|
I have always disliked 3e's static DCs for Diplomacy checks. Pathfinder is an improvement, but still doesn't scratch my itch. I'm curious if anyone is using (or considering) Diplomacy as either an opposed check or as an "attack." I was thinking about the mechanics for these two methods. What do you think of the following:
Opposed Check: When using Diplomacy, the PC makes a Diplomacy check opposed by the NPC they are talking or debating with. If the PC wins the roll by 5 or more, the NPC moves up the attitude scale by 1 step. If the PC fails the opposed check by 5 or more, the NPC moves down the attitude scale by 1 step. During the course of a single encounter, a PC cannot move an NPC up or down the scale by more than 2 steps relative to the NPC's starting attitude.
Diplomacy "Attack": When using Diplomacy, the PC makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the "attack." The NPC is allowed a Will save versus the DC set by the PC's Diplomacy check. The NPC moves 1 step up the attitude scale on a failed save. The NPC's save is successful, their attitude remains the same, unless they beat the save DC by 5 or more, in which case their attitude moves down the scale by 1 step. Again, during the course of a single encounter, a PC cannot move an NPC up or down the scale by more than 2 steps relative to the NPC's starting attitude.
Currently, I'm leaning toward the opposed check method.
Thoughts?
-Skeld
I have always disliked 3e's static DCs for Diplomacy checks. Pathfinder is an improvement, but still doesn't scratch my itch. I'm curious if anyone is using (or considering) Diplomacy as either an opposed check or as an "attack." I was thinking about the mechanics for these two methods. What do you think of the following:
Opposed Check: When using Diplomacy, the PC makes a Diplomacy check opposed by the NPC they are talking or debating with. If the PC wins the roll by 5 or more, the NPC moves up the attitude scale by 1 step. If the PC fails the opposed check by 5 or more, the NPC moves down the attitude scale by 1 step. During the course of a single encounter, a PC cannot move an NPC up or down the scale by more than 2 steps relative to the NPC's starting attitude.
Diplomacy "Attack": When using Diplomacy, the PC makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the "attack." The NPC is allowed a Will save versus the DC set by the PC's Diplomacy check. The NPC moves 1 step up the attitude scale on a failed save. The NPC's save is successful, their attitude remains the same, unless they beat the save DC by 5 or more, in which case their attitude moves down the scale by 1 step. Again, during the course of a single encounter, a PC cannot move an NPC up or down the scale by more than 2 steps relative to the NPC's starting attitude.
Currently, I'm leaning toward the opposed check method.
Thoughts?
-Skeld
I like the opposed check method. It's pretty straightforward and works like certain other skills such as Stealth. One question on that one: you've moved someone up a notch (say, from indifferent to friendly). Well, now that's done, do they do what you want them to do? I guess what I'm trying to say is this: how do you actually convince someone to help you? You can make them like you more or happier with you, but will you convince them to do something? I'm not quite clear on this, but to be fair my group doesn't use the Diplomacy skill itself much.
The attack method has a problem. The target gets a Will save. A dedicated diplomancer can still push his Diplomacy skill quite high using the Core Rules (max ranks, high Charisma, Skill Focus, etc.), making it nearly impossible for anyone to make that save, even dedicated clerics with high Wisdom. At that point you might as well just say the target's friendly and leave it at that.
|
I have always disliked 3e's static DCs for Diplomacy checks. Pathfinder is an improvement, but still doesn't scratch my itch. I'm curious if anyone is using (or considering) Diplomacy as either an opposed check or as an "attack." I was thinking about the mechanics for these two methods. What do you think of the following:
Opposed Check: When using Diplomacy, the PC makes a Diplomacy check opposed by the NPC they are talking or debating with. If the PC wins the roll by 5 or more, the NPC moves up the attitude scale by 1 step. If the PC fails the opposed check by 5 or more, the NPC moves down the attitude scale by 1 step. During the course of a single encounter, a PC cannot move an NPC up or down the scale by more than 2 steps relative to the NPC's starting attitude.
Diplomacy "Attack": When using Diplomacy, the PC makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the "attack." The NPC is allowed a Will save versus the DC set by the PC's Diplomacy check. The NPC moves 1 step up the attitude scale on a failed save. The NPC's save is successful, their attitude remains the same, unless they beat the save DC by 5 or more, in which case their attitude moves down the scale by 1 step. Again, during the course of a single encounter, a PC cannot move an NPC up or down the scale by more than 2 steps relative to the NPC's starting attitude.
Currently, I'm leaning toward the opposed check method.
Thoughts?
-Skeld
I've had problems with this myself, the static (static-ish in PF) DCs really seem easy to hit for what they do. I've implimented the opposed check in some games, but a problem arises when all of your villains suddenly need diplomacy in order to remain baddies for the PCs.
The Will save seems to weak as well, it has many of the problems that static DC does (basically they are too low).
I've been toying around with special DCs, but I haven't thought of a good way of implementing them yet.
|
|
One question on that one: you've moved someone up a notch (say, from indifferent to friendly). Well, now that's done, do they do what you want them to do? I guess what I'm trying to say is this: how do you actually convince someone to help you? You can make them like you more or happier with you, but will you convince them to do something?
I don't have my books with me and this isn't elaborated in the PRD, but I remember in the 3.5e PHB (I think) there was some discussion about what the varied levels of attitude meant in terms of what you could expect from an NPC. For example, someone friendly might share a secret or rumor they know about a particular watchman being on the take, or might give you a helpful item with trivial value (like winter cloak for the unprepared). At the point that the check is made, I'm willing to go on roleplay, I think, and adjudicate from there.
I've implimented the opposed check in some games, but a problem arises when all of your villains suddenly need diplomacy in order to remain baddies for the PCs.
A fair number of NPCs are going to (or probably should) already have it. An Aristocrat or Experct ought to have it (Aristocrats for leading the people, Experts [like shopkeepers] for haggling). Really though, I only see this as problematic when the PCs are trying to use Diplomacy too often. Really, there should only be a small subset of encounters that are subject to winning through diplomacy.
The Will save seems to weak as well, it has many of the problems that static DC does (basically they are too low).
This is also a concern. A PC's ability to beef up their Diplomacy easily outstrips an NPC's ability to beef up their Will save modifier. On the other hand, Will saves are subject to automatic success or failure.
Thanks for the inputs.
-Skeld
|
|
The Will save seems to weak as well, it has many of the problems that static DC does (basically they are too low).This is also a concern. A PC's ability to beef up their Diplomacy easily outstrips an NPC's ability to beef up their Will save modifier. On the other hand, Will saves are subject to automatic success or failure.
Thanks for the inputs.
-Skeld
You know, we could just make this as simple as 10 + NPC level + Will Modifier. The NPC level could be that boost needed to bring it up to par. Is it too much though?
You know, we could just make this as simple as 10 + NPC level + Will Modifier. The NPC level could be that boost needed to bring it up to par. Is it too much though?
The Will save seems to weak as well, it has many of the problems that static DC does (basically they are too low).This is also a concern. A PC's ability to beef up their Diplomacy easily outstrips an NPC's ability to beef up their Will save modifier. On the other hand, Will saves are subject to automatic success or failure.
Thanks for the inputs.
-Skeld
Point for clarification: do you mean the unadjusted Will save (e.g., +12 for a 20th-level wizard)?
|
|
You know, we could just make this as simple as 10 + NPC level + Will Modifier. The NPC level could be that boost needed to bring it up to par. Is it too much though?
Hmmm. So you're saying a static DC = 10 + NPC Class Level + Will Mod?
If it were going that way, I think DC = 10 + HD + Cha Mod would make more sense. Perhaps 1/2 HD. This would work for monsters without class levels.
I think that's probably ok as a meet-or-beat with a +5/-5 boundary for moving up or down attitude.
I still favor the opposed Diplomacy method, but Diplomacy as a skill attack against willpower still tempts me.
-Skeld
On opposed diplomacy checks is it diplomacy vs diplomacy? If so could you perhaps substitute another skill? I'm kind of on the same vein that it seems like a lot of enemies would need diplomacy as a skill because if they don't the PC with a high Diplomacy score could just talk the enemies out of fighting (well depending on their attitudes). Although I know a lot more people that would like to get into an encounter than that would like for someone to use a Diplomacy check to win the battle.
|
|
On opposed diplomacy checks is it diplomacy vs diplomacy?
Yes. I'm talking about Diplomacy versus Diplomacy for the opposed skill check.
If so could you perhaps substitute another skill?
Perhaps, although I don't know how that would work. Intimidate I can see. Sense Motive only of the PC's are actively trying to mislead the NPC.
I'm kind of on the same vein that it seems like a lot of enemies would need diplomacy as a skill because if they don't the PC with a high Diplomacy score could just talk the enemies out of fighting (well depending on their attitudes).
This problem (if you want to call it a "problem") already exists. A first level character with a decent Charisma who puts a rank into Diplomacy will already have a +6 (maybe a +8) to Diplomacy (+1 skill rank, +3 skill bonus, & >= +2 Cha mod). If they decide to go Diplomacy-monkey with an 18 Charisma and Skill Focus (Diplomacy), that becomes a +11 at first level. Within a few levels, that DC 25 + Cha mod to improve attitude of a hostile NPC becomes a coin flip, or less.
It's kind of the same idea as Acrobatics to avoid an attack of opportunity. The DC used to be a static 15. Once your Rogue hit a +14 modifier (at about level 4 under 3.5), you could move pretty freely in melee.
I'm sort of brainstorming a good opposition method for getting Diplomacy away from static DCs and injecting a bit more uncertainty into using Diplomacy (whether it's to talk bandits out of attacking you or negotiating the price of a doo-dad at the market).
-Skeld
|
|
Point for clarification: do you mean the unadjusted Will save (e.g., +12 for a 20th-level wizard)?You know, we could just make this as simple as 10 + NPC level + Will Modifier. The NPC level could be that boost needed to bring it up to par. Is it too much though?
The Will save seems to weak as well, it has many of the problems that static DC does (basically they are too low).This is also a concern. A PC's ability to beef up their Diplomacy easily outstrips an NPC's ability to beef up their Will save modifier. On the other hand, Will saves are subject to automatic success or failure.
Thanks for the inputs.
-Skeld
That's a typo. I meant WIS modifier, but had been reading Will so much I slipped it in there without noticing.
EDIT: Its been too long, I cannot modify my 1st post there. :(
Why only 1 step at a time, i.e. why can't my character improve the NPC's attitude 2 steps with 1 check? Apart from that, both options look fine to me.
My guess would be to help prevent Diplomacy abuse. You're not going to take a hated enemy to best friend in the course of a single conversation.
In terms of Diplomacy as an opposed check, I've always seen that as the situation where two people are trying to persuade the same third party to see things their own way.
In fact, that would be an interesting use of Diplomacy: if there were an option to convince a target to have a worse disposition toward someone else. If you wanted to undo that, your own Diplomacy would be opposed by the Dipolomacy of the first person. This would allow henchmen of diplomancer villains, and other NPCs that those villains have talked to, to be much harder to persuade.
|
In fact, that would be an interesting use of Diplomacy: if there were an option to convince a target to have a worse disposition toward someone else.
There is this feat from Expert Codex - Manual of Puissant Skill at Arms:
"SOW DISTRUST
You can turn one character against another.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Diplomacy 11 ranks.
Benefit: You must spend a full-round action and
know the name of the character you are attempting
to persuade as well as the name of the character
toward whom the target’s distrust will be directed.
The target must be able to hear and understand
you.
The target makes a Will save. The DC is equal to
your Diplomacy check. If the target fails the save,
his attitude toward the other designated character
worsens by one step: helpful turns to friendly,
friendly to indifferent, indifferent to unfriendly,
unfriendly to hostile (see the Diplomacy skill). The
target makes a Will save whenever you use this
talent against him. As long as the target continues
to fail the Will save, you can continue taking fullround
actions to worsen the target’s attitude
toward a designated character. When the target’s
attitude drops to hostile, he attacks the designated
character.
A successful Will save doesn’t restore previous
attitude shifts, but it does render the target
immune for 24 hours to your further attempts to
sow distrust.
You cannot use this ability on your allies.
This is a Mind-Affecting ability."
Felgoroth wrote:
On opposed diplomacy checks is it diplomacy vs diplomacy?
Yes. I'm talking about Diplomacy versus Diplomacy for the opposed skill check.
I'm not sure this makes a whole lot of sense. People can be very set in their ways without being very persuasive. Should the stubborn dwarf whom everybody detests be easy to convince?
Wouldn't it be easier to just keep the Pathfinder rules and do more adjusting of DCs as appropriate (if they are too easy). Maybe adjust the DCs for each disposition as you feel is necessary?
Regarding an opposed check . . . .
I think opposed checks usually end up in a "result" for both sides. For example, the loser of an arm wrestling contest means that the other guy won. I think (although I may be wrong) that an opposed diplomacy roll should result in either a) the NPC moving towards the PC's side, or b) the PCs moving towards the NPC's point of view. The NPC shouldn't carry the burden of both the win and the loss.
Of course, this means that you've just messed with the players' characters, and players don't like that.
1) What creates the best story? The BBEG will not, under any circumstances, be swayed by the PCs' diplomacy actions. Why? Because having the Dread Lord suddenly see the PCs as friends ruins the story. But, will the BBEG's lackey be susceptible to diplomacy? Perhaps, because we all love a good turncoat.
2) What's in it for the NPC? Is there a reason he would be susceptible to a diplomacy action? Mr. Merchant selling the characters stuff has reason to suddenly like the PCs, unless they do something for him. If the players don't even ask for the name of the NPC, it's a pretty good clue that they don't really care about him, so why should the NPC reciprocate? Do the PCs perform actions that allow a diplomacy roll to be made? Why should the BBEG's lackey risk himself listening to the PCs?
This approach has actually made my job as a GM more interesting, since I need to place myself in the NPC's shoes. That's always nicer than rolling a die and saying "Uh, yeah, that merchant is totally your friend now."
... Pathfinder is an improvement, but still doesn't scratch my itch. I'm curious if anyone is using (or considering) Diplomacy as either an opposed check or as an "attack." I was thinking about the mechanics for these two methods. What do you think of the following...
Whatever you go with, realize that the Diplomacy skill has a built in limitation:
"You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period."
This means that if a NPC is at the low end of the spectrum in attitude toward the PC's it's going to take a much longer time to shift them to friendly than many DM's/Players realize, at least according to RAW.
As such, Bluff and Intimidate are usually more effective if you are in a time crunch.
wow. That's what i've done pretty much since 3rd ed. It's the only way it makes sense, i've always hated static rolls that impact on other creatures. Should always be interdependant.