JakeBKK's page

You seem to have taken your current cross-blooded bloodlines to aid you in blasting, correct? If that's so I would recommend keeping your bloodlines the same and using eldritch heritage as that gives you the ability to shoot super strong electric fireballs/whatever blasting spell you want and you gain the utility of your faerie dragon.

The next best choice would be elemental/arcane. Your blasts would hit less hard but you get to keep the elemental arcana to change any blast into electricity. I think draconic (blue) by itself is the weakest due to the lack of electricity spells for you blast with.

If you're not a blaster then you'd get the most mileage out of not being cross-blooded to give you more spells to choose from.

Lots of oracles here, so I'll suggest an alternative: Dhampir Cleric with Command Undead and Undead Master, with all favoured class into +1 to the caster level of any channeling feat used to affect undead.

This wins the pure flavor contest for sure. Probably decently effective too.

Didn't they re-design the Juju Oracle recently to be more Domination-based; instead of animate dead, they're supposed to be about possessing live people with spirits.

That's possible. I just checked D20pfsrd and it stil has the animating undead stuff in there as well as the charm/dominate stuff. Is it different elsewhere?

You never specified anything about getting the spell sooner. The advantage of the Juju Oracle is that they have a higher hitdice cap for controlling undead. Also, unless I'm mistaken sorcerers have no way to heal their undead, right? So a cleric or oracle would be good for keeping your undead alive and not spending resources constantly animating new ones. Also looking at this:

Animate Dead, Lesser

Source Ultimate Magic

School necromancy [evil]; Level cleric/oracle 2, sorcerer/wizard 3

It seems the cleric can begin creating undead by level 3, the oracle by lvl 4, and the sorcer lvl 6.

Consider trying an Oracle with the Juju mystery. They do a lot with undead. A Cleric with the Undead Lord archetype gets good use out of high Charisma to use the channeling ability to heal them. They also get the ability Corpse Companion which I think allows you to animate something without needing to spend the money on black pearls.

As a GM, I've run into this problem, and I came up with a rule of thumb to address this.

I hardly ever ask for a Diplomacy roll. I let PCs with ranks in diplomacy tell me when they want to roll, and only for the purpose of improving NPC attitude. PCs without diplomacy can talk freely without ruining NPC interactions.

I really like this idea. Characters can RP all day and would only need to use diplomacy/intimidate/bluff if they don't like the way things are going and want to try to change it.

I play one of the characters. I didn't make him just purely to smash face, but frankly charisma is not high on the list of wizardly abilities or skills. I'm finding myself far less willing to speak NPCs as a result, which I've never experienced before as I normally play face characters. Now I'm totally okay with my wizard not being able to tell the most epic bluffs or convince a raging barbarian to put down his weapons, but he shouldn't auto-fail everything that requires convincing others simply because there's a skill requirement now. Also, in the game I play (not DM) other players have actually come up with really great ideas out of character, but actually chose not to speak up because of their poor social stats. It's pretty clear they want to say it, but are choosing not because of the rules.

That said if I have to work within the rules of the game I will simply just get a headband of intellect with the skill points in diplomacy and buy a circlet of persuasion. My whole point was that the rules suck. They discourage RPing. Why should all fighters and wizards be bad at diplomacy? It shouldn't be that way.

A lot of people have suggested to punish players who don't want to speak and I think that's the wrong way to do things. I'm a teacher and punishment never works as form of motivation. What I want to do instead is encourage people to feel more comfortable with speaking to NPCs, and I think a lot of the problem may be fear of failure. Another significant reason may be that it's not on their character sheet so they don't do it. I'm hoping that by giving free social skills out that will change things up a bit.

So here are some idea's I'm tossing around for the campaign I'm DMing.

1.) Give everyone 1 free skill point per level that must be spent on a social skill. If you already have a social skill then enjoy your free skill point.

The hope with this rule is no one will feel like they can't contribute to social encounters because they don't have the required skills. This doesn't completely step on the toes of the party face because they likely have higher charisma, but it does still step on their toes a bit.

2.) Try to reintroduce synergy skills, but have them scale as opposed to the flat +2 bonus for 5 ranks in 3.5. Maybe something like +2 for 4 ranks, +4 for 8 ranks, and so on.

The objective with this idea is to reward players who want to invest in being a social guy. This gives them ways to really increase their bonuses and stand out from the other characters who will also have diplomacy skills due to the free skill points. This could be done for almost no cost because they can use their free skill points to focus on these synergy bonuses.

3.) Try to be better about not requiring a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate check for every social encounter.

One resounding theme from this thread is that too many people become over dependent on these skills to handle anything social, when really they should only be used for more important encounters. I am guilty of this as well and it's something I'll look to correct.

Can you guys help out and give some feedback and/or suggestions to my 3 ideas here? Thanks again everyone. This has been a really useful thread and I'm glad to see there are others out there with similar problems who it may help.

Jake, I am currently deliberately running a "palace intrigue" campaign, where social skills are critical.

But they aren't critical for every interaction. Even in this campaign where diplomacy, intimidation and bluff are one of the key aspects of advancing the plot, I might only have four situations in an entire session where a die roll is called for.

My general rule of thumb is that I only engage the game's mechanical aspects when there are significant consequences involved. Buying dinner, asking for directions, renting a pony.... those are all just stuff that happens. Unless the player is trying to do something unusual or special, I just role play it out and react to the situation.

I perhaps have made things sound worse than they are. The examples I'm thinking of were trying to find information from a shopkeep about a customer and to get the mayor of the city to give us access to evidence for a crime we were trying to solve. Both cases, especially the second, are outside of a normal day to day tasks and probably should require rolls. That's when our group froze, and of course it's happening in other interactions as well where we have to convince anyone of anything.

edit: Also, we did find a way to deal with the second one. We found a way to buff up our guy with okay charisma and let him do the interaction solo. He still failed, sadly.

You missed my edit which addresses that.

Ah I see it now. Thanks. I did miss it.

I think there's been some really good advice here that has made me think about the situations while both DMing and playing. I'll try to come up with a final solution and I'm sure the other DM will too as he saw the problem arise as well. For me, I'm likely going to require a lot less rolls and let the PC's RP through social encounters if they choose. The only thing I need to be sure of is that the intimidator in my campaign still has opportunities to shine.

Thanks for all the advice. It's 11PM here in Thailand so I'm going to sleep. Cheers.
-Jake

JakeBKK wrote:

2. Can anyone give any suggestions/house rules to make social skills less necessary but still reward the players who want to invest in them?

1.) Don't resolve every/most/any social encounters with a roll. If a player is RPing well, go with it: If there's smoke coming from a house down the street and a PC runs up to a guard shouting "Fire!" there's no need to make a roll. If the PCs help the guard put out a fire and then explain that the burned down building was where they were staying, it's reasonable for the guard to offer them accommodations in thanks, moving the story along. Maybe give the PCs bonuses to their rolls for good RP, maybe give them several rolls throughout the conversation so they have multiple chances to succeed (this can be a fun way to steer the conversation.) Let them know that they can and likely will succeed if they put in the effort.

2.) Don't marginalize face characters, though. If they're spending resources to be persuasive, give them a chance to shine even if the player isn't the most eloquent person.

3.) Some people don't enjoy the "roleplaying" aspects as much as others, or in the same way. My fiancee constantly surprises me by the adventures she likes most, which also happen to be the adventures with the least NPC interaction. She really enjoys describing what her character does, but isn't so keen on interacting. Everyone's different, let them enjoy the game the way that they want.

1.) I agree with this

2.) Can you give some example ways you reward players?

3.) This very valid an is the case for some of the players that I play with (though not all). The reason for me posting this thread is that in the last session I played in we almost came to a complete halt when a social encounter was required. None of had the social skills if we didn't want to role play it and let a die roll decide our fates, but I think we also all expected that role playing past it wouldn't work either as our DM would likely require a Diplomacy roll, which he did, and of course the NPC was very unhelpful. I also don't blame my DM for this as he was simply following the rules listed in the Adventure Path.

They stay mute? Have the NPCs respond to that.

Only one character speaks? Have the NPCs notice that.
Character uses only Intimidate? Have the NPCs respond to that negatively.

If the characters don't interact with the NPCs, then make the NPCs interact with them.

This is valid, but doesn't solve the problem of these social skills being so necessary for social interactions. This at best has players speaking and still just failing rolls. That said, I think as a DM I'm just going to use Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate less often. Also, I'll try to find ways to not make them needed and instead allow them to open up new possible paths of action (which is not so easy as I'm GMing an adventure path so I'll have to add these myself).

Like try to imagine that. He walks into the Kohls.. "YOU"RE GONNA SELL ME THESE FOR HALF OFF! KOHLS BUCKS!!! AAARGH!"

Then goes to buy some mexican food, "BURRITOS OR I SMASH YOUR FACE!"

This made me LOL. Also I fully agree with how ridiculous it is, but I also don't blame the player when he has a 0 in Diplomacy and +13 in Intimidate for thinking that he should choose one over the other.

This seems like the perfect use of aide another. Let the whole group roll for the interaction. DC 10 to aide the face of the group.

Then everyone can talk and participate and not really have to worry about blown rolls. One group check per encounter.

This is not a bad idea at all.

In my campaign prep with my players, or when I add a new player, I usually have some version of the following advice that I give them:

I think it's just that the rules are stacked against the players for this. I don't have too many fond memories of AD&D rules, but I think in this case the lack mechanical rolling for social interactions made them a lot more fun. Also what I think happens in Pathfinder/3.0/3.5 is that players basically learn to shut up after failing enough times, be it in the current game or in past games.

There are a few ways. My go to answer is to give modifiers based on what someone says, or even let what they say out weight the value of a good dice roll. This works in both ways. Someone that only does something that could be taken negatively takes a penalty, someone who says just the right things gets a bonus to their total. If you explain that it'll be fine and they can always make the roll, but what they say helps, then sometimes that helps people actually try to speak.

This is basically using situational modifiers, right? I do think they're useful, but if they're not public to the players then they may still be unlikely to use these skills? I'm not sure really.

Never experienced this problem. Everyone in my groups keep yakkin it up, big time, myself included.

We roll social dice whenever the GM wants us to, or if we want a certain outcome, and don't feel like we have what it takes, to get it simply by being in-character.

I guess this is not at all useful to you. :C

Actually it is useful. Your group doesn't have this problem because you only use these skill when you need to actually influence someone to do something normal RPing can't solve. I personally think this is a great idea and probably the original intent of the skills, but I feel like too often DMs (myself included) feel inclined to require these skills for basic tasks.

Thanks everyone so far for the suggestions. Also sorry if I quoted anyone wrong. I don't often post on forums.

I found similar things in games I've played in.

Some people never want to talk/ interact if they can't "make the roll".. which can be understandable, based on the DM. You can have the "social" skills... be it diplomacy, intimidate, etc.. and try to RP that out.. but the DM doesn't grasp that at all.

He/she is basically just looking for a "mechanical" die roll with little to no roleplay involved.

This is pretty much what I believe is happening in my groups. What I'd like to find is a way to encourage RPing the interaction as opposed to making it as you've said, "a mechanical die roll," while still rewarding the players who have invested in these skills.

So here's my problem. A player picks a concept/class that doesn't have diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate and as a result never wants to talk to NPCs. I've noticed this both while playing and DMing. In the cases I'm thinking of most of the players have great ideas and want to say things, but in end it always comes down to either "Let the party face character do the all interactions because I have a bad diplomacy/bluff/intimidate score (and thus I'm scared of botching the roll)" or worse, no one wants to speak to NPCs at all.

In a game that I'm playing in no one has put ranks in any social skills and so no one ever wants to talk, including me (which is hard to cope with because I normally play the party face). In the game I'm DMing things aren't much better, as only the party face ever talks to NPCs (and always via intimidate because it's the only social skill he has).

I feel that the rules of the game are encouraging this behavior. I don't think this is an issue of poor character/group design. I feel like all characters should feel free to talk and have a fair chance at influencing others, but I do feel that characters who are invested in these skills should benefit from them in some way.

So here are my questions:

1. Does anyone else run into this problem of non-party face characters not wanting to speak to NPCs? If so, how does your table deal with them?

2. Can anyone give any suggestions/house rules to make social skills less necessary but still reward the players who want to invest in them?

Thanks,
-Jake

If you're dead set on maxing initiative then don't forget the feat Noble Scion and take Scion of War for Cha Mod instead of Dex Mod to initiative (assuming that's PFS legal).

edit: Another option is to take an actually useful bloodline and use Eldritch Heritage to get Elemental Fire bloodline to trigger Fire Affinity.

A lot of problems like this are because people assume that players/npcs take turns rather than attempt to act all at the same time (and understandably given how we actually do take turns at the table). The person who wins initiative is simply a little bit faster.

I hate using real life to justify D&D but just because I decide to start a fight doesn't mean I'll go first. I train muay Thai a bit here in Thailand. I'm awful at it. It doesn't matter how hard I try to catch my trainer off guard he always gets me first. Even if we're just standing around goofing off between rounds (not in combat) I can't sneak a kick or a jab on him. You could read that as I'm trying to start the combat (kicking him when he's not ready) but he wins initiative and kicks me first.

Just remember that 1 round of combat is everyone trying to act at the same time in a 6 second period, despite the fact that it probably takes most tables 3-5 minutes.

Thank you for doing these. It really saves my group from my horrific art. But i have a quick question. im trying to upload one of your maps into my roll20 account, specifically the Lodge, but it keeps saying that it is too large, is there a way to shrink it down in file size?

I shrunk it down using photoshop, but I'm pretty sure you could use MS Paint to do the same thing. I recommend for all maps that you shrink it down to the number of squares x 70 pixels. It will make lining it up with the grid on roll20.net much easier.

Ex. Grid is 20x10. Resize it to 1400x700

Let's see if I can min-max this, 20 point buy, and get the 32:

Aasmir Drunken Master Monk of the Sacrd Mountains +Wis/Dex
Str: 7
Int: 10
Wis: 18 (20 with magic item)
Dex: 19 (20 after level up, 22 with magic item)
Con: 14
Chr: 7

My trait lets me combat experitse for -1 less to my attack bonus.

I bought an Agile Amulet of Mighty fist, a wand of mage armor for the party's mage, a +1 ring of protection, a headband of Wisdom, and a Belt of dex +2

Feats: 1) Combat Expertise, Weapon Finessee
2) Dodge
3) Crane Style 1

I always fight defensivly with combat expertise; and when in dangerous area ask for mage armor.

So base AC: 21 (Wis + Dex bonuses), +1 (Combat Expertise), +3 (Fighting Defensively) +2 (Standing still, Sacred Mountain) +1 (Ring of Protection) +1 (Monk Level), and, 9 times (plus drunken ki) per day (Ki Pool) can be +4 extra. That's a 33.

And I'm still hitting at +7/+7 for d8+6. Soon I'll also pick up trip and knock people down well too.

Yeah, guess it is possible. Who said monks are weak? :).

Sorry if this has been said already, but how does a level 4 character have over 14,000 gold in items?

Amulet of Mighty Fist +1 4,000
Headband of Wisd +2 4,000
Belt of Dex +2 4,000
Ring of Prot +1 2,000

So yes, while your level 4 monk is great he also has the wealth of a near level 6 character. Or am I missing something here?