Is this a rules, advice or homebrew question? Hard to say, since the Influence system in Ultimate Intrigue is vague and sketchy at best. Reading pages 102 to 109, I feel like the editor must have seriously slashed the available page count, because many things appear to be simply missing. Still, it looks like the bones of a very, very useful system and, let's face it, something had to be done about the sad state of social skills in the core rulebook, inherited from DD3.5. BTW, if you don't yet own a copy of Ultimate Intrigue, go and buy it now because you need it. Really. Unless your PF games are 100% combat and 0% social, intrigue, investigation and skill challenges, you do really need this book.
So I opted for the rules forum, since I'm trying to clarify the printed rules in UI, and even prepare a "summary worksheet" for DMs to use in order to run the influence system from UI. I've got a few questions to run by y'all.
1) The table on page 104, "Discovery and influence checks DCs" is kind of wonky. Most of the numbers on that table seem to follow the progression forula (APL x 1.5, rounded up) + 9. IMHO, it would make more sense to base this formula on the NPC or creature's CR, but I can roll with APL. Without having to use the table, it would be helpful to use a formula instead. A formula like (CR x 1.5, rounded down) +10 would more closely correspond to typical PF conventions.
2) Typical influence checks use this base value +5; Difficult checks are at +10 and higher values are suggested for PCs who have skills with "extremely high bonuses". Discovery checks, while mentioned in the title of this chart, are not mentioned regarding modifications to the base values from the chart.
3) The only example of a "social stat block" in the Ultimate Intrigue influence rules section is problematic in several ways:
- No APL is specified, making it hard to evaluate the way that the DCs of various checks were derived.
- 3 discovery checks are specified, all as DC 20 Sense Motive checks. If we assume that the APL of the player characters is 1, that means the discovery DC is base 11 +9... which doesn't appear to correspond to anything, aside from the static DC 20 Sense Motive check for a "hunch".
- the NPC's "strength" is resistance to Intimidate checks, conferring a -4 penalty on the check. However, in the list of possible methods to influence this NPC, no value is listed for Intimidate. Does the DM assume that the DC for Intimidate is the same as for the highest listed check (Diplomacy DC 25), before applying the -4 penalty?
- the NPC's listed influence checks range from DC 15, to DC 20, to DC 25. However, even for an APL 1 party, the lowest values possible would be DC 16 and 21, with no clear path for deriving higher values.
4) Other examples of social stat blocks appear in the Hell's Vengeance adventure path, part 2 "Wrath of Thrune":
- The PCs are APL 4 or 5 by the time they can try to influence the NPCs presented on pages 13 to 15. This gives us a baseline for seeing how the NPC's values were derived.
- Discovery checks are DC 15 and 22 for the 1st NPC; DC 15 and 15 for the second; DC 15 and 18 for the third; DC 15 and 18 for the third; DC 15 for the fourth; and DC 15 and 15 for the fifth. This seems to correspond to the base DC 15 listed in the table on page 104 of UI, but no rationale is offered for the higher DC values of some checks.
- The influence check DCs appear under the discovery section of the stat block, showing some evolution in the way the social stat block is formatted. They range from DC 22 for NPC 1; DC 17 for NPC 2; DC 15 for NPC 3; DC 20 for NPC 4; to DC 18 for NPC 5. According to the chart on page 104 of UI, these checks should be DC 20 for a typical influence check and DC 25 (or more) for a difficult one. It is hence unclear how the listed values were derived. Perhaps several of these NPCs are simply intended to be particularly vulnerable to influence.
So, finally, here is my "rules" question. How is a DM intended to assign DC values for these various checks? It is the heart of the Influence system, after all. I can understand the idea was to give DMs a lot of lattitude in assigning DC values, according to their gut feeling regarding a given NPC's susceptibility to being influenced. But it would have been extremely helpful to have additional rationale regarding how these numbers are derived, and what considerations might result in their being higher or lower than "normal".
I mean, the precise values are quite important, given the varying degrees of success or failure listed when you are 5 or 10 points above or below a nominal success.
So I'm going to make some reasonable suggestions that seem in line with the text from UI, even though the way everything presented is rather confusing.
- Discovery DCs = this base value (for guileless, plain-spoken or uncomplicated NPCs), base +3 (for worldly, cautious or naturally distrustful NPCs), base +5 (for secretive, deceitful or cunning NPCs and base +10 or more (for extreme cases)
- Discovery skills are typically Sense Motive checks, but may include profession, craft or other checks appropriate for the given NPC (such as Knowledge (Arcana) or Spellcraft for a wizard)
- Influence check DCs = base value +5 for typical Influnce checks; base value +10 for difficult Influence checks; and base value +15 or more for very difficult Influence checks
- Influence check skills may be quite varied, typically including a NPC's most prominent profession, hobby or interest at the lowest value (base +5), one or two other appropriate skills at a middle value (between base +5 and base +10) and Diplomacy at a higher value (base +10, +15 or more). Bluff and Intimidation should also figure in each list.
- Strengths and weaknesses will also influence success, but are very ideosyncratic in nature, so difficult to quantify. Every NPC should have at least one or more minor weaknesses, conferring a cumulative +2 for each relevant item.
(bump)
So... nobody cares about the Influence system in Ultimate Intrigue? Or have so few of you actually got your hands on this book?
I see a lot of discussion about archetypes or the vigilante class or even the feats that allow you to conceal casting... but nothing about the various skill systems like Influence and social combat. For me, those bits are the real meat of the Ultimate Intrigue book.
It would be appalling if Paizo botched these rules so bad. Errata may be forthcoming.
The sample statblock uses the DCs for APL 4. An easy check uses that base DC (15), so merchant (DC 15) is easy, and the others are mostly typical (DC 20) except Diplomacy which is hard (DC 25). I think that you just missed this line in the DCs sidebar about the base DCs, just before mentioning adding more for typical and hard: "These DCs should be relatively easy for the PCs as a group (particularly those with access to aid another and the benefits from discovery), and they are generally appropriate for the skill that is most effective at influencing an NPC." This resolves all your DC questions for Intrigue. Of course, you're not shackled to using the suggested baseline DC on every NPC in the same way that not all monsters and NPCs will use the statistics from Bestiary Table 1-1 for their CR, so Hell's Vengeance looks like it has some variation on that, but the example used the chart entirely.
Aha! Thanks, Mark, knowing it is an APL 4 situation helps a lot in figuring out how it's all supposed to work. The text in the "Discovery and Influence check DCs on page 104 does indeed look like the primary tool a DM will use to set up social stat blocks.
So with your added information, I see there are 3 levels of difficulty: easy (base), typical (base +5) and difficult (base +10) with built-in provisions for higher DCs whenever the DM feels it appropriate.
Also, despite the text in the sidebar on page 104 only refering to Influence checks, the example (with your clarifications) makes it clear that Discovery checks follow the same sliding scale.
I'm still unconvinced why these DCs are linked to the APL rather than the NPC's CR, but obviously a given DM is free to modify things up or down, as she deems appropriate. The social stat blocks in Hell's Vengeance do appear to modulate things quite a bit, no doubt to differentiate between the relative levels of suspicion and susceptibility to influence of the various NPCs, and that is a good thing. It makes for greater variations between them.
I love this system, as well as the stuff on social combat, and am working out how to best integrate the social combat deck into them as well. All these resources should not go to waste! My players (here in France) seem to prefer intrigue and investigation-type scenarios, and after several of them met untimely ends with
... well, they were nearly begging for more intrigue. <g>
More soon.
Aha! Thanks, Mark, knowing it is an APL 4 situation helps a lot in figuring out how it's all supposed to work. The text in the "Discovery and Influence check DCs on page 104 does indeed look like the primary tool a DM will use to set up social stat blocks.
So with your added information, I see there are 3 levels of difficulty: easy (base), typical (base +5) and difficult (base +10) with built-in provisions for higher DCs whenever the DM feels it appropriate.
Also, despite the text in the sidebar on page 104 only refering to Influence checks, the example (with your clarifications) makes it clear that Discovery checks follow the same sliding scale.
I'm still unconvinced why these DCs are linked to the APL rather than the NPC's CR, but obviously a given DM is free to modify things up or down, as she deems appropriate. The social stat blocks in Hell's Vengeance do appear to modulate things quite a bit, no doubt to differentiate between the relative levels of suspicion and susceptibility to influence of the various NPCs, and that is a good thing. It makes for greater variations between them.
I love this system, as well as the stuff on social combat, and am working out how to best integrate the social combat deck into them as well. All these resources should not go to waste! My players (here in France) seem to prefer intrigue and investigation-type scenarios, and after several of them met untimely ends with
** spoiler omitted **
... well, they were nearly begging for more intrigue. <g>More soon.
Linda Zayas-Palmer did a great job with the influence system(s), and I think they'll be a lot of fun for your group! Glad you're enjoying that one and also verbal duels, which I wrote. I too enjoy running intrigue games, and I'm really looking forward to hearing how people use Intrigue to tell cool stories! Also @spoiler
Mark, one lingering question about the example from Ultimate Intrigue:
- the NPC's "strength" is resistance to Intimidate checks, conferring a -4 penalty on the check. However, in the list of possible methods to influence this NPC, no value is listed for Intimidate. Does the DM assume that the DC for Intimidate is the same as for the highest listed check (Diplomacy DC 25), before applying the -4 penalty?
Although the degrees of "sway" under the benefits of influence are only optionally proposed as a replacement for the use of Diplomacy to modify NPC attitudes, it certainly feels like that is the intent. The ease with which a high-diplomacy character can use the core rulebook Diplomacy rules to make NPCs helpful has long been recognized as broken, and many folks (notably Rich Burlew) have proposed more or less complex fixes.
It looks to me like the Influence system in UI is robust enough to replace the use of Diplomacy to modify NPC attitudes entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been playing with this system too . . .
My campaign has 18th lvl PCs (nobles) interacting with other nobles (ranging in level from 1-22).
Using the APL for these checks is seriously difficult for most characters at high levels: basically the DC means that only a dedicated social character has any prayer of establishing any influence with anyone whatsoever.
However, if you throw out APL entirely on the table, and substitute the NPCs lvl (or CR, as you will), the system works really well. You can still use the APL value as a cap to define the most wily social antagonists (the machiavellian NPCs), but then most ordinary NPCs can still be influenced.
The problem with using APL for these checks with ordinary NPCs is the PCs will never ever get any better at influencing even the most boring characters, because the DCs will escalate as they gain more experience.
But if--usually--you substitute the NPC's level for APL on the table, it allows the PCs to actually feel like they're 18th lvl powerhouses.