Diplomacy in combat


Rules Questions


There's a reference in a PFS scenario to using Diplomacy in combat and to "apply the relevant penalties" (the thrust of it is an attempt to get an unfriendly attacker to consider that the PCs aren't who they think they are so should stop attacking and start a parley). Anyone know what this is referring to?


In 3.5, you used to be able to make a rushed Diplomacy check at -20 as a full-round action, but that option was removed in PFRPG. So you might have to ignore that sentence (outside of magic like Calm Emotions, etc.).


Asphesteros wrote:
There's a reference in a PFS scenario to using Diplomacy in combat and to "apply the relevant penalties" (the thrust of it is an attempt to get an unfriendly attacker to consider that the PCs aren't who they think they are so should stop attacking and start a parley). Anyone know what this is referring to?

I would do this as an on-the-fly skill check, according to the story, rather than a "One minute of conversation to shift the creatures Attitude according to the chart." When my players are simply conversing with NPCs, if they want to bluff, cajole, convince, whatever, I have the player speak for the character, and then roll the skill to see how it affects the NPC. This lets less articulate players use the characters abilities to achieve goals.

Dark Archive

Not sure on the penalties but it does state the following:

Quote:
Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.

I would view asking them to stop attacking so that the PC's can prove that they are not who the attacker thinks a round worth of action.

but it also states:

Quote:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

Note that it uses the word generally. There is a chance, just harder.

I think that it is possible, with a DC set by the GM, based on how well the PC's act. If they are only defending, etc.. Sure. But if one of them attacks, then I see their diplomacy falling apart.


Happler wrote:

Not sure on the penalties but it does state the following:

Quote:
Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.
I would view asking them to stop attacking so that the PC's can prove that they are not who the attacker thinks a round worth of action.

From earlier on the same page:

Quote:
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature.

I suppose it's possible that the guy's attitude is indifferent while he's trying to kill you, but it seems unlikely.


Asphesteros wrote:
There's a reference in a PFS scenario to using Diplomacy in combat and to "apply the relevant penalties" (the thrust of it is an attempt to get an unfriendly attacker to consider that the PCs aren't who they think they are so should stop attacking and start a parley). Anyone know what this is referring to?

As Hogarth pointed out, it was different under 3.5. Could it be a Season 0 module or early season 1 that might have been written using the old rules.

Regardless, I think this roll is ripe for applying any circumstance penalties that you think are appropriate. Here's a few examples:

If combat starts and your friendly barbarian one-shot's a member of the party you are trying to use diplomacy on, I would apply a huge penalty. It's kind of hard to convince them you're 'friendly' while their buddy is bleeding out in the gutter.

Your side is merely defending themselves using nothing but non-lethal methods (grappling, unarmed strikes, trip, disarm) to stop them, let them make a roll without modifiers.

If you've been fighting for two rounds and everyone on your side is taking total defense and not striking at them, I would give a bonus.

It the latter two cases, your party is putting itself at a disadvantage to try to resolve the issue without combat. This would be a sign of your sincerity.


OK Hogarth & Tim I think that's the answer. The referece to "apply the relevant pelanties" make it sound like there's RAW out there somewhere to apply, not ad hoc encounter specific mechanics. Must be the writer was thinking of that 3.5 rushed check at -20 rule. This is a season 2 scenario, but the writer could still have gotten the versions mixed up in his head, and it got past editing. It's an easy thing to do.

I had thought, like Hogarth suggests, it could have been referring to making a request, as that's hypothetically possible to in combat by RAW, if the opponent is additude indifferent or better (which I could see actually being more common that you might think, when you consider opponents merely fighting under orders, or obligation, or out of necessity), but the DC given and the context indicate that the attackers were less than indifferent, and the request rules have nothing about in-combat modifiers.

I was actually hoping that there was some RAW out there to support it, since I'd like to have a RAW option to call truce to parley. IIRC though they took that out because high CHA skill monkeys and such could pump their diplomacy up so high they could literally talk their way out of any encoutner, so the decision was made just to remove the option.

Thanks all.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Diplomacy in combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.