumble it.  If I'm clumsy, I can't take 10, but I'll still get it if I try a few times.  Fits both my real-world experience and my gameplay expectations just perfectly.

But there are some skills that don't handle trivial cases very well.  Going by the SRD: even if you assign DC 0 to 'Find out the Soup of the Day', it still takes 1d4+1 hours using Gather Information.  Even if you assign DC 0 to 'Get Rex to come over for a pat on the head', a PC without any ranks in Handle Animal _can not_ make Rex come over, because they can't even attempt the check untrained.  Same thing with knowledge skills.  If you decide that knowing the name of the kingdom you live in requires a knowledge: local check (the SRD lists DC 10 for 'really easy questions', but making it 0 still wouldn't change anything), then the vast majority of people in your campaign world don't know it, because they don't have any skill ranks in knowledge: local.  Under the d20 rules as written, the only thing a sensible DM can do is to say that there are some situations which can't be reasonably mapped onto the skill system.

I agree that the house rules would fail in some cases that the SRD rules would hold up, such as your 'ask your lover for the time of day' example.  By the house rules, this could have a very high DC if your lover is, say, a high-level cleric.  By the SRD, the worst that could happen (assuming you have low Charisma, or are under a curse or something) is that the lover goes from 'Helpful' to 'Friendly' (maybe you asked rudely) and they still are willing to 'chat' and 'advise'.

The point of this long-winded monologue is to highlight the reasons I have for my opinion: I think that the house rules are worth looking at, because the increased value that they offer as compared to the SRD rules (in terms of accuracy of modeling character interactions, and in terms of providing a clear, unambiguous framework for PCs and DMs to use) is greater than the value that they take away by breaking some trivial cases.  I would rather say 'This trivial situation gets you a specific outcome without requiring a check, even though if I were to make you roll a check according to the literal rules, you'd probably fail it' (as I'll have to with the house rules) than say 'This serious situation is going to be resolved in a nonspecific way according to a set of modifiers that I'm choosing entirely by fiat, without any sort of guidelines' (as I currently have to do all the time with the SRD).

That being said, I haven't tried the house rules in actual gameplay yet.  I'll keep you posted when I find out how it goes.

Edit: And if'n ye be finding the house rules not ta yer likin, well then I be havin a short plank 'pon which yer welcome to be takin a long walk, landlubber!


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Sep 19, 2004)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> But there are some skills that don't handle trivial cases very well.  Going by the SRD: even if you assign DC 0 to 'Find out the Soup of the Day', it still takes 1d4+1 hours using Gather Information.  Even if you assign DC 0 to 'Get Rex to come over for a pat on the head', a PC without any ranks in Handle Animal _can not_ make Rex come over, because they can't even attempt the check untrained.  Same thing with knowledge skills.  If you decide that knowing the name of the kingdom you live in requires a knowledge: local check (the SRD lists DC 10 for 'really easy questions', but making it 0 still wouldn't change anything), then the vast majority of people in your campaign world don't know it, because they don't have any skill ranks in knowledge: local.  Under the d20 rules as written, the only thing a sensible DM can do is to say that there are some situations which can't be reasonably mapped onto the skill system.



All of these can be handled.

1. Find out Soup of the day
  That's simple. Just ask the waitress. Now, if you want to find out the Soup of the day of some Bandit-infested inn without going there it's obvious you have to use Gather Information and it will also take some time.

2. Get Rex to come over for a pat on the head
  You don't know any dogs, do you.  If you're not Rex's owner he may not even lift an eye. And you may use it untrained. In the skill description it says you may use Handle Animal untrained to handle an animal.

3. Knowing the name of the kingdom you live in
  Even if you need a knowledge check for this, it's common knowledge. You may use an untrained Knowledge check (a.k.a. an Intelligence check) to access common knowledge. And of course there are people who are just too dumb (Int < 8 and rolling very low) to know that, even at DC 0, but that's true in real life even for some people with abysmal IQ.


-As I am German I don't know how to talk like a Pirate, but if anyone wants, I can talk like a Kraut


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 19, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Um, he is a Half Elf & has used 2 feats.






			
				Scion said:
			
		

> And 21 skill points. And put an 18 int cha.
> 
> Really, how many resources does one have to spend before they deserve to be good at something??




Right.  That's the way I see it too.  He's put a lot of effort out-of-game, and a lot of training in-game into being really good at diplomacy.  So let him be good at it.

I've got a halfling rogue/fighter who's the same way with Hide & Move Silently... At 4th level he's got 6 ranks, +4 size, +5 Dex, +2 Stealthy, +3 Skill Focus = +20 Hide at 4th level (Hide doesn't get any synergy bonuses).  He sneaks ahead scouts out the enemy territory and sneak attacks any lone low-hit-dice sentries he can find.  He takes 10 on the skill check and is as good as invisible.

Anyway....  I too, would recommend Rich Berlew's alternate Diplomacy rules, and they easily be adapted for Bluffing and Intimidating.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 19, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Help, we've got a player who dun' git' himself a Diplomacy skill of +23 for a 3rd level without magic items:
> 
> 
> * Negotiator feat gives +2
> ...




I would not allow those two to stack.  But that only drops things to +21.


----------



## Scion (Sep 19, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I would not allow those two to stack.  But that only drops things to +21.




Why not? 2 seperate unnamed bonuses from 2 seperate sources. They are both pretty weak feats anyway, why not let them stack?


----------



## reiella (Sep 19, 2004)

buchw001 said:
			
		

> Since each skill is listed as giving the +2 bonus, I would say there is a clear conflict in these two rules statements.




Hmm, I'm just inclined to read that Or in question as a standard or/and/foreach instead of an XOR, solves that problem in my head rather nicely .

On the topic.  The important thing is to define when Diplomacy is used instead of Bluff, other skills, or a Cha check.  And maintain consistency throughout.

It's rather dangerous to have a diplomatic powerhouse (or even a bluff) as a player as its not a situation you can really through back at the party too easily (the closest is a villain recruiting NPC friends and family to his cause against you), unless you're willing to deal with the headache of applying attitude changes to the party.



			
				Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> 3. Knowing the name of the kingdom you live in
> Even if you need a knowledge check for this, it's common knowledge. You may use an untrained Knowledge check (a.k.a. an Intelligence check) to access common knowledge. And of course there are people who are just too dumb (Int < 8 and rolling very low) to know that, even at DC 0, but that's true in real life even for some people with abysmal IQ.




I have to say that is pretty funny and reminds me of some US talk shows a few years back...  Where Leno was asking people on the street simple geography questions with a bunch of failed answers.  "What are the great aqueducts?"


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 19, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Why not? 2 seperate unnamed bonuses from 2 seperate sources. They are both pretty weak feats anyway, why not let them stack?




Because they're both essentially Skill Focus.  If you don't allow people to take Skill Focus over and over for the same skill, why would you let these two stack.


----------



## Scion (Sep 19, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Because they're both essentially Skill Focus.  If you don't allow people to take Skill Focus over and over for the same skill, why would you let these two stack.




The same reason two of anything different stack, they are different.

Just like if there was a spell that gave a +4 unnamed bonus to diplomacy I would let it stack with both feats.

Also, in the same manner that a spell that grants a +X deflection bonus to ac and a spell that grants a +Y bonus to natural armor both stack for ac. They are different.

The two feats are not both skill focus, one is skill focus while the other is negotiator. Different training, different feat, different bonuses (although both untyped in this case, which means that they stack by default).

Even if there were half a dozen different +2/+2 feats that all happened to have diplomcacy as one of the +2's all of them would stack with one another. Just like the 3 different synergy bonuses stack. Just like all of them stack with skill focus


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 19, 2004)

Sure, just don't walk up to a table I'm DMing in and expect them to stack.  :shrug:

They're both skill focus because we've accepted that skill focus is essentially +3 to one skill or +2 to two skills.  It goes with the spirit of the rules, at least, to our minds.


----------



## Scion (Sep 19, 2004)

So long as we are clear that by the raw they do stack.

Anyway though, all houserules should be told to incoming players anyway so that they can adjust accordingly 

As for an earlier posters, 'why would anyone need a bonus that high' question, have you seen the dc's that are required here? Both by the raw and the proposed houserule. Especially if it needs to be done quickly (-10 to the check). Taking all of that into account +23 almost seems too low considering  which means that the dc's are probably much too high.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 19, 2004)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Because they're both essentially Skill Focus.



No they are not.  If they were, there would be only one feat, Skill Focus, that would give the option of a +3 bonus to one skill, or a +2 bonus to two skills.



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> If you don't allow people to take Skill Focus over and over for the same skill...




People can't can't take Skill Focus over and over for the same skill, because the feat specifically forbids it.  Take a look at that 'special' condition for the feat...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *SKILL FOCUS [GENERAL]*
> 
> Choose a skill.
> 
> ...




Pretty straight forward isn't it?



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> ...why would you let these two stack.




I would let Skill Focus and any of the other +2/+2 feats stack, because they are two unnamed bonuses derived from different sources.  That too is something clearly stated in the rules...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.



Again, that's pretty explicit.



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Sure, just don't walk up to a table I'm DMing in and expect them to stack. :shrug:
> 
> They're both skill focus because we've accepted that skill focus is essentially +3 to one skill or +2 to two skills. It goes with the spirit of the rules, at least, to our minds.




Your game, your house rule... I guess.   :\ 

Personally, I wouldn't buy it.  It's too hard on those people who actually want to be really good at something outside of combat.  After all, they have to burn two feats to get the entire +5 bonus.  In my experience, few PCs are willing to take that kind of hit, and only the NPC merchants and craftsmen end up with that combination of skill feats anyway.


----------



## rkanodia (Sep 19, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> All of these can be handled.



I think we may have a miscommunication.  I am not trying to argue that a DM should make it difficult for PCs to find out the Soup of the Day, or get Rex to come over, or know the name of the kingdom they are in.  For all of those things, the PCs should just be able to say "I do it" and the DM should say "OK".

The point I was getting at is that it's OK for the Diplomacy house rules (mentioned earlier in the thread) to not really work for certain trivial cases, because other skills have the same problem.  You deal with those cases by acknowledging the silliness of requiring a skill check, and just forget about the check.

I entirely agree with your interpretation of number 1.  For number two and three, you are right in that I missed the special section on untrained checks.  For number three, I still think it's silly that about 25% of the population (Int < 10, roll 10 or less on 1d20) can't name their own country.

There are other cases.  For instance, if you don't have ranks in Listen and you want to talk to someone who is 10 feet away, they'd better be shouting, because the Listen DC to hear 'People Talking' at that range is DC 1 - and you have to beat a check by at least 10 to understand what they're saying.  Also,  the lowest DC to appraise something is a 12, meaning that most people apparently don't know that 10 silver pieces are worth a gold piece.  Biting social commentary aside, that's clearly just a silly little snag in the rules.

The whole point I am getting at is that stupid little things like that don't matter.  *Ridley's Cohort* argued against the Diplomacy house rules because, if you follow them exactly as written, you could fail to buy a drink or get the time of day from your lover.  I say that doesn't really matter: I hadn't even thought about using the Diplomacy skill to handle those situations, so I don't care if the Diplomacy skill _can_ handle those situations.


----------



## angry monkey (Sep 20, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> -As I am German I don't know how to talk like a Pirate, but if anyone wants, I can talk like a Kraut





AAARRRRRRRRGH, 
That be no excuse ya land lubber!

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/howtogerman.html

Grubse Got

(Sorry, I'm sure I butchered that, but I dropped out of German class)


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 20, 2004)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> The point of this long-winded monologue is to highlight the reasons I have for my opinion: I think that the house rules are worth looking at, because the increased value that they offer as compared to the SRD rules (in terms of accuracy of modeling character interactions, and in terms of providing a clear, unambiguous framework for PCs and DMs to use) is greater than the value that they take away by breaking some trivial cases.  I would rather say 'This trivial situation gets you a specific outcome without requiring a check, even though if I were to make you roll a check according to the literal rules, you'd probably fail it' (as I'll have to with the house rules) than say 'This serious situation is going to be resolved in a nonspecific way according to a set of modifiers that I'm choosing entirely by fiat, without any sort of guidelines' (as I currently have to do all the time with the SRD).
> 
> That being said, I haven't tried the house rules in actual gameplay yet.  I'll keep you posted when I find out how it goes.
> 
> Edit: And if'n ye be finding the house rules not ta yer likin, well then I be havin a short plank 'pon which yer welcome to be takin a long walk, landlubber!




Fair enough.  

I would say those house rules are certainly worth a read, but I recommend against using them as written.

I used the trivial cases as a rhetorical tactic to point towards the mechanical problem.  My main complaint is the rules obliterates any incentive for a high level character to grab a few ranks in Diplomacy ("just to round out his personality").

In real play I would expect any truly non-trivial negotiation for a 20th level PC will require the character to hit DC 40+ using those house rules.  So a 20th level Sorceror who has his 30 Cha and 5 ranks of Diplomacy _cannot_ conceivably succeed if the DM asks the player to pick up the die and roll.  A Fighter who maxs out Diplomacy as a cross-class skill cannot usefully apply the skill except with the most minor NPCs.

That creates a peverse incentive to not take Diplomacy at all for most characters.


----------



## angry monkey (Sep 20, 2004)

I agree Ridley's cohort.

And my main feeling on this topic is that you should feel lucky to have someone in your campaign who wants to focus that hard on something that doesn't end in a point.  

Two feats for a role playing ability?  wow.   That could have been power attack and cleave, point blank shot and rapid shot, or combat reflexes and dodge.  They took those two feats and good for them.  Plus all those skill points... 

If I were the DM I'd throw in extra negotiations to keep them using the Diplomacy Dice.


----------



## rkanodia (Sep 20, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> In real play I would expect any truly non-trivial negotiation for a 20th level PC will require the character to hit DC 40+ using those house rules.  So a 20th level Sorceror who has his 30 Cha and 5 ranks of Diplomacy _cannot_ conceivably succeed if the DM asks the player to pick up the die and roll.  A Fighter who maxs out Diplomacy as a cross-class skill cannot usefully apply the skill except with the most minor NPCs.
> 
> That creates a peverse incentive to not take Diplomacy at all for most characters.



I can see what you mean about how the house rules could provide a disincentive to pick up a few ranks.  That sorc will probably have a +8 Cha mod or so (16 base + 4 from levels + 6 from item), +4 with greater heroism (or other morale booster), +3 from a circlet of persuasion (not too expensive), for a total of +20.  If you give a +5 Wis mod to a generic level 20 character (probably clerics will be higher, most will be lower), then the DC starts at 40, putting it outside the character's reach unless it's a very favorable deal for the NPC.  If the NPC is at all hostile, the PC can forget about it.

I hadn't really considered the 'dabbler' case.  It's tough to give a dabbler any real utility without making things trivially easy for the expert.  Perhaps one thing that could be done is double the size of the favorability modifiers.  -10 just really isn't a big enough penalty for convincing someone to trade their castle for a string (unless, of course, you tell them it's a magic string, in which case they're entitled to a Sense Motive check against your Bluff); after all, this means that a duke who's 75% likely to trade you his castle for yours is 25% likely to trade it for the string.  Likewise, +10 isn't a big enough bonus for convincing someone to give you the time of day in exchange for a bag of money.  This might give the dabbler a reason to grab some diplomacy without making it too easy for the master.  Actually when I think about it, maybe it makes more sense to double the relationship modifiers as well and give the skill a base of 10 instead of 15.

Here's a few test cases for high levels, assuming you're always acting on a level 20 NPC with +5 Wis mod:

10 + 20 + 5 + 20 + 20 = 75: Convince your arch-nemesis to agree to a horrible plan.  Who can do it?  A 20th-level bard with 23 ranks of diplomacy, +12 Cha mod (18 + 5 from levels + 5 from wishes + 6 from cloak), +6 from synergies, +3 from skill focus, +2 from negotiator, +2 for being a half-elf, +2 for bardsong, +3 from circlet of persuasion, +4 from greater heroism, +1 from a luckstone, on a lucky roll.

10 + 20 + 5 + 10 - 0 = 45: Convince an enemy to agree to agree to a fair plan.  Who can do it?  A character with 23 ranks of diplomacy, +6 Cha mod, +4 from synergies, +3 from circle of persuasion, most of the time, or the diplomacy ultra min/maxer, all the time.

10 + 20 + 5 + 10 - 20 = 25:  Convince an enemy to accept a very favorable plan.
10 + 20 + 5 + 0 - 10 = 25: Convince a stranger to accept a favorable plan.
10 + 20 + 5 - 10 + 0 = 25:  Convince an ally to accept a reasonable plan.  Who can do it?  A character with 8 ranks of diplomacy, +3 cha mod, +2 from synergies, +3 from circlet of persuasion, most of the time, or the diplomacy expert, all the time.

10 + 20 + 5 + 0 - 20 = 15: Convince a stranger to accept a very favorable plan.  Who can do it?  A character with 1 rank of diplomacy, +2 cha mod, +2 from synergies, most of the time, or the diplomacy dabbler all the time.

10 + 20 + 5 - 10 - 20 = 5: Convince an ally to accept a very favorable plan.  Who can do it?  Krunk the loudmouthed, horrifically scarred half-orc barbarian most of the time, Average Joe all the time.

I think this might work out a little bit better.  Any thoughts?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 20, 2004)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> Perhaps one thing that could be done is double the size of the favorability modifiers.  -10 just really isn't a big enough penalty for convincing someone to trade their castle for a string (unless, of course, you tell them it's a magic string, in which case they're entitled to a Sense Motive check against your Bluff)[...]
> 
> I think this might work out a little bit better.  Any thoughts?




I think it's an improvement over the original Burlew system.  I'm still not convinced that the DCs are completely fair, but then again the core DCs aren't great either.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Sep 20, 2004)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I think we may have a miscommunication.  I am not trying to argue that a DM should make it difficult for PCs to find out the Soup of the Day, or get Rex to come over, or know the name of the kingdom they are in.  For all of those things, the PCs should just be able to say "I do it" and the DM should say "OK".



I agree.



> The point I was getting at is that it's OK for the Diplomacy house rules (mentioned earlier in the thread) to not really work for certain trivial cases, because other skills have the same problem.  You deal with those cases by acknowledging the silliness of requiring a skill check, and just forget about the check.



Yes, but these house rules should ALMOST work. As Ridley's Cohort pointed out they can be used as a base, but they still need work and your last proposal sounds quite good in this regard.



> I entirely agree with your interpretation of number 1.  For number two and three, you are right in that I missed the special section on untrained checks.  For number three, I still think it's silly that about 25% of the population (Int < 10, roll 10 or less on 1d20) can't name their own country.



Well I would put the DC at 0 for really trivial questions (and people having Int < 10 are less than 50 % of the population, btw.)



> There are other cases.  For instance, if you don't have ranks in Listen and you want to talk to someone who is 10 feet away, they'd better be shouting, because the Listen DC to hear 'People Talking' at that range is DC 1 - and you have to beat a check by at least 10 to understand what they're saying.



Okay, that's a little bit silly, but if there's anything else going on around you, it 's quite possible you can't overhear what's being said 10 feet (3 meters) away from you. Just try yourself overhearing two people talking not too loud if there are any other conversations going on around them. And, as you can try each round to listen you will hear almost half of the conversation anyway (if you don't take 20, but roll).


> Also, the lowest DC to appraise something is a 12, meaning that most people apparently don't know that 10 silver pieces are worth a gold piece.  Biting social commentary aside, that's clearly just a silly little snag in the rules.



Well as normal silver pieces are not normally object to appraisals, that's way out there. But let's see: foreign currency, ancient coinage, silver pieces that were tempered with, forged coins, maybe even strange exchange rates (e.g. one pound is worth twelve shillings or 240 pence, four farthings are worth a penny).
Even if you fail this check, you will get (2d6+3)x10 % of the value which is almost correct. 
Most peasants wouldn't know anyway, because the only use barter.

Edit: I just checked the rules; you got me there. By the RAW you cannot estimate common objects when failing an Appraise Check. That's silly. I would give a DC less than 10 for abundant objects like coins.



> The whole point I am getting at is that stupid little things like that don't matter.  *Ridley's Cohort* argued against the Diplomacy house rules because, if you follow them exactly as written, you could fail to buy a drink or get the time of day from your lover.  I say that doesn't really matter: I hadn't even thought about using the Diplomacy skill to handle those situations, so I don't care if the Diplomacy skill _can_ handle those situations.



I agree with that, but it seems these house rules are just less than perfect. Your last modification is definitely a big step in the right direction.


----------



## Felonius (Sep 20, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I used the trivial cases as a rhetorical tactic to point towards the mechanical problem.  My main complaint is the rules obliterates any incentive for a high level character to grab a few ranks in Diplomacy ("just to round out his personality").



If a player takes a few diplomacy ranks "just to round out personality", why would the fact that he's not able to influence the greatest individuals around be a disappointment? 



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> In real play I would expect any truly non-trivial negotiation for a 20th level PC will require the character to hit DC 40+ using those house rules.  So a 20th level Sorceror who has his 30 Cha and 5 ranks of Diplomacy _cannot_ conceivably succeed if the DM asks the player to pick up the die and roll.  A Fighter who maxs out Diplomacy as a cross-class skill cannot usefully apply the skill except with the most minor NPCs.



Why is either example an undesirable result? I don't see why either example character should be able to easily influence one of the greatest heroes in the world, who is also almost supernaturally wise (20+ WIS).

The sorcerer has +15 Diplomacy. If the sorcerer serves the same cause and he's making a deal that is perceivably relatively low in risk with a potentially good reward, the DC drops to 30 and he can make it with a roll 15+. Not bad for a dabbler considering who he's trying to convince, but then again the sorcerer has an unearthly charisma.

The sorcerer can also convince a 10th lvl NPC who he just met to accept an even deal on a roll 10+.

The fighter example has 11 ranks + misc modifiers. A total of +15 would not be far fetched, so he can pull off similar diplomacy stunts as the example sorcerer. Not bad for a plain fighter, but then again he uses all his freetime to learn the art of diplomacy.

Neither character is specialised in diplomacy, the other is a dabbler and the other disregards his class skills. Both can perform medium diplomacy tasks for their level, as they should.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That creates a peverse incentive to not take Diplomacy at all for most characters.



Obviously I disagree.  

- F


----------



## Darmanicus (Sep 20, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it takes TEN ROUNDS of talking to change someone's reaction, so it's not that unbalanced. If the enemy is attacking you, most combats are done and over with in one minute anyway.




Unless you take a -10 to the roll and then you can do it in one round.

And then I read a bit more of the thread to find this has already been brought up......sorry.


----------



## Thanael (Sep 26, 2004)

I don't know if anybody posted the link yet since i only read the first page of the thread, but check out Rich Burlew's take on the diplomacy skill which could come in handy here: http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html
Fixes some of the problems.
Also check out his take on Knowledge skills: http://www.giantitp.com/Func0019.html


...and of course his online comic: Order of the Stick


----------



## was (Sep 26, 2004)

His total looks legit to me, but I fail to see why anyone would spend two feats to get it that high.  Feats are far too precious a commodity.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 27, 2004)

dyx said:
			
		

> I don't know if anybody posted the link yet since i only read the first page of the thread, but check out Rich Burlew's take on the diplomacy skill which could come in handy here



Heh!

Always a good idea to read the thread first.

I like *rkanodia's* elaboration on the rules.  They seem like they'd work pretty well.

One other possibility would be to not adjust the DC by the target's HD, but instead to adjust it by a difference in level between them.  Use as the base DC the coolness of the deal (offering someone a fantastic deal is DC 0; offering someone a rotten deal is DC 40 or more).  If you're within 5 levels of theirs, there's no level adjustment; otherwise, there's a +/-5 adjustment for every 5 levels or HD of difference (rounded down) between you and the target.

But *rkanodia's* solution probably works better.

Daniel


----------



## Cayzle (Mar 10, 2005)

*Great thread*

Hey, great thread! I like the analysis I'm reading here. In fact, I've linked to this thread from my latest blog entry, about the diplomacy skill.

http://www.geocities.com/cayzle/


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 10, 2005)

As a tangent on the "Diplomacy Ultra-Min-Maxer" example, I've had a PC in my campaign who was on his way to one-upping that.  They had the Bliss domain (+4 divine to Diplomacy), a Friendly Psicrystal, and a Diplomacy+ familiar (that last one's not in the PH, but its reasonable based on the usual familiar abilities).  Combined with a Marshal cohort from Miniature's Handbook with 22 Charisma (using the aura that gives the Marshal's Charisma bonus as an added bonus to all Charisma-based skills) and someone using an Aid Another check, this gives an additional +18 over the Diplomacy Ultra-Min-Maxer.  So the true Diplomacy Min-Maxer can succeed at convincing his archnemesis to an unfavourable plan (DC 75) on a 1.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 10, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So the true Diplomacy Min-Maxer can succeed at convincing his archnemesis to an unfavourable plan (DC 75) on a 1.




Kind of reminds me of a Runelord (from the _Runelords_ series) with incredible endowments of "voice."


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Mar 10, 2005)

I play with a couple guys who are the absolute masters at this sort of thing.  It really challenges me as a DM to "one up" them, let me tell ya.  

I love this game.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 10, 2005)

dyx said:
			
		

> Rich Burlew's take on the diplomacy skill which could come in handy here: http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html
> Fixes some of the problems.



 Seconded. I've been planning to use that soon. Great stuff.


----------



## nobodez (Sep 23, 2006)

3rd Level Diplomat Min-Max

- Half-Elf (18 Cha, 10 Int)
- Marshal 3 (2 Minor Auras (+4 each): Motivate Dexterity, Motivate Charisma; Skill Focus (diplomacy))
- Negotiator Feat
- Complementary Insight (CV)

6 ranks (Diplomacy)
5 ranks (Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Sense Motive)
Speak Language (Celestial, Infernal, Abyssal)

6 (ranks) + 9 (synergy) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (negotiator) + 2 (racial) + 4 (charisma) + 4 (motivate charisma) = +30 without equipment

Potion of _Eagle's Splendor_: 300 gp (adds +4 to charisma, raising overall bonus to +34).
If instead you go with Marshal 2 (for the skills) with a level in Psion (telepath) with the Psicrystal Affinity feat (bonus from Psion 1), the bonus is now at +37.

Throw a _Telempathic Projection_ on the subject, and not only do they start out at a higher attidtude, but you then get another +4 bonus in Diplomacy versus them, so you're now at a +41 bonus, but if you take 10 as a full-round action, you get get a hostile creature to helpful in one standard action and a full-round action.

that's about my limit at 3rd level, sorry.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 23, 2006)

QUICK NOTE:  This is a really old thread, and many posters may no longer be around who participated in it to begin with.  I'm going to leave it open for now, but if it looks like this is causing confusion, I'm gonna close it without prejudice .

Daniel


----------



## Corsair (Sep 23, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> QUICK NOTE:  This is a really old thread, and many posters may no longer be around who participated in it to begin with.  I'm going to leave it open for now, but if it looks like this is causing confusion, I'm gonna close it without prejudice .
> 
> Daniel




Tangent: Why would it "cause confusion"?  It's just a thread.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 23, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Tangent: Why would it "cause confusion"?  It's just a thread.




Looks like it's causing confusion already.


----------



## boolean (Sep 24, 2006)

nobodez said:
			
		

> 6 (ranks) + 9 (synergy) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (negotiator) + 2 (racial) + 4 (charisma) + 4 (motivate charisma) = +30 without equipment




The synergy bonus should only be +6 (+2 per skill, x3 skills), for a total of +27.

There are other builds that can also get a similar result using non-core material.

E.g.

Half-Elf Cleric 3. Domains: Knowledge (to get Kn(Nobility & Royalty) as a class skill) and Trickery (ditto for Bluff)
Assuming a pre-cast Eagle's Splendor gives the following:
6 (ranks) + 4 (synergy) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (negotiator) + 2 (racial) + 6 (charisma) = 23 total. Using Divine Insight gives an additional +9 once per day, for a total of +32.

Throw in a level of Marshall at fourth (and use your skill points to get 5 ranks in Sense Motive), and it becomes:
6 (ranks) + 6 (synergy) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (negotiator) + 2 (racial) + 6 (charisma) + 6 (motivate charisma)= 31 total. Using Divine Insight gives an additional +9 once per day, for a total of +40. Enough to get people from hostile to indiferrent in a single round on a 1, or to friendly on a 5.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 24, 2006)

You guys and your buff spells / items   I still maintain that the best build is Marshal1/Warlock1/Telepath1

6 from ranks, 9 from synergy (feat causes this), 3 from Skill Focus, 2 from Negotiator, 2 from Half-Elf, 6 from Beguiling Influence, 3 from Psicrystal, 4 from Charisma and another 4 from the aura.  +39 at level 3 with no items or buff spells.


----------



## Iku Rex (Sep 24, 2006)

boolean said:
			
		

> The synergy bonus should only be +6 (+2 per skill, x3 skills), for a total of +27.



He's using the Complementary Insight feat from Races of Destiny. 

The friendly face (Lv1, Brd/Sor/Wiz1, +5 Diplo/Gather Info) spell, the Sociable Personality feat (re-roll diplomacy checks) and half-elf bard racial substitution levels, all from the same book, are also nice to have for a diplomacy specialist.


----------



## Particle_Man (Sep 24, 2006)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> With help from the BoED, you can get higher... +29 on level 3 is possible.




What from BoED helps up the diplomacy score?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 24, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> What from BoED helps up the diplomacy score?



 Sacred Vow and the like, I suspect, or Nymph's Kiss, but honestly, those actually don't give more than +2, and the feats chosen in my build already give at least that much without forcing you to go exalted.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 24, 2006)

The extra exalted feats from VoP help out there, methinks.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 24, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Tangent: Why would it "cause confusion"?  It's just a thread.



Sometimes folks respond to a post from two years ago not realizing that the original poster is no longer around, or sometimes folks don't remember what they argued two years ago and are surprised to see their words again.  I dunno. Messageboards are funny beasts, and this sort of thing causes confusion enough that there's a name for it:  thread necromancy.

Daniel


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash (Sep 25, 2006)

All i can say is pray your play can never get a 150 on a diplomacy check. According to the Epic Handbook, that turns a hostile npc to fanatic. 



> Fanatic
> The attitude of fanatic is added here. In addition to the obvious effects, any NPC whose attitude is fanatic gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution scores, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a -1 penalty to AC whenever fighting for the character or his or her cause. This attitude will remain for one day plus one day per point of the character’s Charisma bonus, at which point the NPC’s attitude will revert to its original attitude (or indifferent, if no attitude is specified).
> 
> Treat the fanatic attitude as a mind-affecting enchantment effect for purposes of immunity, save bonuses, or being detected by the Sense Motive skill. Since it is nonmagical, it can’t be dispelled; however, any effect that suppresses or counters mind-affecting effects will affect it normally. A fanatic NPC’s attitude can’t be further adjusted by the use of skills.
> ...


----------



## Jdvn1 (Sep 25, 2006)

BlackSeed_Vash said:
			
		

> All i can say is pray your play can never get a 150 on a diplomacy check. According to the Epic Handbook, that turns a hostile npc to fanatic.



 Once the player gets to +130 Diplomacy, it might be a good time to end the game.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 25, 2006)

Always had a fundamental problem with the mechanics of Diplomacy myself - that and the fact that some players (and DMs) seem to think a stat on a piece of paer is a replacement for actually roleplaying the interaction between PCs and NPCs. The whole "oh wow, lookit that, Karthaxas the Ancient Red Wyrm now considers me to be like his long lost son and will do anything I ask!" factor just does not sit right with me. An ingame skill should never, never replace roleplaying IMHO...

Anyway, back ontopic - doesn't the synergy from Knowledge (Nobility) only apply when dealing with nobles or royalty? Is there a rule that states this? I can't imagining knowing that Lord Muckymuck's favorite meal is sugared pork treats will help the player make a friend of a half-orc barbarian who's barely been in a city before.

Finally, I don't think anyone has factored in "help another" rolls when considering the max bonus, either...


----------



## Iku Rex (Sep 25, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Always had a fundamental problem with the mechanics of Diplomacy myself - that and the fact that some players (and DMs) seem to think a stat on a piece of paer is a replacement for actually roleplaying the interaction between PCs and NPCs. The whole "oh wow, lookit that, Karthaxas the Ancient Red Wyrm now considers me to be like his long lost son and will do anything I ask!" factor just does not sit right with me. An ingame skill should never, never replace roleplaying IMHO...



Yeah. And don't get me _started_ on how some players (and DMs) seem to think that a stat on a piece of paper is a replacement for actual combat. I mean, if a player thinks his epic rogue can dodge a trap, he'd better be prepared when the DM brings out his poisoned arrows and demands that the player shows everyone how its done. Sure, acting out a battle with a dragon might be impractical, but at the very least the player should be able to describe, in detail, how a legendary warrior with near supernatural skill and talent would fight. If he can't he needs to make a more realistic character, with, say, the fighting skill of a out-of-shape geek with no combat training. 

And bring a flamethrower to the game once on a while. Keeps the players from making those glib "I roll a reflex save to avoid the effects of the breath weapon with my evasion ability" comments. _Don't tell, bub, SHOW!_


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 25, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> Yeah. And don't get me _started_ on how some players (and DMs) seem to think that a stat on a piece of paper is a replacement for actual combat. I mean, if a player thinks his epic rogue can dodge a trap, he'd better be prepared when the DM brings out his poisoned arrows and demands that the player shows everyone how its done. Sure, acting out a battle with a dragon might be impractical, but at the very least the player should be able to describe, in detail, how a legendary warrior with near supernatural skill and talent would fight. If he can't he needs to make a more realistic character, with, say, the fighting skill of a out-of-shape geek with no combat training.
> 
> And bring a flamethrower to the game once on a while. Keeps the players from making those glib "I roll a reflex save to avoid the effects of the breath weapon with my evasion ability" comments. _Don't tell, bub, SHOW!_



Very droll.   

I don't know if that was posted purely for comical value, but if it wasn't, you completely twisted my point - which is basically if you use skills and rolls as a substitute for roleplaying, you might as well be playing a computer game, and remove PC/NPC roleplaying interaction altogether.

Obviously not EVERY aspect of a game can be enacted at the gaming table, but I'm beginning to wonder if some people know what the "RP" in "RPG" stands for...

Roleplaying interractions doesn't suit every group, but speaking for myself, if it were removed from my game, I'd rather go over to an entirely combat related game like Napoleonic Lead Figure Wargaming. 

Different strokes and all that.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Sep 26, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if you are looking for a curb to such monumental bonuses, you can house-rule that the skill synergy bonuses are named - circumstance bonuses or the like. Do that, and he drops about 4 to 6 points. On the other hand, it takes TEN ROUNDS of talking to change someone's reaction, so it's not that unbalanced. If the enemy is attacking you, most combats are done and over with in one minute anyway.




I've been reading this on quite a few forums recently. It's not true. You need to turn the page and finish reading the skill description.

A rushed Diplomacy check can be attempted as a full round action with a -10 penalty. Strictly  by the book, our 1st level character with a +23 Diplomacy skill bonus has a 65% chance of prematurely ending any hostile encounter by turning the opponents from Hostile to Unfriendly, an attitude where they won't resort to violence. By 7th level, they'll be able to automatically end any combat before it begins without even straining that much. (They could probably manage it by 5th if they invested in the right equipment.)

The Diplomacy rules are flat-out busted. Rich Burlew's corrections (www.giantitp.com) are a good place to start fixing them. My current rules for Diplomacy look like this:

Persuasion: You can propose a trade or agreement to another creature with your words; a Diplomacy check can then persuade them that accepting it is a good idea. Either side of the deal may involve physical goods, money, services, promises, or abstract concepts like "satisfaction." The DC for the Diplomacy check is based on three factors: who the target is, the relationship between the target and the character making the check, and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal proposed.
	Check: The base DC for a persuasion check is 15, modified by your relationship with the character you’re trying to convince and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal being proposed.
	Target’s Check: The character you’re trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 20). If the check succeeds, double the bonus or penalty provided by the risk vs. reward factor. A failure on this check has no effect. You can choose to oppose the target’s Sense Motive check with a Bluff check, in which case the bonus or penalty is only doubled if their check result both succeeds (against DC 20) and exceeds your Bluff check. (Obviously, you would only want to make a Bluff check if you’re proposing a bad deal.)
	Success or Failure: If the Diplomacy check beats the DC, the subject accepts the proposal, with no changes or with minor (mostly idiosyncratic) changes. If the check fails by 5 or less, the subject does not accept the deal but may, at the DM's option, present a counter-offer that would push the deal up one place on the risk-vs.-reward list. For example, a counter-offer might make an Even deal Favorable for the subject. The character who made the Diplomacy check can simply accept the counter-offer, if they choose; no further check will be required. If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation.
	It should be noted that, just because a deal has been accepted, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the other character is happy about it. If you use your relationship to take advantage of someone, it may affect their future relationship with you (at the DM’s discretion).
	Action: Making a request or proposing a deal generally requires at least 1 full minute. In many situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.
	Try Again: If you alter the parameters of the deal you are proposing, you may try to convince the subject that this new deal is even better than the last one. This is essentially how people haggle. As long as you never roll 10 or less than the DC on your Diplomacy check, you can continue to offer deals.

	DC	Relationship (Example)
	-15	Intimate (someone who with whom you have an implicit trust; a lover or spouse)
	-10	Friend (someone with whom you have a regularly positive personal relationship; a long-time buddy or sibling)
	-5	Ally (someone on the same team, but with whom you have no personal relationship; a cleric of the same religion or a knight serving the same king)
	-2	Acquaintance – Positive (someone you’ve met several times with no particularly negative experiences; the blacksmith that buys your looted equipment regularly)
	+0	Just met (no relationship whatsoever)
	+2	Acquaintance – Negative (someone you’ve met several times with no particularly positive experiences; the town guard that has arrested you for drunkenness once or twice)
	+5	Enemy (someone on an opposed team with whom you have no personal relationship; a cleric of an opposed religion or the orc bandit robbing you)
	+10	Personal Foe (someone with whom you have a regularly antagonistic personal relationship; an evil overlord you’re trying to thwart or a bounty hunter sworn to track you down)
	+15	Nemesis (someone who has sworn to do you, personally, harm; the brother of a man you murdered in cold blood)

	DC	Risk vs. Reward Judgment (Example)
	-15	Fantastic (The reward for accepting the deal is very worthwhile; the risk is either acceptable or extremely unlikely. The best-case scenario is a virtual guarantee. Example: An offer to pay a lot of gold for information that isn’t important to the character.)
	-10	Good  (The reward is good and the risk is minimal. The subject is very likely to profit from the deal. Example: An offer to pay someone twice their normal daily wage to spend their evening in a seedy tavern with a reputation for vicious brawls and later report on everyone they saw there.)
	-5	Favorable (The reward is appealing, but there’s risk involved. If all goes according to plan, though, the deal will end up benefiting the subject. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle against a weak goblin tribe in return for a cut of the money and first pick of the magic items.)
	+0	Even (The reward and risk more or less even out; or the deal involves neither reward nor risk. Example: A request for directions to someplace that isn’t a secret.)
	+5	Unfavorable (The reward is not enough compared to the risk involved. Even if all goes according to plan, chances are it will end badly for the subject. Example: A request to free a prisoner the target is guarding in return for a small amount of money.)
	+10	Bad (The reward is poor and the risk is high. The subject is very likely to get the raw end of the deal. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle against an ancient red dragon for a small cut of any non-magical treasure.)
	+15	Horrible (There is no conceivable way the proposed plan could end up with the subject ahead or the worst-case scenario is guaranteed to occur. Example: An offer to trade a rusty kitchen knife for a shiny new longsword.)

Convince: You make a Diplomacy check (DC 15) if you want to convince someone of something that you believe. (If you’re trying to convince them of a lie, it’s a Bluff check.) This DC is adjusted by the relationship between you and the person you’re trying to convince, just like a persuasion check.
	Target’s Check: The character you’re trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 10). If the check succeeds, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your Diplomacy check (they sense your honesty). This works just like the Aid Another action, so you gain an additional +1 bonus for every 10 points that their check exceeds DC 10.
	Success or Failure: If your check succeeds, the other character believes what you’re telling them. (Or at least believes that you believe it to be true.) Of course, what they choose to do with that information depends on the character.

Haggling: If you’re haggling, you can make an opposed Diplomacy check to get a better price.
	Merchant’s Check: The character selling the item makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the buyer’s check.
	Relationship: As with a persuasion check, the DC of the buyer’s check is adjusted by the relationship they have with the merchant.
	Buyer’s Check: The buyer’s check is compared to the DC set by the merchant’s check, with the result determining whether the haggling was favorable or unfavorable to the buyer. (It should be noted that these results match the Risk vs. Reward scale used for persuasion checks.)

	Check Result	Price Adjustment (Risk vs. Reward for Merchant)
	DC - 15	+30% (Fantastic)
	DC - 12	+25%
	DC - 10	+20% (Good)
	DC - 7	+15%
	DC - 5	+10% (Favorable)
	DC - 2	+5%
		+0% (Even)
	DC + 2	-5%
	DC + 5	-10% (Unfavorable)
	DC + 7	-15%
	DC + 10	-20% (Bad)
	DC + 12	-25%
	DC + 15	-30% (Horrible)

	In general, merchants won’t haggle more than 30% above or 30% below the normal price of an item.
	As with any Diplomacy check, the actions of a PC should not be dictated by the check result – if they’re unhappy with the result, they should be allowed to walk away from the sale. NPCs, on the other hand, should generally follow-through on a check result.
	Retry: No, although the PCs could haggle over the price of a different item or haggle with a different character for a similar item. A haggling check represents the entire negotiating process between buyer and seller; the result is the best price the PCs are going to get from that buyer or seller.

Overcome Intransigence: Some characters simply won’t listen to any attempts at negotiation or deal-making. To overcome their intransigence, you can make a Diplomacy check with a DC of 15 + the subject’s HD + the subject’s Wisdom modifier + the subject’s relationship modifier. If the check succeeds, you can then make a Diplomacy check as normal.

Charm Spells: A charmed creature is treated as having a Friendly relationship to the caster (-10 to Diplomacy DC), which replaces any previous relationship modifier. Thus, by charming an enemy, the DC drops from +5 to -10, a decrease of 15. The caster can now talk the creature into anything this improved relationship allows.
	Because the effect is based on the spell, the caster can make a Spellcraft check in place of a Diplomacy check when dealing with charmed creatures.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Sep 26, 2006)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I took a look at those rules, and I think they work pretty well for cases where the deal is about something of substance and/or the PCs have an ulterior motive.  An argument can definitely be put forth that higher-level people should (generally) be harder to convince to agree to something; their time is more valuable than that of commoners, and the resources they commit to a plan will be more significant.




The problem is that they're hard to convince of things which _benefit_ them. If you offered to give a million gold pieces to Zeus with no strings attached, Zeus will turn you down flat.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Sep 26, 2006)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Sure, just don't walk up to a table I'm DMing in and expect them to stack.  :shrug:




If you specifically put that into your house rules, I might play with you (although I'm generally leery of any house rules which serve no justifiable purpose).

If you claim that this isn't a house rule, then I definitely won't be playing with you.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Sep 26, 2006)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I entirely agree with your interpretation of number 1.  For number two and three, you are right in that I missed the special section on untrained checks.  For number three, I still think it's silly that about 25% of the population (Int < 10, roll 10 or less on 1d20) can't name their own country.




I wouldn't give "name of the kingdom you're living in" a DC of 10 (for precisely that reason).



> There are other cases.  For instance, if you don't have ranks in Listen and you want to talk to someone who is 10 feet away, they'd better be shouting, because the Listen DC to hear 'People Talking' at that range is DC 1 - and you have to beat a check by at least 10 to understand what they're saying.




I wouldn't try to hold a conversation with someone standing 10 feet away, either. If I did, raised voices (not necessarily shouting) would be involved.

DCs aren't really given for that. For the sake of argument: Raised voices = DC -5. Shouting = -10.



> Also,  the lowest DC to appraise something is a 12, meaning that most people apparently don't know that 10 silver pieces are worth a gold piece.  Biting social commentary aside, that's clearly just a silly little snag in the rules.




Actually, even if you were to fail that Appraise check (assuming that we agree with your general premise that Appraise should be applied to coins, which I don't), you'll still have a general sense that 10 silver pieces are worth "something like a gold piece". Read the skill description. Failing the check doesn't mean you're completely clueless.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 26, 2006)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> The problem is that they're hard to convince of things which _benefit_ them. If you offered to give a million gold pieces to Zeus with no strings attached, Zeus will turn you down flat.



This is a very good point.  I think I'd rule that it takes no diplomacy check at all to convince someone to do something obviously in their best interests.  If the deal appears too good to be true, then either it isn't true (in which case a bluff vs. sense motive check is appropriate), or it is true (in which case I'd still probably allow a sense motive check with a low DC, modified by the persuadee's previous experience with the persuader).

Naturally, if you're trying to persuade someone to do something that's obviously in their best long-term interests but involves short-term pain (e.g., "Eat your veggies, junior!"), we're back to square one.  This only applies when you're wanting to do something the other person will immediately like.

Daniel


----------

