The motivation for this was a conversation with a player I had, about an adventure I ran where a 5th level party was sent to deliver justice to an evil 9th level druid. The player said that he would have preferred a less combat oriented game, and that got me thinking to whether this situation could have been handled without fighting.
Probably not. After all, what can a 5th level Paladin say to a 9th level evil druid to get him to stop being an evil-doer? And even if he could, there still is the matter of bringing justice to him.
But I came up with the following system anyway.
NPCs have a basic “Diplomacy AC” (DAC) of 20 + Level + CHA MOD + INT MOD.
To get an NPC to consider your argument, first you have to beat a DC based on the NPC’s DAC modified by the plausibility of your argument. Then you have to erode the NPC’s confidence, which is also based on the plausibility of your argument.
There are five levels of plausibility.
A (Incredible) +20 to DAC, Base Confidence (BC) = Level x 30
B (Implausible) +10 to DAC, Base Confidence (BC) = Level x 15
C (Unlikely) +0 to DAC, Base Confidence (BC) = Level x 10
D (Possible) -5 to DAC, Base Confidence (BC) = Level x 5
E (Plausible) -10 to DAC, Base Confidence (BC) = Level x 2
Plausibility is based on the NPC’s world view. So an “ultraliberal” NPC might be utterly convinced that a liberal politician is telling the Truth (Level A), while a more typical NPC would consider it to be Plausible that the same politician is lying.
The NPC’s attitude towards the PC also affects the DAC (See the desciption of the Diplomacy skill on page 94 of the Core Rulebook):
Hostile: +10 to DAC
Unfriendly: +5 to DAC
Indifferent: +0 to DAC
Friendly: -5 to DAC
Helpful: -10 to DAC
A player just can’t say “I bluff to convince her that her god does not exist.” The player actually has to come up with some sort of argument, such as “Your spells are granted by demons.” Then the player gets to roll to see if the NPC will at least consider the argument.
The NPC gets her normal Sense Motive check to see right away whether the PC is lying. If this succeeds, she takes the appropriate action, which is probably to ignore him. If it fails, the PC’s check still has to be compared to the DAC to determine if she will consider it, or whether she blows it off as not worth considering.
If the PC beats the DAC, he can try to erode the NPC’s confidence. The player rolls 1d10, and adds his skill modifier. This is subtracted from the NPC’s confidence. If the NPC’s confidence is completely eroded, the PC succeeds, unless the GM considers that the result is just too ridiculous to stand.
The GM should consider though, that this system is worked out to weed out ridiculous results.
PC’s may make multiple attempts. Each successful attempt further erodes the NPC’s confidence. Failed attempts impose a -2 Circumstance penalty for each failure. This penalty drops by 1 for each success.
Also, whether the check fails or succeeds, a PC can only use the same argument three times. After that, the PC (or another character) has to provide something new that reinforces the argument. For example “The Baron’s army is camped outside.” “They are looking for bandits that were seen in the area.”.
Any other modifiers that come to the GM’s mind may be applied. For example, to convince a Cleric, who actually casts divine spells, to abandon her god, would be very very difficult. It would be reasonable to to add the level of the highest level spell she can cast to the DAC for a Diplomacy check to get her to switch religions.
Note: It is important to remember that it is up to the player to come up with plausible arguments that make sense. A PC might be able to convince an NPC that the Baron’s army is out there, but the NPC still gets to what action to take based on her beliefs.
Option: A natural ‘1’ is an automatic failure, and the penalty for that failure is -5 instead of -2. But there is also a possibility of a “critical success”. On a critical success, the PC can roll a number of d10s equal to his Rank in the skill, and add the total to his roll to erode the NPC’s confidence.
To test this system, I ran through the following example as a thought experiment. I'll do other scenarios when I get a chance.
The basic result is that the party is able to get out of a tight situation using Diplomacy, but the players need to come up with convincing arguments in order to just do it. They can't just say "We'll talk them into letting us go". Also, it helps a lot to have a bonus in social skills.
1st level PC’s have gone into a dungeon and been captured by orcs. The chief breathes into their faces with his foul, putrid breath and says “Well, well, what will I do to you?”
The Bard says “If you are wise, which I hear tell you are wise, and strong, you would free us.”
The Fighter says “Well, setting us on our way would be best for everyone concerned. There are a lot of interested treasure hunters in these caves, but between our two groups, I think we could come up with a mutual arrangement that would keep these other interlopers clear of the good stuff. You scratch my back, etc - though I think I’d rather not finish that visual image if you don’t mind.”
The GM determines that the orc chief’s attitude is initially Unfriendly, but considers that the Bard’s flattery will be an attempt to change the Orc’s attitude. The DC to change the attitude is 22 (20 + the cheiftain’s CHA modifier). The Bard has an 18 Cha, 1 rank in Diplomacy, and gets +3 for it being a class skill, so he gets a +7 Diplomacy bonus and needs to roll 15 or more to change the Orc’s attitude. He rolls a 19, for a total of 26, thereby changing the Orc’s attitude to Indifferent.
Essentially the PC’s are proposing an alliance. The orc chief is 3rd level, with a total CHA and INT modifier of +3. So his DAC is 26.
The possibility of an alliance between humans and orcs is Unlikely, perhaps even Implausible. The GM decides that it is Unlikely, but sets the modifier to DAC in between the two, for a DC of 31. The BC to erode would be 30 points.
Assuming that the Bard has an 18 Cha, 1 rank in Diplomacy, and gets +3 for it being a class skill, he gets a +7 Diplomacy bonus. There is no chance of talking the chief into an alliance, unless further inducements can be offered.
NEXT, the Rogue says “Why did you tie us up instead of just killing us? You must have had some ideas?” He has a Charisma of 13, 1 rank in Diplomacy, and gets the class skill bonus for a total of +5.
The GM considers that it is very plausible that the Orc Chieftain believes he had some idea, even if the GM at this point has not figured out what the idea was. (You know how these games can go…) The Diplomacy DC is 16. On a roll of 11 or more, the Rogue convinces the Chieftain to consider that he wants the PC’s alive. Since the Rogue only has to erode 6 points with a roll of 1d10+5, a success against this DC convinces the Chieftain that there is some reason to keep the PC’s alive.
The Rogue rolls 10, and fails. HOWEVER, the Bard takes up the argument. It’s only been presented once so far, but the Bard failed the first attempt to sway the Orc, or he now has a -2 penalty. But the DC for this argument is only 16, so the Bard has to get 18 or more to succeed. He rolls 12 + 7 for a total of 19, and succeeds.
NOTE: I am assuming that the -2 penalty for failure is only applied to the specific character who failed. So the Bard was affected by his previous failure, but the Rogue was not affected by the Bard’s failure. If the Rogue tries another Diplomacy check, he gets a -2 for failing the previous one.
The Fighter says “We can team up against the kobolds. Together we can wipe them out!” He has a Charisma of 10, and no ranks in Diplomacy.
The Orc Cheiftain has already been convinced that there is a reason not to kill the PC’s, but he is not sure (because the GM is not sure) just what it is. A general aliance was unlikely, implausible even. But the GM determines that a specific, temporary alliance against a specific enemy is more likely. The GM considers this to be Plausible, for a DC of 16. The player rolls a 5, however.
The Bard once again takes up the idea, adding “And I can add the tale of your heroics to my repretiore. Orc warriors will sing of your bravery for generations!” Because the Bard added a new argument, the possibility of glory for the chieftain, the GM adds a +3 bonus. The Bard needs to hit a DC of 15.
The Bard’s player rolls a 12 + 7 for a total of 19. The Orc Cheiftain says “Well then, get a good night’s rest, for we attack the kobolds tomorrow!” Of course, the Orc is going to kill the PC’s as soon as it is convenient for him, but they’ve bought themselves some time to plan.
Normally to get an NPC to consider your argument, it is a diplomacy check (see page 94 core rule book). If you can make an NPC's attitude indifferent, you can make requests of the NPC (also on page 94).
Normally to get an NPC to consider your argument, it is a diplomacy check (see page 94 core rule book). If you can make an NPC's attitude indifferent, you can make requests of the NPC (also on page 94).
So how do you get an evil druid to stop being evil and start worshipping the Goddess of Light?
Or, more realistically, get an evil orc to not just kill you.
Normally to get an NPC to consider your argument, it is a diplomacy check (see page 94 core rule book). If you can make an NPC's attitude indifferent, you can make requests of the NPC (also on page 94).So how do you get an evil druid to stop being evil and start worshipping the Goddess of Light?
Or, more realistically, get an evil orc to not just kill you.
I just allow checks if the players say anything that could possibly sway the NPC, let rp do the talking forst and then make a check to see how convincing they are, with a bonus if the arguments were especially good.
While saying : "your god sucks big time, come to the side with honey and cookies" wont even earn them a check.
Well, according to RAW, it would require DM adjudication anyways, since you can't normally influence a person more than once per day, can't increase a person's attitude by more than 3 steps, and it only lasts for 1d4 hours.
Anything outside that specifically says "GM's discretion" or "GM may override this" in the text.
So basically, you start with Hostile (DC 25 + target's Cha modifier), and if you beat that, he becomes Unfriendly. If you get 5 or 10 points higher, he might become Indifferent or even Friendly. That's a 35 + Cha DC though.
On top of that, if they are going to try and harm you on sight, then the rules say it's "generally ineffective" anyways. So if they walk up to this druid and he starts attacking them right away, Diplomacy might be out of the question before it started.
Most of the time (from DM experience and stuff I've seen in APs), it requires saying something specific to get a target's attention and to stop them from attacking to open the door for Diplomacy.
Personally, I let players decide how to influence the target, usually with what subjects or offers they come up with.
Knowledge checks, or a bit of gather information or bluffing or even intimidating can influence the DC for the Diplomacy check.
An example..
I'd let my players try and say something that would make the Orc stop fighting (as long as no one else is attacking him anymore)... such as:
This might be a Bluff or Intimidate check, depending on if they are lying or trying to emphasize that they "could" kill him easily.
Since this isn't a normal Intimidate check (1 minute of talking required) he isn't counting as "friendly" yet.
Then they can use the gather information they did before where they heard that the Ogre was a cruel master (although an easy guess would work here too), or a Knowledge check about emnity orcs have for ogres due to being treated as slaves, etc.
If they use this information in what they say to the Orc (I don't even require full roleplaying of what they say, as my players aren't nearly as Charismatic in real life as their characters are), they can roll a Diplomacy check with a bonus to their DC (+5 to +10 depending on how big of a deal the information is).
An Orc has an abysmal Cha, so the base DC at Hostile is 21. A 16 Cha, 1st level Paladin with Skill Focus (Diplomacy) would need an 11 (just about 50/50 shot) to make him unfriendly, and a 16 to make him Indifferent.
Let's say he rolled well, or they used information to improve their chances.
Now the Orc is Indifferent, and the Paladin can then make his request.
If it's just (or even, wait 5 minutes before reporting it), I'd say it's 'simple aid' (since there's a chance of punishment, but likely not due to being able to easily feign no knowledge). DC 11 (autopass for this Pally), and away they go.
If instead they say something along these lines:
Since this is likely to result in "punishment", I'd say it qualifies for the +15 modifier. I *might* reduce it to +10 because of the play on the Orcs feelings about being a slave to this cruel master.
DC 26 or 21, with success being an Orc following with you.
At that point, I'd probably make a GM call and make his attitude a permanent shift to Indifferent at least. He'd probably bolt the first chance he feels he's safe from both the Ogre and the party, unless the Paladin is able to make further Diplomacy checks to sway him towards his way of thinking (keeping him at friendly each day, and showing him ways he can be violent while still benefiting from things like friendship and security).
Without knowing more about the Druid's specific situation (if he's really far into the evil-for evil's sake, or if he's just a survivalist or "end of his rope" type of evil), I can't say if Diplomacy would ever be an option for this encounter.
If it's a softer type of evil going on, then I might try and write in ways for a Diplomatic character to get his charismatic hooks into this guy. But it wouldn't be something that you make just one roll and suddenly the Druid is best of pals or anything.
Like, start with convincing them to stop doing what they are doing. Then move on to perhaps a compromise on both parties (justice no longer includes "death by hanging", for example). Then maybe the Paladin could look at trying to find ways to make this guy see a different path (like with the Orc example above), etc.
Without knowing more about the Druid's specific situation (if he's really far into the evil-for evil's sake, or if he's just a survivalist or "end of his rope" type of evil), I can't say if Diplomacy would ever be an option for this encounter.
Unless, if course, the PCs have literally godlike Diplomacy levels, which of course is not going to happen at 5th level.
What my system does is try to quantify how much effort is required. Maybe if the PCs are 20th level a Bard would have a chance of softening the evil druid's heart with a song. It worked when Orpheus confronted Hades.
And it is slightly different from "There is no chance whatsoever." I think just having these rules will communicate that diplomacy is sometimes an option, albeit perhaps not a realistic option.
It also provides a way for the entire party to help out, rather than just say "The party bard talks the monster into giving up. Everybody can just put down their dice."
Oh yeah, I was agreeing with you for the most part. Like I said, even in the rules it's basically up to the GM if you can even start using Diplomacy or not.
So coming up with a homebrew like this is completely valid (if not RAW actually, considering how the skill is written).
Your ideas are pretty good, I was just giving an example of how I'd run such a scenario.
|
But I came up with the following system anyway.NPCs have a basic “Diplomacy AC” (DAC) of 20 + Level + CHA MOD + INT MOD.
To get an NPC to consider your argument, first you have to beat a DC based on the NPC’s DAC modified by the plausibility of your argument. Then you have to erode the NPC’s confidence, which is also based on the plausibility of your argument.
I think either WIS MOD or Sense Motive skill needs to be factored in to the equation. Because the NPC may be able to ascertain what you are trying to accomplish in the negotiations, even if you don't attempt to bluff him.
I think either WIS MOD or Sense Motive skill needs to be factored in to the equation. Because the NPC may be able to ascertain what you are trying to accomplish in the negotiations, even if you don't attempt to bluff him.
But I came up with the following system anyway.NPCs have a basic “Diplomacy AC” (DAC) of 20 + Level + CHA MOD + INT MOD.
To get an NPC to consider your argument, first you have to beat a DC based on the NPC’s DAC modified by the plausibility of your argument. Then you have to erode the NPC’s confidence, which is also based on the plausibility of your argument.
Sense Motive would be like a short circuit. If the NPC can successfully Sense Motive that the PC is lying, then the NPC won't be convinced.
If the PC is telling the truth, then a Sense Motive against DC 20 will indicate that the PC at least seems honest, or else is a good actor.
|
|
Sense Motive would be like a short circuit. If the NPC can successfully Sense Motive that the PC is lying, then the NPC won't be convinced.
If the PC is telling the truth, then a Sense Motive against DC 20 will indicate that the PC at least seems honest, or else is a good actor.
I don't see the problem with this. From the Pathfinder SRD for the Sense Motive skill,
"Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy."
Sense Motive is not used exclusively to detect lies. If you want to define a structure for negotiation, I think you need to make allowances for either Wisdom ability modifier or Sense Motive skill.