|
I am a relatively new player and a brand new DM and I have a question about using diplomacy. One of my PCs in RoTR has a PC with an enormous bonus to diplomacy, he often rolls in the forties after all bonuses. Are there limits to the usefulness of diplomacy in a conflict? If he rolls a 45, even with a -10 due to rushing the attempt, could he effectively change any NPCs attitude to friendly, even a BBEG? What happens if he just changes a hostile foe to indifferent, one that would normally attack on sight? His PC can't rush a roll now and get a 45 but will be able to in the future and I would like to be prepared. Thanks in advance for your responses.
|
I am a relatively new player and a brand new DM and I have a question about using diplomacy. One of my PCs in RoTR has a PC with an enormous bonus to diplomacy, he often rolls in the forties after all bonuses. Are there limits to the usefulness of diplomacy in a conflict? If he rolls a 45, even with a -10 due to rushing the attempt, could he effectively change any NPCs attitude to friendly, even a BBEG? What happens if he just changes a hostile foe to indifferent, one that would normally attack on sight? His PC can't rush a roll now and get a 45 but will be able to in the future and I would like to be prepared. Thanks in advance for your responses.
Welcome to DMing. It sounds like you're in for a bit of a trial here, since you've got a player who likes to min/max. One of the best pieces of advice I can give you is to take control of the game. Say no.
OK, you're looking for rules advice first, so let me give you some (keeping in mind that my own solution would tend to be a simple 'no' in the first place...) One of the biggest limits in diplomacy is that it is language based - if your player and his opponent don't share a similar language, the skill roll doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It probably won't take your player long, though, to get Tongues or some equivalent, so let's move on from there.
Next, his opponent needs to be able to hear him. Combat is loud. Insist the opponent make listen checks to see if he can understand the player. Hearing some one talking is a DC 0, while hearing a battle is DC -10. I'd feel entirely comfortable imposing a -10 penalty to trying to hear some one talking over a battle, but at the very least you should never forget the -1 penalty per 10 feet of distance. If the opponent doesn't hear him, the check fails.
Your final rules refuge is that diplomacy changes attitude, but that's all. If the opponent your character is facing is not the one making the decisions, then diplomacy becomes useless. If he's a soldier under orders, or a guard set to prevent anyone passing the bridge, then you can reasonably say it doesn't matter how he feels about the player, he's still doing his job. Be warned - this reasoning makes Diplomacy very useful against a boss, so the end encounter could still be a bit of a denouement.
Now, all that said, while I think diplomacy as written is abusable, it can also be a lot of fun if well played. When a player is starting with mega-bonuses, I tend to assume some level of abuse, but I could be entirely wrong, and you'll have to judge that. If he's playing a classic trickster, or some one who really is trying to find common ground, then by all means go with it - but be prepared to see very different outcomes than expected in the adventure, which means you'll be winging it an awful lot. An easy way to judge this is to watch his role play. Is he using diplomacy to make real offers? Or just rolling the die and expecting his opponents to roll over? In the end, that's a judgment call you'll have to make.
Drew Garrett
|
|
I am a relatively new player and a brand new DM and I have a question about using diplomacy. One of my PCs in RoTR has a PC with an enormous bonus to diplomacy, he often rolls in the forties after all bonuses. Are there limits to the usefulness of diplomacy in a conflict? If he rolls a 45, even with a -10 due to rushing the attempt, could he effectively change any NPCs attitude to friendly, even a BBEG? What happens if he just changes a hostile foe to indifferent, one that would normally attack on sight? His PC can't rush a roll now and get a 45 but will be able to in the future and I would like to be prepared. Thanks in advance for your responses.
A lot of what drew wrote above is quite true. I'd like to add the following:
Minus' and bonus' are up to the DM. One player I had used to do the exact same thing during games, but he didn't roleplay the attempt at all. He believed that walking up, saying Hello and then rolling with the -10 would be fine. The attempt still requires some logic, otherwise it takes a minus. The BBEG might be swayed normally if you logically point out that if he surrenders they can get him a reduced sentence. He won't if you walk up and say "Hello, we're adventurers. Wanna be my friend?" That would take a -20 in my game, probably even more.
So basically what I'm rambling about is remember to make NPC's more human like and less like targets at the whims of the characters.
|
|
Thanks for the good advice. I will definitely think about this some more considering what you both have said. I am sure once we reach a certain level, magic will be able to counteract some of his attempts, detect thoughts, detect good, etc. It just seems that some foes, the really evil ones, would be impossible to turn into friendly or even indifferent in the face of good adventurers and there is no mechanic for that in the RAW.
I love it when my players try to talk their way through an encounter. That being said you can't talk your way out of everything. Making someone friendly or even helpful doesn't make them stupid. Having someone trying to make a diplomacy check while combat is happening doesn't go over well with too many foes. Having the rest of the party stop attacking and them telling them you want to talk might work. Telling the BBEG to surrender and turn himself in will never work no matter the roll. I would say just be reasonable about the foes responses and you should be fine.
Also it requires that the whole party is nice to the BBEG. If you (as the BBEG) are thinking "Hey, this guy is a nice guy. I think what he is saying has a lot of merit. Maybe we can work this out without me killing him." It sure is ruined by a sword in your ribs or a fireball ruining your hair dew.
Also on that note the overtones of peace and friendship must appear to be sincere if they want him to stay friendly. After a person will change their mind if the party is judgemental dicks to him afterwards or use his most nice gesture in years (not killing them) to try and take advantage of him.
I am a relatively new player and a brand new DM and I have a question about using diplomacy. One of my PCs in RoTR has a PC with an enormous bonus to diplomacy, he often rolls in the forties after all bonuses. Are there limits to the usefulness of diplomacy in a conflict? If he rolls a 45, even with a -10 due to rushing the attempt, could he effectively change any NPCs attitude to friendly, even a BBEG? What happens if he just changes a hostile foe to indifferent, one that would normally attack on sight? His PC can't rush a roll now and get a 45 but will be able to in the future and I would like to be prepared. Thanks in advance for your responses.
I found the following *somewhere* on the next but forgot to write down the place. You could probably search for it, I am just being lazy.
===========
Building the Foundation
OK, so, in my thinking I have come up with a few ground rules to guide my principle:
1.) I only worry about characters who invest in Diplomacy. Sure, fighters will occasionally be stuck having to talk their way out of something, but the system needs to work the right way for those who put max ranks in the skill and have a decent Charisma bonus. After all, combat values are derived from the best case scenario, the fighter, not the wizard. This is, in fact, one of the flaws with the current system; anyone who spends a modicum of effort being good at it, breaks it.
2.) In 3rd Edition, Diplomacy is defined as "Making people like you." I want to change that definition, for I think it lacks depth and is poorly understood. In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them." The idea is that anything you need to ask another person can be phrased in the form of a trade-even if you are offering "nothing" on one end of that trade, or something very abstract.
3.) A diplomat PC asking a stranger of equal level and Wisdom of 10 to accept a deal with an even risk-vs.-reward ratio should need to roll a 10 on the die to succeed. This is my numerical starting point, and I will proceed in both directions from there.
The Big Reveal:
Diplomacy (Cha)
Use this skill to ask the local baron for assistance, to convince a band of thugs not to attack you, or to talk your way into someplace you aren't supposed to be.
Check: You can propose a trade or agreement to another creature with your words; a Diplomacy check can then persuade them that accepting it is a good idea. Either side of the deal may involve physical goods, money, services, promises, or abstract concepts like "satisfaction." The DC for the Diplomacy check is based on three factors: who the target is, the relationship between the target and the character making the check, and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal proposed.
The Target: The base DC for any Diplomacy check is equal to the 15 + level of the highest-level character in the group that you are trying to influence + the Wisdom modifier of the character in the group with the highest Wisdom. High-level characters are more committed to their views and are less likely to be swayed; high Wisdom characters are more likely to perceive the speaker's real motives and aims. By applying the highest modifiers in any group, a powerful king (for example) might gain benefit from a very wise advisor who listens in court and counsels him accordingly. For this purpose, a number of characters is only a "group" if they are committed to all following the same course of action. Either one NPC is in charge, or they agree to act by consensus. If each member is going to make up their mind on their own, roll separate Diplomacy checks against each.
The Relationship: Whether they love, hate, or have never met each other, the relationship between two people always influences any request.
-10 Intimate: Someone who with whom you have an implicit trust. Example: A lover or spouse.
-7 Friend: Someone with whom you have a regularly positive personal relationship. Example: A long-time buddy or a sibling.
-5 Ally: Someone on the same team, but with whom you have no personal relationship. Example: A cleric of the same religion or a knight serving the same king.
-2 Acquaintance (Positive): Someone you have met several times with no particularly negative experiences. Example: The blacksmith that buys your looted equipment regularly.
+0 Just Met: No relationship whatsoever. Example: A guard at a castle or a traveler on a road.
+2 Acquaintance (Negative): Someone you have met several times with no particularly positive experiences. Example: A town guard that has arrested you for drunkenness once or twice.
+5 Enemy: Someone on an opposed team, with whom you have no personal relationship. Example: A cleric of a philosophically-opposed religion or an orc bandit who is robbing you.
+7 Personal Foe: Someone with whom you have a regularly antagonistic personal relationship. Example: An evil warlord whom you are attempting to thwart, or a bounty hunter who is tracking you down for your crimes.
+10 Nemesis: Someone who has sworn to do you, personally, harm. Example: The brother of a man you murdered in cold blood.
Risk vs. Reward Judgement: The amount of personal benefit must always be weighed against the potential risks for any deal proposed. It is important to remember to consider this adjustment from the point of view of the NPC themselves and what they might value; while 10 gp might be chump change to an adventurer, it may represent several months' earnings for a poor farmer. Likewise, a heroic paladin is unlikely to be persuaded from his tenets for any amount of gold, though he might be convinced that a greater good is served by the proposed deal. When dealing with multiple people at once, always consider the benefits to the person who is in clear command, if any hierarchy exists within the group.
-10 Fantastic: The reward for accepting the deal is very worthwhile, and the risk is either acceptable or extremely unlikely. The best-case scenario is a virtual guarantee. Example: An offer to pay a lot of gold for something of no value to the subject, such as information that is not a secret.
-5 Favorable: The reward is good, and the risk is tolerable. If all goes according to plan, the deal will end up benefiting the subject. Example: A request to aid the party in battle against a weak goblin tribe in return for a cut of the money and first pick of the magic items.
+0 Even: The reward and risk are more or less even, or the deal involves neither reward nor risk. Example: A request for directions to someplace that is not a secret.
+5 Unfavorable: The reward is not enough compared to the risk involved; even if all goes according to plan, chances are it will end up badly for the subject. Example: A request to free a prisoner the subject is guarding (for which he or she will probably be fired) in return for a small amount of money.
+10 Horrible: There is no conceivable way the proposed plan could end up with the subject ahead, or the worst-case scenario is guaranteed to occur. Example: A offer to trade a bit of dirty string for a castle.
Success or Failure: If the Diplomacy check beats the DC, the subject accepts the proposal, with no changes or with minor (mostly idiosyncratic) changes. If the check fails by 5 or less, the subject does not accept the deal but may, at the DM's option, present a counter-offer that would push the deal up one place on the risk-vs.-reward list. For example, a counter-offer might make an Even deal Favorable for the subject. The character who made the Diplomacy check can simply accept the counter-offer, if they choose; no further check will be required. If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation.
Action: Making a request or proposing a deal generally requires at least 1 full minute. In many situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.
Try Again: If you alter the parameters of the deal you are proposing, you may try to convince the subject that this new deal is even better than the last one. This is essentially how people haggle. As long as you never roll 10 or less than the DC on your Diplomacy check, you can continue to offer deals.
Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get a +2 synergy bonus to Diplomacy. No other skill provides a synergy bonus to Diplomacy.
Living with the Rule
Extended Example:
A 5th level party is trying to get into an extravagant ball being thrown by a local baron (who is secretly an evil cultist). The party bard, with a Diplomacy of +13, tries to talk his way in. Three guards at the door are only letting in those who are on The List. Their captain is a 5th level fighter, and they are accompanied by a 1st level aristocrat with a Wisdom of 13, giving a base DC of 21 (the remaining guards are lower level and have Wisdoms of 10, so they don't add to the DC.) The guards have never met the adventurers before, so the Relationship modifier is +0. The final DC, however, depends on how the bard chooses to try to talk their way past the guards:
If the party approaches the guards and simply asks to be let in, they are offering a risk of "failing in your duty and probably getting fired or reprimanded" against a reward of "nothing". The guards might not get caught, but don't really get anything out of the deal either; it's an Unfavorable deal and gets a +5 increase to the DC, for a total of 26. The bard needs to roll a 13 or higher; not impossible, but risky.
If the party slips a pouch with 20 platinum pieces into the hand of the guard captain first, though, the deal becomes more favorable. Since even split four ways, the platinum is a decent amount of money compared to how much they get paid. Sure, they might get fired, but the platinum could keep them well-fed until they found another job anyway. The deal is now Favorable, and gets a -5 decrease to the DC, for a total of 16. The bard needs to roll a 3 or better-pretty easy.
If the party dresses up as aristocrats and successfully Bluffs the guards into believing they are nobles, the deal alters as well. The guard may get fired for letting in someone who is not on The List, but then, this noble before him may get him fired for keeping them out of the season's social event. Either way, the guard might lose his job, so the deal is Even, and the DC stays at 21. Our bard needs to now roll an 8 or better to succeed.
If, unbeknownst to the bard, the guard captain is fully aware of the evil baron's cult activities, things change again. First, the baron may have threatened the captain with a painful death if he fails his duty; thus, whatever method the bard uses to approach the guard will be one step less favorable, since the worst-case scenario is a brutal death rather than just job termination. The risk is much higher than the captain lets on, so if they offer him nothing in return the deal is Horrible for him, increasing the DC by +10 for a total of 31; the bard needs to roll an 18 or better-very unlikely. Further, if the captain is in on the baron's evil dealings and recognizes the adventurers as agents of Good, he might be considered an Enemy and qualify for an additional +5 increase to the DC based on relationship, for a total of 36! This is a recipe for disaster if the bard attempts it, but he doesn't know that.
But then again, if they discover that guard is Lawful Good, the bard can suggest that they are there to take expose the baron's dirty deeds. The bard is still offering no money, but now the "payment" is the action the adventurers will take that supports and exemplifies the guard's alignment. The deal is Favorable for him once again, since even if he is fired, he will have the satisfaction of knowing he helped thwart an evil plan. If the bard also slips the captain 20 platinum, it might push the deal up to Fantastic, for a grand total DC of 11. The bard then needs a -2: he will automatically succeed, though of course he doesn't know that either.
Finally, let's say the bard offers a bribe, but it is only 50 gold pieces. That's not enough to split 4 ways and live off if they get fired, but it is decent-an Even deal, DC 21, and the bard needs an 8 on the die. But whoops! He rolls a 5! That's within 5 of the DC, though, so the captain looks at the gold and replies that this is only enough for one of them, and that he needs another 50 gp for his three friends. He's giving the bard the parameters of what would make the deal Favorable to him-200 gp, as in the first example. The bard can either pony up the extra 150 and end the conversation now, or he can try a completely different tack and roll again.
Options and Ideas:
At first read, it may seem like a pain to remember the two modifiers. There are tow things that make it easier, though. First, in most games, 90% of all Diplomacy checks will be against total strangers, which is a +0 Relationship modifier. If there's no established relationship, there's no Relationship modifier. Second, notice that both modifiers have the same set-up: +10 to -10. That's intentional; even if you can't remember what modifier is appropriate, you can easily "wing it" by just remembering the upper and lower limit allowable, and judging accordingly.
The new Diplomacy skill offers a built-in definition for the sometimes-difficult-to-adjudicate charm person spell: a charmed creature is treated as having a Friendly relationship to the caster (-7 to Diplomacy DC), which replaces any previous relationship modifier. Thus, by charming an enemy, the DC drops from +5 to -7, a decrease of 12. The caster can now talk the creature into anything this improved relationship allows, without every NPC being wrapped around the caster's finger because of a 1st level spell. Note, however, that this will make the spell far more useful to a bard, who has Diplomacy as a class skill and has a high Charisma, than to a wizard. You might like that-maybe the bard should be better at charming people-but if not, I suggest allowing the caster of charm person to use his or her caster level in place of their Diplomacy skill check for that creature only. Thus, the DC is still affected by the Risk/Reward modifier and the (newly improved) Relationship modifier, but the check is either a Diplomacy check or a straight caster level check.
Sometimes, you may not have a good appreciation of what might be a good deal to offer. You can use Knowledge checks or even the Appraise skill to determine what a "fair trade" might be. Divination spells might play a part as well; a well-timed augury or even a detect good spell can give you a decent idea of what a particular NPC might find valuable.
Resist the urge to throw in lots of circumstance modifiers. The point of this system is to incorporate the NPC's overall evaluation of the situation into one number, so avoid giving modifiers like "+2 because they are wary." That should already be covered when they ponder the Risk vs. Reward factor and when their Wisdom modifier is applied to the DC. You might consider a modifier in a situation where the physical situation makes Diplomacy more difficult, such as shouting across a bridge, or having your words relayed through a third party, but try not to "double-dip" for situations for which the system already accounts.
===========
-- david
Papa-DRB
Grognard
My better half and me
|
|
Don't be afraid to enforce the 'if you say it, your character says it' rule, but not just for the diplomatic PC, but for all the PCs present.
They are prone to come out with some classics, like;
"Why are we talking to this jerk?"
"Hurry up; my buff spells are wearing off!"
"Ask him where his treasure is!"
"Stop yacking and heal me! I'm on death's door!"
"You can't promise him he'll be safe to surrender! We've got orders to kill him, no questions!"
"I'm not getting friendly with one of his sort!"
"Shut up, you fool! Let the bard trick him into sheathing his sword, then we can jump him..."
and of course, this classic...
PS: the suggestions in the post above are by Rich Burlew, the writer of that strip.
I found the following *somewhere* on the next but forgot to write down the place. You could probably search for it, I am just being lazy.
Somethings I would think about and do:
1)Diplomacy is not brainwashing. Yes, you may be able to talk a blacksmith into aiding you by giving you a deal on a sword, but you aren't going to be able to talk him into giving it to you for free, and starving his family, unless he was already planning on doing it. Likewise, maybe you convince an orc guard to take off to his homelands, but I doubt you are going to get him to turn on his companions, abandon maybe.
2)Diplomacy doesn't work against other PCs, I can very well see important NPC having the same type of restriction. While you might be able to convince a captain or something, a Runelord should be immune.
3)Diplomacy can be opposed in a haggling situation. If the PC tries to convince a trickster, he is likely to get it turned around him.
4)If the PCs are lying to their opponent, "Lay down your weapons and we'll show you mercy." ("once he does, run him threw") Then that is a bluff check not a diplomacy.
I always felt that a change in attitude towards the character using diplomacy doesn't change alignement or motivations of the individual it's used on.
A great diplomacy roll (45+) still wouldn't cause an arch-vilain to say "You're so nice I want to be your friend!" but might turn a "kill them al1" into "I like your style, why don't you join me " or to a lesser degree "Get them and lock them up, they might be usefull".
Both later options open oportunities for a good game and give diplomacy rolls a reason to be.
|
Ever think about having a villain with an even higher diplomacy check? Don't roll the opposed check in front of the PCs, do it behind the screen (assuming you have one). Even if he beats the PCs check, let them think that they won. He invites them in to join him for his feast of wonderful (poisoned) food.
No, no. Let them run with it. I want to know what happens when they make friends with the Skinsaw Man. You know the stuff your cat leaves on the step as an offering? Imagine the same thing, but with human body parts. Let's see how long this friendship lasts.
Or the Kreegs. Ya, being friendly with the Kreegs sounds real fun.
Even if they manage to pull off a check, making either of these "friendly," it won't last. Say the party tries to get the Kreegs to work for them with some uber Diplomacy checks, which succeed. When the Kreegs go on about their Chaotic Evil business, but in service to the party, what happens when it all falls apart? Assuming the PCs aren't monsters themselves (as in psycopaths, not creatures from the Manual), there's probably going to be a time when they want to part ways with their new "buddies." Ever hear of a jilted lover? I'd say such a person's attitude was pretty "friendly" up to a certain point. Then the fine line between love and hate gets crossed. Now imagine a clan of inbred murdering ogres turning on you the same way.
So, to your PCs: Great plan, guys!
Another thread on this topic Need Some Advice On The Diplomacy Skill
Sounds like a challenge! Good luck with it. Here's a few rules to consider, and then there's a few suggestions. These are from the SRD.
Action
Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check.
(Emphasis mine.) It's important to note that it's not just a -10 to a check but that it takes time. Consider that a full round is six seconds. Get a cheap stopwatch, hit it when the player starts roleplaying his empassioned "listen to me" speech to the NPC and then cut him off after 6 seconds. "Hold that thought Sam. We'll get to the rest of Lorefindel's speech next round."
I would only recommend this if he's being abusive.
Next, it's not in the SRD, but I recall from the DMG that there's a rule that you cannot convince an NPC to do something that they are fundamentally opposed to doing. It's there because it's common sense to an experienced DM, but you're just getting to this challenge so it's nice to have something to cite. (Sorry, I don't have a page cite.) Big villains don't give in to PCs.
Now, if a player spent this much effort to get this high a bonus, he should probably be rewarded in some way. You'll want to let a lot of his attempts succeed. So you can turn them on him later. Let's say he gets a bunch of mooks or henchmen to go along with his plan. They help him out. The party wins easily. The henchmen because they helped get off and go to jail, escape, what have you.
They are now disgraced. They lose their position in whatever organization, or lose their rep, or just get hounded by other allies of the BBEG the PCs just took down. They decide they want revenge. They hunt down someone to cast a curse on the PC that he can't speak. Boom! Instant plot point. Or they all hire a couple casters with a pile of silence spells, and pig pile him. (After they've trained up, made deals with vile powers to get big templates, and are a match for the party of course.)
Use this option sparingly. Every 8-10 adventures or so ought to really create a fear in players. It's like a rust monster or other encounter that threatens stuff or causes ability damage.
Now, here's one more thought. The Diplomacy skill references (but I have never seen in play) a 'contest' between two people to change the attitudes of a third. Why not set it up to spotlight the player who must compete with The Smoothest Devil in the Nine Hells for the soul of someone else, or try to sway someone when Slick Silvertongue, the 20th level bard, also wants to convince them of something? Work up an NPC or two within the rules who also minmaxes the bonuses. I bet you can get someone just as good, if not better. Then set up a roleplaying encounter where three incremental successes are required to win, have a side plot with the party foiling the henchmen of the Lady High Diplomat sneaking around to hedge the NPCs odds, and you're all set.