Chris Brown 66's page

On pg 112, the cost/weight columns for non-standard armor seem to be switched. The PHB has Cost first, and Weight second, while the PFRPG Beta has Weight first Cost second. Wouldn't be a problem, but the multipliers didn't move.

Shisumo wrote:

There is a non-OGC feat that does this (in Complete Arcane).

To be truly fair, however that feat was not constructed to balance with the arcane bond class feature. In the old rules you could not have taken it to get two familliars it was for classes like bard which could arcane cast but not get a familliar at all.

I would strongly suggest not allowing this feat in a Pathfinder campaign.

I think the feat should be as it was, a way for a Bard or non-core arcane class to get a familiar.

I also agree with the OP that Sorcerers should maybe get a familiar, but not the choice of a bonded object.

I love the fact that a wizard can FINALLY get a staff as a core ability, and personally think that the idea of an animal familiar fits with Sorcerer rather than wizard. I mean, most wizards I knew didn't spent the 100 gp to get a familiar, because they'd rather purchase spells to add to their spellbook. When Dragon introduced the Staffs of the Magi, I got it right away and have allowed it as a player option.

Speaking of, did that 100 gp cost go away, too?

Acrobatics** (Dex) includes: Balance,Tumble, Fly, Escape Artist(large)
Appraise (Int)
Athletics** (Str) includes: Climb, Jump, Swim
Concentration (Con) includes: see below
Deception (Cha) includes: Bluff, Disguise
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Dex) includes: Open Lock
Handle Animal (Cha) includes: Handle/*Training Animals(Cha), *can use as Ride (w/ Acrobatics)
Intimidate (Cha)
Knowledge (Int)

• Arcana - includes: Spellcraft (Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard)
  
• Religion - includes: Spellcraft (Cleric/Paladin spell)
  
• Nature - includes: Spellcraft (Druid/Ranger spells)
  
• Others unchanged

• Music - can be used as Diplomacy/Handle animal (but only if the people/animal are already listening)
  
• Oratory - can be used as Diplomacy/Intimidate (long form only)
  
• Acting - can be used as Deception

• Alchemy - Craft(Alchemy), Appraise(alchemical items)
  
• Architect - Know(Architecture and Engineering), Appraise(buildings)
  
• Blacksmith - Craft(Metal Weapons, Armor), Appraise(weapons/armor)
  
• Beggar - Urban Survival, Know(Local)
  
• Tomb Raider - Know(Dungeoneering), Appraise(gems, art)
  
• Trader - Appraise and Diplomacy/Sense Motive in Negotiation
  
• Trapsmith - Craft(Trapmaking), Disable Device (Traps)
  
• etc. - DM Discretion

* trained only
** Armor Check Applies

I posted a list earlier, and after a month of playtesting and thought, I revised my list. We are a pretty role-playing heavy group, so this list may not appeal to hack n' slash players.

I had taken away the knowledges and replaced a lot with Profession checks. My original intention was to promote the profession skills. But here's the problem:

DM "Roll a untrained Profession check."
PC "Why?"
DM "To notice if the walls are stable."
PC "What the ...?"

I still think craft fits nicely into profession, and I think if a player wants to devote themselves to a profession that allows them to understand the world at a more intuitive level, that can make great roleplaying opportunities without gimping them for including it on their character sheet.

Therefore, the Knowledges are back, and I pushed Spellcraft into Knowledge(Arcana), Knowledge(Nature), and Knowledge(Religion). It made a lot more sense than Concentration into Knowledge(Arcana), and it also made sense to split up the different Spellcraft disciplines into different Knowledge categories. I like it being based on Int. It does make sense that you know the spells, and that's how you can recognize them, but it doesn't make sense that Druid spells and Cleric spells should be recognized by Knowledge(Arcana), when there is a Knowledge(Nature) and a Knowledge(Religion) available.

PERFORM and PROFESSION:
I changed the performs to simplify them. Most musicians, actors and speakers were more versatile in their abilities, and I thought the skill should reflect that. I think it's good for flavor and interest in the roleplaying aspects of the game if PCs (other than bards) take Perform and Professions. I also believe that knowledge comes from experience in the area or training in a task. Therefore, I moved craft, and a bunch of knowledges into perform and profession. I also allowed Professions and Performs to "replace" other skills (in limited cases, and only if trained). This lets those that train in a profession gain some benefit from it, and also use Wisdom (i.e. experience) help them with those.

I guess I got a little sick of "flavor" skills that get ignored by most players, or worse, get picked by players and ignored by the DM. When that happens, it reinforces that those skills are for flavor and offer nothing in the game. You might as well just say "I'm a baker" and not take any ranks. I think more players will take these professions, since they offer more in-game participation. I also encourage other profession ideas, and offer to use it to replace another check in a specific situation.

TRAINED/UNTRAINED:

All skills except Perform are untrained, with a few aspects of some skills trained (i.e. Spellcraft/UMD). I think this reflects the core idea of skills. Notice that the "can be used as" is only if trained in the skill. There has to be some investment of experience for those to work.

21 Skills (including Knowledges and 8 major professions)

CONCENTRATION:
Many people accuse it as being a "band-aid" for spellcasting because it is spellcaster-neutral, and that in reality, it should be based on some mental attribute. I agree that it should be spellcaster neutral, but I don't believe it should be mental. In the Real World, the three most common things that prevent people from focusing on tasks they need to complete are: 1) Sickness, 2) Fatigue, and 3) Hunger. I mean, growing companies like Microsoft and Google provide free, readily accessible food and nap areas because they recognize the improvement to productivity and (bing bing bing) concentration. If sickness, fatigue and hunger have nothing to do with Constitution, then let's rewrite the saves (not that I would mind a little shake-up there). Here is a list of things I would allow the use of Concentration for.

• Cast Spell/Use Skill distracted
  See SRD for DC of distractions
  
• Counter Intimidate*: Opposed Check
  
• Overcome Fear*: Fear DC
  
• Memorize/Recall*: DC 15 (+5 on recall if rushed)
  
• Focused Rest*: DC 20
  
• Stay Conscious*: DC 20 + Nonlethal Dmg - current HP
  
• Stabilize Self*: DC 25 + number of HP less than 0
  

*Trained Only

Cast Spell amidst distraction/battle, or cast defensively:
Ultimately, this was what most DMs saw this skill as, and therefore, that's what people used the skill for.

Use Skills while distracted by pain, annoyance, hunger, or use defensively:
Many skills, if used in combat, provoke AoO, why not use a concentration check to do those defensively, just like a spell? Here are skills I think would make sense requiring a concentration check to succeed in some situations:
Acrobatics (Escape Artist), Athletics (Climb & Swim), Disble Device, Handle Animal, Linguistics (Forgery), Perform, Search, Slight of Hand, Survival (Tracking), Use Magic Device

Counter Intimidate:
Replace the level check with a concentration check. If you beat the Intimidate score, you are not demoralized. If you beat it by five or more, the opponent must make a check against your score to resist being demoralized. This is done as a free action in response to a demoralizing intimidate check.

Overcome Fear:
If under a fear effect, you may overcome the fear with a Concentration check (Fear DC). If failed, successive attempts increase the DC by 5 each.

Memorize:
You may focus your mind into a trance, allowing you to memorize a series of numbers, a text or verse, or a pattern. You must make a DC 15 check to put the information into your mind, and another to retrieve it. (e.g. memorize a long pattern of shifting platforms or continuously firing traps to easily move past them...think Sean Connery rolling under the boiler in The Rock). The DC increases by 5 if rushed.

Focused Rest:
With a DC 20 Concentration check, and a full day with no more than light activity, you may focus your energy inward, as if you were under long term care (as per the Heal skill).

This allows a character to provide long-term care to up to 6 others, and receive the same benefits himself.

Stay Conscious:
Through meditation, you have bridged your own mind and body to keep yourself conscious when near unconsciousness. When you take nonlethal damage that would knock you unconscious, you may make a Concentration check (DC 20 + number of points of non-lethal damage which exceed your current hit points) to remain conscious. This check must succeed each time your current hitpoints change (but remain positive), or the amount of non-lethal damage taken changes.

Stabilize Self:
You have a connection between your mind and body that allows you, in a comatose state, to keep from dying. If you are dying, you may make a Concentration check (DC 25 + number of hit points below 0) to stabilize yourself.

Many of these uses were taken from Bring Back Concentration Please and some from Autohypnosis (3.0 Psionic Handbook - which is Open Content).

ARMOR CHECK PENALTIES:
Armor checks penalties are for very few skills, unless you are not proficient. I didn't like how Pathfinder just made all Str/Dex skills include an armor check. That's what 3.5 did for non-proficient armor wearers. I included some of the skills that I think would be affected by wearing armor that you aren't used to (my thought is distracting a rogue/bard trying to do something in heavy armor).

Non-Proficient in Armor -
Concentration, Disable Device, Deception (Disguise), Perform, Sleight of Hand, Survival, and UMD checks.

CLASS SKILLS & NUMBER OF SKILLS:
I've read a lot of these lists (including my own earlier) and noticed that very few people talk about how their skills will be divided amongst the classes. I mean, everyone talks about the rogue, but what about the others. If you bring back concentration with other abilities, does it make sense to give the skill to everyone who casts? With the Clerics orisons, do they need heal (or a heal substitute)? What about the Sorcerer's Bloodlines? Change some skills, and suddenly we have to fix, those, too. These are decisions I wrestled with for a while, and came up with the list below.

Class (Base # skills/level) - Class Skills:
Bar(4) - Acrobatics, Athletics, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Nature, Perception, Ride, Survival
Brd(6) - Acrobatics, Appraise, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Knowledge(all), Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Profession, Sense Motive, Slight of Hand, Stealth, Use Magic Device
Clr(2) - Appraise, Concentration, Diplomacy, Knowledge(History), Knowledge(Religion), Knowledge(The Planes), Linguistics, Profession, Sense Motive
Drd(4) - Athletics, Concentration, Handle Animal, Nature, Perception, Profession, Ride, Survival
Ftr(4) - Athletics, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Profession, Ride, Survival
Mnk(6) - Acrobatics, Athletics, Concentration, Intimidate, Perception, Perform, Profession, Sense Motive, Slight of Hand, Stealth, Survival
Pal(2) - Concentration, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge(Nobility & Royalty), Profession, Religion, Ride, Sense Motive
Rgr(6) - Athletics, Concentration, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Nature, Perception, Profession, Ride, Search, Stealth, Survival
Rog(8) - Acrobatics, Appraise, Athletics, Concentration, Deception, Disable Device, Intimidate, Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Slight of Hand, Stealth, Survival, Use Magic Device
Sor(4) - Appraise, Arcana, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Perform, Profession, Use Magic Device

• Abberant - Athletics
  
• Abyssal - Stealth
  
• Arcane - Linguistics
  
• Celestial - Knowledge(Religion)
  
• Destined - Knowledge(History)
  
• Draconic - Perception
  
• Elemental - Survival
  
• Fey - Knowledge(Nature)
  
• Infernal - Deception
  
• Undead - Knowledge(Religion)

Personally, I feel that the Fighter, Monk, and Sorcerer kind of got a raw deal in respect to skills. The fighter should be somewhat customizable in skills as well as feats, so I bumped him up to a 4+INT. I think of Monks as especially skilled fighters, and at the same level as a ranger in that respect, so I bumped him up to 4+INT. Finally, the
sorcerer--since they usually don't put a lot into Int(as it's not their primary casting stat), they will usually get 2-3 skill points. That means a social skill (to actually take advantage of CHA), and their bloodline, or Know(Arcana), or Spellcraft. This leaves almost nothing to customization or Wizards, on the other hand, get plenty of skills due to their high Int. So, I bumped it to 4+INT (considering 6+INT).

The second part I can see as more of an argument, though I still think BaB is a pretty good baseline for these things. The stone golem may be less speedy then the giant, but he has a higher BaB because he knows how to land blows and find those openings even when he doesn't have as long to do so.

I still strongly lean towards the BaB idea, but if you are thinking that its all based on how nimble the person being tumbled past is, perhaps the idea of something like opposed acrobatics checks(or to save on some extra dice rolling, maybe DC is 10+Acrobatics of the opponent?)

-Tarlane

This was ignored earlier, but I think it's an appropriate and valid suggestion. The difficulty should be higher against more experienced enemies, but BaB doesn't really seem like it represents purely experience. I mean, some of the arguments are "a fighter has seen their fair share of enemies tumble by..."

I think a rogue would see their fair share of enemies tumble by and know what they are about to do. Why? Because they have training watching people do that. So, the answer, opposed Acrobatics checks. Opposed checks are not a novelty, while DC = x + BaB are. Those that are not trained in Acrobatics have essentially the same chance as before: roll + DEX. It also gives a better feel for a monk battle. I mean, what is cooler than two monks moving around each other way faster than 5' every second, taking a pot shot or two at opposed onlookers who can barely tell where either of them are.

While your average hunk of armor fighter can be easily avoided, yet more experienced fighters do have a better chance (thanks to armor training and the lower armor check penalty to acrobatics).

So, the suggestion was ignored before. Can I repose it and get a response -- can we say compromise?

Yep OGL only any thing from wotc splat books are out

Of course, that doesn't prevent you from using those feats. I mean, isn't the point to be backwards compatible so your old books don't become useless?

Anyway, as said before, they can come up with their own feats, they don't need to use already written things.

Personally, I don't see healing surges as providing DR, but given the way HP is portrayed in 4E (it's more your will to fight than a physical damage track) as something that's pumping your desire to go out and kick some tail.

Which I don't think exactly translates to the slightly more "measure of physical damage" slant that 3E HP have.

I'd also like to ask what's to prevent a character with your feat from simply re-activating it after it runs out? Or even activating it multiple times for a larger, though temporary DR boost?

Take a Con 18 character with this feat (Granting Con mod x2), he can gain DR 8 (To what? “-”? “magic”?) for 4 rounds. What's to stop him from activating the feat the round after he activates it, for a bonus of DR 16? Or doing it again on round 3 for DR 32? Or once more on the 4th round for DC 40, and then continuing to active it every round thereafter to maintain DR 40, something that would require 14 Epic feats with the Damage Reduction [Epic] feat to obtain.

I see this feat being similar to the 3.5 default Power Attack in usage: Always considered active unless the player decides to deactivate it. For Power Attack, deactivating it would make sense if you can't hit, but your feat would have no reasons to deactivate it, because there's no downside.

Essentially, every feat needs to be judged by certain criteria to determine it's "balance". That criteria is "Why wouldn't I take this?" and "Why would I take it?"

At present, your Damage Reduction feat has no answer to the first question, and a "Duh, non class-, magic item-, spell-based Damage Reduction" as the answer to the second. It needs a restriction, such as a spelled-out restriction on activating it concurrently with itself, and a daily limit to keep it from being "on" all the time.

I'm not in support of this feat, and probably wouldn't allow it anyway, but I do have some problems with this argument.

First, be careful to read the proposed feat carefully. He said a number of ROUNDS PER DAY equal to your constitution modifier. That's more like a spell that grants damage reduction 5 for 5 rounds each day (1st Level Dwarf).

There's no reactivating it because it doesn't get "activated".

I do believe that DR is a more powerful thing in 3.x than 4E, which is why I stand opposed to this idea.

As you continue to refine and playtest the game, I'd suggest that you decide on a default perspective in regard to the (oft-overlooked) feats that provide skill bonuses.

Approaches that have been adopted in various other sources include:

* Basic skill focus: +3 bonus to Skill X.
* Related skills: +2 Skill Y and +2 Skill Z, with short explanation of why Y and Z are related. A limited number of such skill pairings are specified in the rules.
* Additional points: +Q points to spend on any skill(s), but may not exceed normal level-rank limits.

The simplest approach would be to offer a single feat that allows a +2/+2 bonus to any two skills -- chosen by the player -- as long as they're logically related and approved by the GM (ex: Sense Motive and Bluff, or Acrobatics and Stealth, but unlikely Appraise and Swim). Allow stackability. One feat written in an open-ended manner would save page space and provide flexibility. ... This would effectively eliminate the need for Skill Focus, of course, but that's not a big deal except in the case of prestige class prereqs.

Alternately, I would suggest the "additional points" option, which allows a player to swap out a feat for skill points. This would be a reasonable avenue of approach for the fighter to build his scrawny skills base - he already recieves a bunch of fighter bonus feats, so he could afford to give up a standard character leveling feat every so often if that's the player's concept.

The difference between those two should be obvious: The former provides a *bonus* that can raise a skill ability above the level-rank limit, while the latter reaffirms the character level glass ceiling for ranks. They both have their advantages, depending on your perspective. I'm sure you have an opinion for game mechanics reasons.

(Pesonally? I opt for the +2/+2 bonus option, as it has more of a sense of the lost synergistic skills element from previous 3.x rules. ... You could even name the feat "Skill Synergy" and kill two birds with one stone.)

Thanks much.

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these changes. In fact, to keep the synergy in line, I would make a prerequisite for the Skill Synergy feat at 5 skill ranks in each skill. Then you could have Advanced Skill Synergy with prereq 15 ranks and an additional +4/+4 bonus.

The exchange a Feat for skill points seems very intelligent, especially for the dual-classed characters that can't "catch up" with two or three skills, simply because they have one class without many points.

Overview - these are the major changes I'm proposing

Acrobatics and Athletics - I think the arguments made previously speak for themselves.
UMD, Spellcraft, broken into types (Arcane/Divine/Nature)
Roleplaying skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Perform) - see below
Craft - absorbed into Profession. Professional craftsmen make things.
Knowledge - gone, many other skills take the appropriate places

ACROBATICS (DEX) - Balance, Tumble, Fly, Escape Artist(full body)

ARCANA (INT*) - Know(Arcana, The Planes (Inner)), Spellcraft (arcane spells), UMD & Appraise (arcane items)

ATHLETICS (STR) - Climb, Jump, Swim*

DISCIPLINE (CON) - Concentration, Autohypnosis*, Holding Breath

HEAL (WIS) - heal

LEGERDEMAIN (DEX*) - Open Locks, Pick Pockets, Use Rope, Escape Artist(bound hands)

LINGUISTICS (INT*) - decipher script, speak language (other than native)

LORE (INT*) - Know(history, local, nobility)

NATURE (WIS*) - Survival, Know(Nature, Geography), Spellcraft (divine druid spells), UMD & Appraise (nature-based magic items)

NEGOTIATE (CHA) - "strike a deal" diplomacy.

PERCEPTION (WIS) - Spot, Listen, Sense Motive

PERFORM (CHA*)
(MUSICAL) - entertainment attitude adjustment (emotions) and bardic music.
(ORATORY) - intimidate, attitude adjustment (debate, soapbox, humor, etc.)
(ACTING) - bluff, intimidate, disguise

PROFESSION (INT*)
(ALCHEMIST) - Craft(Alchemy), Appraise(alchemical items)
(ANIMAL HANDLER) - Ride, Train animals, Appraise(animals)
(ARCHITECT) - Know(Architecture and Engineering), Appraise(buildings)
(BLACKSMITH) - Craft(Metal Weapons, Armor), Appraise(weapons/armor)
(TOMB RAIDER) - Know(Dungeoneering), Appraise(gems, art)
(TRADER) - Appraise(anything)
(PAUPER) - Urban Survival, Know(Local)
(TRAPSMITH) - Craft(Trapmaking), Disable Device, Appraise(traps)
etc.

RELIGION (WIS*) - Know(Religion, The Planes (Outer)), Spellcraft (divine cleric spells), UMD & Appraise (divine religious items)

SEARCH (INT) - still search

STEALTH (DEX) - Move Silently, Hide

*- Trained only

Reasoning behind some of the changes:
MAGIC skills:
Basically, they are like the PF's Knowledge(arcana), but without the "Knowledge" label. It makes it feel less like you are abusing the knowledge skill. I split them up into Arcane Divine and Nature because it seems like spellcrafts shouldn't work like that. I don't usually allow my clerics to spellcraft arcane spells, because they are different. I also usually separate Druidic magic from clerical, even though they are both divine. If there is a spell in more than one category, I usually say it can go either way (so, in this system, whichever skill they have the most ranks in), but they only get one check. For UMD, if a person has a wand, and they don't know whether it is Natural, Divine or Arcane, they can try both, one at a time, but risk
the negative effects of backlash or something if they guess wrong. It adds a little more risk, but heightens the sense of reward for taking the right skills.

I know these arguments have already been made, but it also doesn't make sense for a Wizard to immediately know what spell a Cleric or Druid is casting, simply because they have been studying wizard spells their entire life. I don't believe it overpowers the skill, either, since a Wizard would not need ARCANE for Use Magic Device, but instead for Spellcraft. Likewise, a Rogue would, for the most part, not be able to do anything about a spell being cast (i.e. Counter), but would be attempting to do a UMD whenever they could.

PERFORM and PROFESSION:
I changed the bardic perform to simply Perform(music). Most musicians through history could play instruments and sing, and I don't really think that a bard who has broken his lute should lose half their abilities.

I liked this argument on Perform:

Dancing, Weapon Drills, Juggling and Choreographed performances could be handled by Acrobatics (using Charisma as the keyed ability for such uses of the skill).

Acting, Drama, etc. could be handled by Deception. My roommate is an actress and I have arrived at the understanding that "acting" requires the actor to be brutally honest with themselves from an emotional standpoint. i.e. If they are not drawing on their own real emotions then the act will be transparent. This would seem to fit with what makes an effective bluff or disguise.

but I prefer to move things into perform rather than out. If you take the first suggestion I made, and add Laithoron's, then there is only one perform. I didn't like that idea, so I moved it the other way.

I think it's good for flavor and interest in the roleplaying aspects of the game if PCs (other than bards) take Perform and Professions. I also believe that knowledge comes from experience in the area or training in a task. Therefore, I moved crafts, half of diplomacy, and a bunch of knowledges into perform and profession.

I was half-tempted to move perform into profession, too, but decided against it because of all the "perform" check references.

I guess I got a little sick of "flavor" skills that get ignored by most players, or worse, get picked by players and ignored by the DM. When that happens, it reinforces that those skills are for flavor and offer nothing in the game. You might as well just say "I'm a baker" and not take any ranks. I think more players will take these professions, since they offer more in-game participation.

APPRAISE & KNOWLEDGE

I'd put in a caveat saying that an appraisal or piece of knowledge can be gleaned from any appropriate skill, but you may only make one skill check for a piece of knowledge. The appropriateness of the skill can adjust the DC. For instance, a NATURE check would have a lower DC than a PROFESSION(BLACKSMITH) check for a magical Ironwood shield, but I wouldn't deny the blacksmith a check, since they could still examine it for strength based on their experience. This allows any player to make an argument for their character knowing certain things based on their skills.

BabbageUK wrote:

In answer to the original OP - balance is important, but not the way Wizards are doing it. I consider classes balanced if they have their own moment to shine - when they stride ahead of the rest for whatever reason. Wizards seem to be focussed on the battle mat and combat generally, so if you can't shine there - you're not 'balanced'.

As for the Diplomacy skill I never had a problem with it. That's probably because I don't care what the rules say - to get anyone from 'Indifferent' to 'Fanatical' would take a damn site longer than a few minutes, and a lot more than just talking to them. If it were that easy, wouldn't there be armies of fanatics headed by a high level bard everywhere?

Rules and realism don't often mix, so a healthy dose of common sense is called for at times. Ask us Yorkshiremen, we're good at common sense! ;)

We've never even had to make Diplomacy rolls. We have to roleplay it out, and that usually determines what happens. Too many people play roLLplaying instead of roLEplaying. But what ever floats your boat.

Krome, to quote your earlier post "A decent DM should be able to handle it. But if you know womething is broken, why publish it that way?"

Just because you, as a decent DM, know how to do Diplomacy a good way (via roleplaying), doesn't mean they should publish a broken version of it. Common sense only works when the "Solomon" DM is in charge. When the new DM starts the game, they fall back to the rules. When the rules are broken, there's a problem. Of course, I say go to the skills and feats post and lets talk Diplomacy.

I guess that's the main thing I've seen in this post so far. There is a huge difference between "broken" and "imbalanced". Imbalanced isn't a big deal, it makes the game fun, but broken is broken. I think the goal of Pathfinder is to fix the broken stuff in 3.5, make the "common houserules" into smoother rules, and keep the game moving so there's not an hour long session of "Ok, Mike, it's your turn."

Zynete wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Rich Burlew's system is just as bad in its own way. He sets a +10 DC modifier for exchanging a castle for a piece of string, for Pete's sake!

On his forums he made a comment saying that was a bit of a joke and he didn't seriously mean that you could get a castle for a piece of string.

Well, that's sort of my point. There's a whole bunch of Diplomacy rules (3.5, Pathfinder, Rich Burlew's, whatever), but when it comes right down to it, nobody seriously thinks that you can get Demogorgon to commit suicide (say) just by making a really high Diplomacy check.

At any rate, with Rich Burlew's system getting your 20th level (base DC 35) archenemy (+10) with 18 Wisdom (+4) to accept a horrible bargain (+10) is a DC 59 Diplomacy check. That's well within the realm of possibility when you consider there are abilities that give you +20 on skill checks!

Ok, so I am also a DM who prefers the middle ground. I find it fun to have diplomatic discussions, but I don't want to penalize a character for the player's personality, or the DM (think about the difference between the omnipotent DM talking and the orc merchant - I know you have more money than that....I mean, I see your pouch is quite large). I also don't like the fact that a "diplomacy" argument (someone trying to get their way) can last 10-20 minutes if the DM can't end it with a very clear roll. Players also get upset when they "lose" a roll after the argument because they think the DM just made up a DC which was impossible. I love roleplaying, but it gets a little too intense in the meta-game.

I guess the biggest thing that I want is an opposed check (or roll of 10 depending on enemy). I know it's more rolling, but at least it's not totally arbitrary. I agree that the +/-10 cap is a little arbitrary, and even though a 59 is doable, it's only doable by those who have devoted their lives to talking people into doing/not doing things. I mean, I'm sure there are people out there that can convince someone who they consider their arch-enemy to commit suicide.

I think I would also prefer some of the "talking" items to be combined or adjusted. There's nothing quite as diminishing as having a tense discussion, then I have to ask (out of game context) "Is that a bluff?" Sometimes you haven't decided if you are going to uphold your end of the bargain when you are making the negotiations. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this one, but it's something to think about, not a suggested change.
The other stupid meta-gaming that happens is "if the DM rolls for you, it's Bluff vs. Sense Motive, otherwise it's Diplomacy".

I don't mind continuing to house-rule it, but I figure if almost everyone does a house-rule, they could at least get something that newbie DMs could use effectively. Anything that's not a flat DC would make me happy. Maybe Rich's 20th level archenemy could be compelled to do something horrible with a 59, but right now all you need is a 25 (according to the rules). I've known plenty of players that would get bent out of shape if you didn't let them do at least something pretty awesome with a measly 25 roll.

I guess that's my rant.

What is with the flat DCs on Diplomacy. I mean, now they add some modifiers to them, but they are still flat.

Check out Rich Berlew's Diplomacy overhaul. That's what is needed, with permission, of course.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html