Authoritative Vestments - Battle Diplomacy?

[Martain]

So... I don't like killing and I try to role play my character the way I would act.

I would love to be able to use diplomacy to change someone's attitude during combat from hostile to friendly/helpful except such a skill check normally takes a minute (ten rounds) of continuous conversation.

During combat, generally by the time you could actually make the skill check the enemy or you are dead or you've been interrupted to where you'd have to start over. You also can't take 10 on a skill roll when in battle and your party probably isn't going to be that happy with you if you're not contributing ever to the battles.

Hence, diplomacy is generally not effective in battle.

Suppose though... you did spend the 10 rounds needed to do a diplomacy check. Suppose you then succeeded in changing them from hostile to friendly due to a perfect roll combined with a really high diplomacy modifier.

What then? How would this work in PFS Organized play? What would it mean? What could I do?

The reason I ask is this item

Authoritative Vestments:

Typically worn by senior members of a faith, these cumbersome but splendidly ornate garments create an aura of dignity and gravitas that few dare to challenge. When activated, the garments make you seem more impressive and worthy of respect to all viewers within 60 feet of you; you may make a single Diplomacy check to change the attitudes of these viewers as a swift action. You can only use this ability on a particular viewer once per day (additional attempts have no effect, though you can still persuade viewers normally without the help of the focus).

which are PFS legal.

If I understand this item right, this opens up... battle diplomacy! I like the idea of battle diplomacy! Basically the way I see this is that I've found a way to duplicate the effects of a Charm spell without actually using mental compulsion (which I personally view as morally and ethically wrong).

Attitude change via:

Diplomacy: Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).

Charm: Duration 1 hour/level

If charm is legal for pathfinder society play, then why shouldn't I be able to use battle diplomacy to accomplish the same goal? Thoughts?

[Claxon]

Enemies that already intend you harm can't be swayed very well, and you also can't change creatures disposition towards you more than two steps. At best you could turn hostile people indifferent.

Also:

Quote:

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

That line is more than just because it takes time to try to change their attitude. Legitimately I wouldn't expect this tactic to work anywhere, including PFS. If enemies are about to attack nothing short of magic will get them to stop.

[darkwarriorkarg]

Well, if I were the gm, I'd have your enemies pause for a conversation, then apologise for having to kill you.

[Martain]

Claxon wrote:

Quote:

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

Enemies that already intend you harm can't be swayed very well.That line is more than just because it takes time to try to change their attitude.

Yet we also have diplomacy stating:

Quote:

You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.

Definition of generally ineffective: In general terms; without regard to pariculars or exceptions, in most cases, usually, diplomacy during combat does not producing any significant or desired effect.

I understand your opinion that the difficulty in battle is more than length of time but why would your opinion be any more valid than mine?

They didn't say you couldn't use it, that it can't work but that it's 'generally ineffective'. Since they don't expand upon the when or indicate that the 'generally ineffective' is GM Determined, then you should be able to make the skill check and let your skill do the talking.

Claxon wrote:

Legitimately I wouldn't expect this tactic to work anywhere, including PFS. If enemies are about to attack nothing short of magic will get them to stop.

Legitimately? Why legitimately? It doesn't indicate that it's GM Interpretation as to when I can or can not use Diplomacy. It simply states that it's generally ineffective and with the equivalent of a 10 round caster time for a one time attempt that you can't try again for 24 hours? That's pretty generally ineffective.

Claxon wrote:

you also can't change creatures disposition towards you more than two steps. At best you could turn hostile people indifferent.

Regarding changing creatures disposition towards you more than two steps there are at least 2 ways to get around that limitation.

Human Racial Trait - Silver Tongued:

Human are often adept at subtle manipulation and putting even sworn foes at ease. Humans with this trait gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Bluff checks. In addition, when they use Diplomacy to shift a creature's attitude, they can shift up to three steps up rather than just two. This racial trait replaces skilled.

Magical Item - Cloak of the Diplomat:

The forest-green cloak grants a +5 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks. In addition, once per day, before making a Diplomacy or Sense Motive check, the wearer can decide to call upon the powers of the cloak to roll twice and take the better result. Finally, the wearer of this cloak can adjust a creature’s attitude up to three steps when using Diplomacy, instead of the normal limit of two steps. However, the cloak’s power does have one drawback. Should the wearer ever fail a Diplomacy checks made to adjust a creature’s attitude by 5 or more, the creature’s attitude is reduced by two steps instead of one.

[Martain]

darkwarriorkarg wrote:

Well, if I were the gm, I'd have your enemies pause for a conversation, then apologise for having to kill you.

There's not much I can do when a GM simply want's to GM Fiat a skill out of Pathfinder that they find inconvenient.

If Paizo wanted or wants to remove the option of ending conflict via diplomacy then all they need to do is indicate:

Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future [GM Determined].

Otherwise I can't see any reason why what I'm attempting wouldn't work per the rules. If it can't be used like this, then every encounter must end in bloodshed, which clearly isn't intended.

Other than people not wanting it to work either because it ends an encounter too quickly, because it puts them on the spot to actually have to converse and role play, or because leads the scenario in a direction they weren't expecting or planning it to go, am I missing something in the rules that would prevent my intent?

[Weables]

As a GM, I may allow this to work if you managed to use your skill before anyone had attacked someone else. Like if you acted first or whatnot.

The bottom line though, is that once someone has stabbed you, there's not really any amount of diplomacy that'd make you cool with them.

Basically, as a DM once the stabbing has actually begun, I'd feel comfortable with using the DMs discretion to add a large penalty to the roll, similar to the penalty to bluff when an outrageous lie is told

It's not that you couldn't use the skill, but you'd be looking at 25+cha (hostile) + 10 or more as the DC.

[Claxon]

Not every encounter must end in bloodshed. There are plenty of encounters that aren't combat. There are plenty of places where your tactic would be useful.

Convincing a large group of otherwise indifferent people to aid you in something, for example. And being able to convince them so they don't waste time.

But it isn't going to be useful when those people already intend to kill you.

Also negotiate conflicts doesn't mean combat. The word conflict isn't limited to fighting. In fact, generally combat is a result of negotiations breaking down. Conflict results because two groups have opposing goals or desires.

I'm sorry, but this is mostly up to GM discretion (because the rules aren't written very well), and I think most GMs aren't going to allow this. You're just not going to get around:

Quote:

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

[VRMH]

If you're a Dwarf there's the Peacemaker's Parley spell, for battlefield diplomacy as a swift action.