| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So i've a started a new campaign, the character are lvl 7 with 2 mythic lvl 20point buy, it'll be a urban campaign with a lot ot talking.
One of said character is a telepath psion. Thanks to some psion stuff he have a +10 bonus on diplomacy, bluff and sense motive, said buff sum up with magical object and pretty much everything.
So, at 7 lvl without skill focus or similar feats, he have a +27 on this skills...
Now of course i can't have him win every discussion by default (honestly most of the time i take stat and skill only marginally in consideration, like a 30-40%. The rest is what the say and the context).
The problem his that i think he expect to detect 99% of the lies, to convince to do everything 99% of the people and so forth; of course i can't have that, hell i won't permit it even if he had a +90 bonus.
So the qestion is, how do i deal with this guy without ruining every talking situation because he have a bazilion bonus on diplomacy and at the same thime without make him feel like i'm ignoring the ability of his character?
Thanks in advance for any help.
ps: I already tell him that these score seem too hight for this level be he protested saying that he made a social character so they are hight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DCs on Diplomacy really add up when you try to use it beyond innocuous things.
" Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."
Intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future can be interpreted by the GM to essentially exclude anyone with ultierior motives regarding the PCS
The DC for "hostile" is 25+ creatures Charisma modifier... if that hostile person will be punished for doing anything but fighting/resisting PCs tack on the "Give aid that could result in punishment: +15 or more" modifier, moving the DC to 40+Cha modifier (or more)
Also you can interpret the +5DC per additional request to associates who believe that the PC is wearing on their good graces by making too many requests of the population.
A "diplomancer" can be a fun character to play, and a creative player in this role can come up with some inventive solutions to routine problems.
But there is no reason you need to feel like this person can circumvent all challenges as sometimes, he will run into the dreaded "boxed text" the bane of all diplomancers.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should make sure you really read up on Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive, so you know what it can and what it can't do, and when it doesn't work as well as normal. Trying to adjust someone's opinion in the middle of combat is probably a lot harder, and just because someone's attitude is friendly doesn't mean they'll do every possible thing he asks, there are still limits.
That said, he's close to mind control capability. At level 7, that's not terribly shocking; Dominate Person/Charm Monster/Confusion and such spells (and school abilities) are coming online by that time for other classes as well.
Against NPCs with no forewarning, yeah, he's going to steamroll them. That's fair, he's paid for those abilities. But he's going to get a bit of a reputation; you can only be wildly successful for so long before people notice.
So the really dangerous people (vampires, evil wizards, demons, dragons) hear about this guy, who's basically a mind control user. So how would they deal with him? Definitely by avoiding face to face meetings. They'll send expendable flunkies, who don't know too much, can't betray too much. Or indirect magical means; Magic Mouth, Whispering Wind, an Animal Messenger with a written message etc.
The PC can still use his abilities, infiltrating their organizations and so forth, but he'll have to plan for it, rather than casually steamrolling everything. He may have to pick up Disguise and assume false identities to put people off guard.
In confrontations, it's acceptable for bad guys in the know to make him a priority. Everyone is nervous about mind controllers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My paladin has a high diplomacy for his level as well.
Our GM keeps it like this RP>rolls, even if I get a score over 30 I don't expect to convince the other person to do anything I want, the roll just "helps" strengthen my arguments
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are running an urban game with lots of talking...and you are upset that a player made a character designed to excel in an urban game with lots of talking? Most DMs would be dancing for joy that a player was being so cooperative.
I get that you don't want a few skills to be an automatic 'I win' but since you obviously want more than just a hack and slash game you need to reward the player for focusing in a way that isn't hack and slash. Be sure to allow lots of situations where his diplomacy etc. can make a difference, help the group find clues, gain allies etc. Come up with a bunch of situations that will give advantages to the group without being an 'I win' automatically.
A level seven mythic guy focused on social skills should be able to tell when just about anyone is lying, make just about anyone his friend. He is a mythic hero after all.
His adversaries are probably a mythic scale threat though. They may have darn good social skills too or be cunning enough to employ cutouts, plant false information with people, and generally be a pain in the butt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...my opinion is probably very different from what everyone else will say...but here goes.
First, review the situation with your players. Tell them honestly how you feel about it. Let them know that at certain points you're going to fiat it how you see fit.
Personally, I made the following change to the game:
Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate are now roleplay based only. The bluff skill is replaced with Feint /Secret Message, and Intimidate is replaced with Demoralize.
Now, if you implement this change be sure to allow all your players to modify their character based on this change in game mechanics. Personally I like this rule because it inspires role playing and puts an emphasis on words and speaking. Which helps increase the fun of the game. I hate the concept of rolling a die and that makes a formerly ambivalent person your friend without anything else. I hate the die roll to affect social situations altogether. But this is a very big change from the base assumptions of Pathfinder. So you can change, but just be friendly about implementing the change. If a character has built toward it so much, changing intimidate to only demoralize may really kill a character if they only wanted it to strike fear into people. And would obviously wreak havoc with the concept of the character you mentioned.
Alternatively, you could use the guideliness set out here and here instead of completely doing away with diplomacy et al. As it sits, the diplomacy guideliness are horrible in my opinion. Now keep in mind that these articles were based on 3.5, but many things carry over. Though some of the more problematic were eliminated. Still, with a DC 40 check you can turn an person about to kill you into someone indifferent. Doesn't matter who they are. If you use a mechanical system, it is better to model diplomacy as getting someone to accept a deal not making them "friendly".
Alternatively, you could disallow magical items that enhance those skills. This would probably eliminate a fare portion of his bonus, though it will still be significant with a +10 bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Diplomacy cannot shift attitude more than two steps. Even if he wins against someone who is hostile, the best he can do is get them to indifferent.
If it is your character's theme.. there are ways around that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . .
One of said character is a telepath psion. Thanks to some psion stuff he have a +10 bonus on diplomacy, bluff and sense motive, said buff sum up with magical object and pretty much everything. . . .
I assume you mean this.
You know when others lie.
Prerequisite: Wis 13.
Benefit: While you maintain psionic focus, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus on Sense Motive checks to oppose a Bluff check. If you have at least 10 ranks in Sense Motive, this bonus increases to +4. Additionally, you may expend your psionic focus to gain a +10 bonus on a Sense Motive check to oppose a Bluff check. You must decide whether or not to use this option prior to making a Sense Motive check. If your check fails, or if the opponent isn’t lying, you still expend your psionic focus. If you have at least 10 ranks in Sense Motive, this bonus increases to +20 when you expend your psionic focus.
Keep in mind, he has to determine ahead of time if he's going to expend his focus to get the bonus. Using your focus is something you have to regain to use again. It doesn't take a lot, but you won't get it on every roll if two rolls are close together. May hap you should track social encounters in 'rounds' as well. If in the middle of a conversation, the psion seems like he's not paying attention anymore (regaining focus) it could have some kind of impact as well.
Many feats detailed below, as well as many psionic class abilities, work either by maintaining or expending psionic focus.
Gain Psionic Focus: Merely having the ability to hold a reservoir of psionic power points in mind gives psionic characters a special energy. Psionic characters can put that energy to work without actually paying a power point cost—they can become psionically focused.
If you have a power point pool or the ability to manifest psi-like abilities, you can meditate to become psionically focused. Meditating is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
When you are psionically focused, you can expend your focus on any single concentration check you make thereafter. When you expend your focus in this manner, your concentration check is treated as if you rolled a 15. It’s like taking 10, except that the number you add to your concentration modifier is 15. You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way.
Once you are psionically focused, you remain focused until you expend your focus, become unconscious, or go to sleep (or enter a meditative trance, in cases such as elans or elves).
You may still gain psionic focus even if you have depleted all of your power points.
Expending your psionic focus to power a feat, class feature, or any other ability only powers a single effect. You cannot gain the benefit of multiple abilities that require expending focus by expending your psionic focus once; each effect requires its own instance of expending psionic focus.
And just double check his numbers. If they are good, let him be awesome at what he has invested at being awesome at. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now of course i can't have him win every discussion by default (honestly most of the time i take stat and skill only marginally in consideration, like a 30-40%. The rest is what the say and the context).
First, determine what "winning" is when it comes to a diplomacy roll. I've never considered diplomacy to be mind control or magic. It is simply the art of convincing someone that your intentions are good, and that they should trust you. It has very serious limitations.
The problem his that i think he expect to detect 99% of the lies, to convince to do everything 99% of the people and so forth; of course i can't have that, hell i won't permit it even if he had a +90 bonus.
Detect 99% of lies? When a character uses sense motive and beats the needed DC, the GM can easily answer "You get the feeling that he's not telling you the whole truth." It should not be "You know he's lying, he intends to stab you in the back at the next possible moment." Sense motive is not mind reading.
Make sure that the guy is VERY good at what he is trying, at +27 he should be very good. A successful check should result in some meaningful reward. But it should not be an auto-win button.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, you should probably read up on how the skills work, and go over them with your group. Alot of people use diplomacy and sense motive wrong. Sense motive for instance isnt a lie detector. It just gives the player a hunch as to whether or not the person is trustworthy or not. It doesnt tell you if something is or isnt a lie.
Diplomacy allows you to make requests or to shift their attitude towards you, assuming he can get high enough to shift them to indifferent, you can make requests, but there are some really hefty modifiers. An indifferent person is 15+cha mod + 10 if its dangerous, +10 if its a secret, +15 or more if it could get them in trouble. You can set some really high dcs if he is asking for something rediculous.
That said. I have to ask, if a player had a really high attack bonus, but doesnt know the first thing about swordplay himself, would you only count 30-40% of his attack roll when in combat? Kind of rediculous right? Why then does someone have to be actually good at talking in order to be a social character? I am all for giving people bonuses for good roleplay or good ideas, but it isnt reasonable to require a player to be good at something for his character to be good at something. His skill bonus should be primarily what matters in determining success or failure. He should still have to roleplay a situation, and that can be taken into account if you like, but it shouldnt be the primary factor in deciding success or failure any more then his actual ability to swing an axe should decide whether or not his character hits.
Honestly, what do you do if a player in your game has an ac way higher then the rest of the party, or if someone does 10x as much damage? Do that, whatever that is. Just for social skills. Also, you really should know where and how he is getting his bonuses. If you dont understand it and it seems to high, make sure he explains it to you with the rules open in front of you so you can review it.
I'm going to go with Kolokotroni on this one. The player invested in those skills, dont "punish" them (IE, invalidate the investment) for it. A lot of people (including myself) do not have the natural chrisma/speed of mind to come up with decent RP on the fly. We want to play something that we arent normally, and that includes social stuff.
Another point many people made is reading up on skills. As others have stated, diplomacy isnt mind control, sense motive isnt mind reading, etc...
The social skills are broken, from an aesthetic point of view at minimum. Most GMs I know ignore them. None of the GMs that I know are willing to let significant success/failure (as in failing an adventure) hang on one of said die rolls. It usually only takes one optimized diplomancer to break a GM of all faith in that portion of the skill system. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.
Which adventure hinges on a Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate skill--or any one skill, really?
|
Let every man and woman and he talks to fall straight in love with him...
Then make them all get VERY jealous, the moment he talks to anyone else...
Would +100 lovers all out to get him for "talking to another girl/boy", counts as too much?
*oh... and remember to have him sense motive, that the people that he talks to are REALLY in love with him.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit disturbed at the number of posters who want to punish a player for putting points into a skill.
Let every man and woman and he talks to fall straight in love with him...
Then make them all get VERY jealous, the moment he talks to anyone else...
Would +100 lovers all out to get him for "talking to another girl/boy", counts as too much?
*oh... and remember to have him sense motive, that the people that he talks to are REALLY in love with him.
I had a character once that had an absurd Cha and everyone recognized/swooned everywhere he went. It is actually a lot less fun than you'd think, he couldn't do anything or go anywhere without news of it spreading across the land.
Trying to adventure while everyone is watching... was, uh, tough.
A guy with a +27 to diplomacy would develop a reputation, quickly. He'd become known, people would remember him, respond to him, talk about him, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit disturbed at the number of posters who want to punish a player for putting points into a skill.
Agreed.
Hrm... lets try a scenario:
GM: Hey let's play a social campaign with lots talking sound good?
Player: Ya, I got a great idea for a guy who excels at diplomacy... and you say we're mythic... awesome I'm going to be like Martin Luther x Gandhi.
GM: Wait you want to be good at things... when you're Mythic... HOW DARE YOU!!! I'll just rule your skills don't work like they should, because reasons.
Does this scenario seems unreasonable? Cause it does to me.
And sorry but... that's how this reads to me.
I'm a bit disturbed at the number of posters who want to punish a player for putting points into a skill.Hrm... lets try a scenario:
GM: Hey let's play a social campaign with lots talking sound good?
Player: Ya, I got a great idea for a guy who excels at diplomacy... and you say we're mythic... awesome I'm going to be like Martin Luther x Gandhi.
GM: Wait you want to be good at things... when you're Mythic... HOW DARE YOU!!! I'll just rule your skills don't work like they should, because reasons.
Does this scenario seems unreasonable? Cause it does to me.
And sorry but... that's how this reads to me.
That is the same impression I got.
It happens a lot. A DM, for whatever reason, opens the game to high power levels, and then freaks out that the PCs are actually remarkably good at things. Then overrules the rules so that they’re not actually good at things.
It is frustrating for everyone involved.
As a newer DM or one not comfortable with higher powered and more capable PCs… simply run low level, low point buy, low wealth games on slow xp progression! Do this until you feel comfortable with the higher and higher levels of power the PCs accumulate. It’ll give you plenty of time to learn what they can and cannot do, and how the rules play out over the differing stages in a PCs advancement.
But no, they usually just jump right into mid-high level games with mythic levels and then find themselves waaaay in over their head and overreact by negating the PCs functionality instead.
Ok, first of all thanks to all for the feedback! What i really love of this forum is that i can get a lot of valid opinion, with some i agree some i don't but they always make me think from different angles which is great.
@Claxon: Thank you so much for these links, i really loved them and helped me a lot.
To answer some questions:
@Kolokotroni: I see your point, but i don't agree, while i can have an "ignorant about swordplay" player with an hight bab without ruining the game mood (it's quite easy to describe the scene where he kill or battle anyway for me, and for him) i have much more difficult in letting this on someone who can't talk, why? Because *it will* ruin the mood.
Let's go with and example, this actually happened and this player talk this way on regular basis, most of all he's not joking, he seriuosly belive in his argoument:
Player A, with a *very* hight bonus on diplomacy (not the player i'm refering to in this thread), the group encounter an important (caster) npc, they need something from him and they are deciding if stealing it, killing him and take it, or talk him into giving it.
This player, a bard, go to talk to this npc and he say something like this: "you should give us that item because i think you'll lose it, if you give it to me it'll be safe since i'll go to another plane, here take 10 gold (they were at lvl 18 at that was a powerful caster, he knew this)" then rolled a natural 20...
So what should i do know? Le the powerfull mage behave like a total idiot since he rolled a 20 and have a hight bonus? By rules yes. Needless to say the other players looked at me like "we don't think you should let it do it".
At the end of the day combat skill change very little the role aspect of the game and the mood, social skill are a totally different matter.
For the lie thing and going trought the rules with the group you are totally right, i intend to do that but first i wanted to decide what to do myself; i know that the way i described the skill effect in the first post is quite simplistic, it's a side effect of my not-so-good english skill so i try to explain myself in the most simple way to avoid being misunderstood.
@Anzyr, @Brolthemighty and basically anyone suggesting that i want a social campaign but i don't want the player to invest in social skills and so on:
1.As the great links claxon provided explain, diplomacy is just too bad as it is and i simply can't have (even more in a social campaign) a character with that bonus at that level and at the same time use the rules as they are, for obvious reasion; i have some solutions in mind but since the forum is full of great dm i also wanted to hear what they would do since i want said player, and all players, to have fun. I really don't get how this can be see as "you want to punish your player for being a social character in a social campaign".
2. The last campaign that finished some times ago started from lvl 6 and lasted till lvl 18 (2 years) the previous one was on 3.5 and they went up to 25 and i can keep going, so yeah, i don't really have a problem with even more power, hell the last campaign they even had 35 rp for a custom devil race since the setting was hell.
So not being familiar with the ruleset, or confident as a dm and so on is not really the issue here (while of course one can alwasy learn something new, that's why i'm here).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have a talk with the player. Not to convince them to change their bonuses, but about expectations and ideas. Ask them if they want to engage in socially challenging situations, or if they want to RP it, make the roll and move on, without much chance of failure. As the GM though, I would put forward the idea that without risk, the rewards will be small. If he only goes after situations where he is guaranteed success (at least without lots of preparation and hard work before hand), the rewards will be minor or fleeting.
Ex: The players want to convince the king to send his army into the field. A high Diplomacy roll with nothing else along with it is an impassioned speech, but the effects of it will wear off quickly. The king will be excited to go to war, but once the players leave and he starts planning it, his advisers will remind him of all his diplomatic promises, his lords and knights will talk about how their peasants need protection so they can't send all their troops, his treasurer will say they don't have enough money in the vault and taxes are already high... etc. The next day the king sends a note: "Your plea was just and moving, but too many hindrances stand in the way, we cannot go to war now."
Perhaps without actual rewards/concessions, a Diplomacy roll only works for 1 hour, plus another hour per 5 that he beats the DC. The person still likes him, but they have other obligations and concerns that rule their life as well. To get a lasting impact, he has to offer lasting rewards to his target, and they can't just be vague promises of rewards "hey peasant, if you kill that dragon you'll be wildly wealthy," but actual things the player can offer "I'll hand you this 1000g to stand in a field and be bait for the dragon, we'll ambush it and save you."
You can also push the stakes higher. Increase the DC for rewards, but raise the risk of failure too, and they don't have to be directly aimed at the player.
Using the king-war example earlier: Either way the king goes to war. DC 40, you convince him and all of his court to support him. Fail by 5 or more and many of his subjects abandon him, leading to either his defeat on the field, or a civil war in the kingdom as he tries to re-establish control.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta disagree Eleclipse, while I like what you are going for, you can't expect your players to have the kind of stats your characters are going to have, sure the PLAYER worded it badly, but his CHARACTER would have said it in a much more tactful and elegant manner.
Let's face it your players are average goons who probally have a 10 or 11 in charisma, expecting them to be able to sweet talk folks as if they had a 35 charisma is no more likely than the 10-11 int players being able to solve puzzles like a 35 int mage.
It's not a reasonable expectation of the player. In your example I'd suggest taking the basic jist of the message "you can trust us to safeguard it" and the natural 20 would be a reflection of how well the character actually sells the idea.
|
I gotta disagree Eleclipse, while I like what you are going for, you can't expect your players to have the kind of stats your characters are going to have, sure the PLAYER worded it badly, but his CHARACTER would have said it in a much more tactful and elegant manner.
Let's face it your players are average goons who probally have a 10 or 11 in charisma, expecting them to be able to sweet talk folks as if they had a 35 charisma is no more likely than the 10-11 int players being able to solve puzzles like a 35 int mage.
It's not a reasonable expectation of the player. In your example I'd suggest taking the basic jist of the message "you can trust us to safeguard it" and the natural 20 would be a reflection of how well the character actually sells the idea.
Yeah, not everyone is a master storyteller. You're the GM and presumably a pretty good storyteller if you are running this kind of campaign. So when your PC (whose player can't on the fly conjure up the Gettyburg address) says "you can trust us to safeguard it", have your NPC repeat it back to the character in a more engaging way that fits with the storyline you have in mind. "Oh yeah, that way I wouldn't end up like Zargon the Nearly Magnificent, who tried to keep everything of value hidden under his mattress but lost it all to the malign agents of the Nightstalkers Guild."
And the 20 on the die is just one better than a 19 on the die, nothing more. In most cases, either roll will have the same result.
As for the wizard giving up his mcguffin, is that something he'd trust his good friend to do? Does he have any knowledge of the party, or the diplomancer's reputation, both for being capable of doing what he suggested and for fulfilling their promises? Both of those answers should modify the DC.
Try using the system as written - determine a specific DC for the action and then let the player roll. Getting a number from the player and then just handwaving what you allow to happen based on the eloquence of the player will only lead to one thing -players that know that investing in social skills and charisma scores is a waste of their time. instead they'll make combat monsters and the players who can speak well will always be the party face and get thee same okay results from taking to NPCs with a minimal investment in the skills.
And then their GM will be posting a new thread crying that his party have made highly effective combat centric characters for his politics and espionage campaign.
I'm a bit disturbed at the number of posters who want to punish a player for putting points into a skill.Agreed.
Hrm... lets try a scenario:
GM: Hey let's play a social campaign with lots talking sound good?
Player: Ya, I got a great idea for a guy who excels at diplomacy... and you say we're mythic... awesome I'm going to be like Martin Luther x Gandhi.
GM: Wait you want to be good at things... when you're Mythic... HOW DARE YOU!!! I'll just rule your skills don't work like they should, because reasons.
Does this scenario seems unreasonable? Cause it does to me.
And sorry but... that's how this reads to me.
Holy cow did we just agree on something?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Eleclipse: While I understand where your coming from, it isnt us you should be telling this, but your player. Clearly you both have different expectations of what these skill checks represent, so they need to know.
If you want to play the game that way, great. But be CERTAIN your players are aware of these limits beforehand. And PLEASE be patient when a player wants a minute or 2 to respond, because we aint all the smooth talkers you want your players to be.
I'm a bit disturbed at the number of posters who want to punish a player for putting points into a skill.Agreed.
Hrm... lets try a scenario:
GM: Hey let's play a social campaign with lots talking sound good?
Player: Ya, I got a great idea for a guy who excels at diplomacy... and you say we're mythic... awesome I'm going to be like Martin Luther x Gandhi.
GM: Wait you want to be good at things... when you're Mythic... HOW DARE YOU!!! I'll just rule your skills don't work like they should, because reasons.
Does this scenario seems unreasonable? Cause it does to me.
And sorry but... that's how this reads to me.
Holy cow did we just agree on something? [/QUOTE
Maybe I should use examples more often!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who plays a high Diplomacy / Bluff / Intimidate character, I'm going to have to side with the camp of people who cry foul at crippling a character's build, especially when you flat-out said that the type of game you were going to run rewarded those type of skills.
My suggestion? Plan your games around the expectations that your players are going to succeed, not that they could succeed.
Also, never forgot that socials and evne charm person are not the same thing as dominate person. No matter how convincing you are, people have boundaries that they aren't willing to cross. People are different though. I wouldn't be likely to pour all of my life's saving into your pocket because you rolled high on a Diplomacy check, but with the right words against the right person, someone else might.
Think about the situation and think about whether the PC's desired outcome would make for a good story or not. If it does, roll with it. If it doesn't, make the NPC friendly but unwilling. Simple as that.
How effective combat abilities are is often influenced by the PC's positioning and tactics. There's no battle map to use most social skills on, but the situation surrounding the conversation and what the player says in it can serve as the "tactics" of Diplomacy. If you get a +2 bonus to hit for flanking in combat maybe you could get a +2 bonus to Diplomacy for effective negotiation or outwitting the opponent.
If you go into combat, drop your shield, and lay down prone on the floor you'll take a -6 AC. If you call the Baron a fat slob and leer at his daughter while trying to convince him to grant you some boon you might take a -6 or more to the Diplomacy check.
Playing styles differ, but I'd definitely prefer the player using Diplomacy to at least describe what their PC says if not say it in character. Just saying, "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 32." seems really dull to me though I guess it might work for combat focused groups who really just want to get back to killing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How effective combat abilities are is often influenced by the PC's positioning and tactics. There's no battle map to use most social skills on, but the situation surrounding the conversation and what the player says in it can serve as the "tactics" of Diplomacy. If you get a +2 bonus to hit for flanking in combat maybe you could get a +2 bonus to Diplomacy for effective negotiation or outwitting the opponent.
If you go into combat, drop your shield, and lay down prone on the floor you'll take a -6 AC. If you call the Baron a fat slob and leer at his daughter while trying to convince him to grant you some boon you might take a -6 or more to the Diplomacy check.
Playing styles differ, but I'd definitely prefer the player using Diplomacy to at least describe what their PC says if not say it in character. Just saying, "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 32." seems really dull to me though I guess it might work for combat focused groups who really just want to get back to killing.
Or for people who are not gifted with a high charisma and diplomacy skill in real-life, but would like to play Mr/Mrs. Suave. I'm sure you can hit a dragon with a sword and casting spells in real-life, since you like to apply what players are capable of to their PCs. A high diplomacy can in fact call the Baron a fat slob *and* leer at his daughter and get them to love him for it. He just tells the Baron his great stature is evidence of noble bloodline and makes some compliment about how his daughter is so lovely she's captured his heart or some other nonsense. Seriously... use some imagination like when you cast spells or fall from the stratosphere and survive. You need Roleplay not Player-play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh I agree, players should certainly be saying what approach they are taking when doing the discussion. I'm just disagreeing with punishing Players for not having the same amount of ranks in a skill as the Characters they are portraying.
|
I remember one game I was in, that was very Urban/RP based.
I built a Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate based Inquisitor, and was quite happy with the build.
In this group, we had a player who was a literal actor, and decided to play Dwarf Cleric, with a 5 charisma.
In interaction scenes, he would steal the show, and end up getting more done, than my social skill focus PC. I couldn't get a word in.
I went to the DM, and got the "well, he RP'd it well".
Don't do this to the PC.
Just because he is not a dang actor, doesn't mean his PC, focused on doing what the whole damn campaign is about, should be punished.
Also, don't let the dang actor player get away with his 5 charisma PC, with massive penalties to all social skills, be frikken Don Juan, because "he RP'd it well".
Player A, with a *very* hight bonus on diplomacy (not the player i'm refering to in this thread), the group encounter an important (caster) npc, they need something from him and they are deciding if stealing it, killing him and take it, or talk him into giving it.This player, a bard, go to talk to this npc and he say something like this: "you should give us that item because i think you'll lose it, if you give it to me it'll be safe since i'll go to another plane, here take 10 gold (they were at lvl 18 at that was a powerful caster, he knew this)" then rolled a natural 20...
So what should i do know? Le the powerfull mage behave like a total idiot since he rolled a 20 and have a hight bonus? By rules yes. Needless to say the other players looked at me like "we don't think you should let it do it".
You have to keep in mind that Diplomacy isn't mind control. The NPC still has control of his own will and faculties. And then there's this, from the Diplomacy rules:
Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
That's license to reject dumb arguments or options that don't make sense. What high level caster finds it in his nature to just give something away for 10 gp because he might lose it? Since the Diplomacy check was probably good enough to boost him to helpful, he'd probably just laugh it off as the PC making a joke rather than be actually pissed off. He might even say something like "Well, if you want this bauble of mine, I am open to an earnest offer." That preserves his helpfulness by being willing to part with it, but for its market value, not 10 measly gold coins.
I remember one game I was in, that was very Urban/RP based.
I built a Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate based Inquisitor, and was quite happy with the build.
In this group, we had a player who was a literal actor, and decided to play Dwarf Cleric, with a 5 charisma.
In interaction scenes, he would steal the show, and end up getting more done, than my social skill focus PC. I couldn't get a word in.
I went to the DM, and got the "well, he RP'd it well".
Don't do this to the PC.
Just because he is not a dang actor, doesn't mean his PC, focused on doing what the whole damn campaign is about, should be punished.
Also, don't let the dang actor player get away with his 5 charisma PC, with massive penalties to all social skills, be frikken Don Juan, because "he RP'd it well".
Personally, when I DM... I listen for the 'intent' of the interaction. I'm looking for good ideas, reasonable courses of action, explanations of events and situations, etc. I'm not too hung up on how well it is delivered; I'm not concerned with word choice or flair. While all of those things are great! They’re not what matters for how the NPCs react.
After all that, I set the DCs based on the reasonableness of the situation.
"Good sir! if I may have but a moment of your time? Would you be so kind as to pass alone this note to your master? It would be most gracious, and I'm sure he'd be pleased. /wink"
and
"Hey, take this letter to the duke; he needs to check it out"
Have the same DCs.
Keep in mind that Diplomacy does exactly what it says in the description. If the bloodthirsty barbarian in front of you would cheerfully slit his best friend's throat for a copper, all an attitude adjustment roll is going to do is make him say, "You know, I like you. It's almost a shame that I'm going to gut you like a fish." Of course, you could request that the brigand spare your life, but the DC may be too much to bear, and if it's against his nature the GM is empowered--and encouraged--by RAW to rule it impossible. There's no DC for convincing Rovagug to take up quilting instead of destruction.
Finally, note that Pathfinder Diplomacy is not 3.5 Diplomacy. The rules are very different, and PF's version solves most of the problems that thealexandrian.net complains about.
So i've a started a new campaign, the character are lvl 7 with 2 mythic lvl 20point buy, it'll be a urban campaign with a lot ot talking.
One of said character is a telepath psion. Thanks to some psion stuff he have a +10 bonus on diplomacy, bluff and sense motive, said buff sum up with magical object and pretty much everything.
So, at 7 lvl without skill focus or similar feats, he have a +27 on this skills...
Now of course i can't have him win every discussion by default (honestly most of the time i take stat and skill only marginally in consideration, like a 30-40%. The rest is what the say and the context).
The problem his that i think he expect to detect 99% of the lies, to convince to do everything 99% of the people and so forth; of course i can't have that, hell i won't permit it even if he had a +90 bonus.
So the qestion is, how do i deal with this guy without ruining every talking situation because he have a bazilion bonus on diplomacy and at the same thime without make him feel like i'm ignoring the ability of his character?
Thanks in advance for any help.
ps: I already tell him that these score seem too hight for this level be he protested saying that he made a social character so they are hight.
Diplomacy is not mind control. What are you specifically worried about?
i played a "Diplomancer" once, and while we weren't mythic i still had a pretty fantastic score in my social skills, and still managed to be pretty decent in combat. i digress. the most efficient thing my GM ever did to stop me from diplomacizing left and right and constantly inquisiting on his good times was toss in a bulked up assassin that was a little higher than our level could really handle. we got into a conversation, like one normally would with a seeming quest giver, and my character noticed a few subtle flaws in his argument, i did my thing and figured out he was being totally untruthful and confronted him. he reacted as any good assassin would, shrugging me off and remaining cool, then rolled a buffed up slight of hand that all my friends and i missed, and made my day with a dagger to the jugular. i failed all my rolls (the gm had checked my saves and buffed up the d/c's to ensure it was a 12+ on the die or fail) to not die and all of a sudden i needed a res and my friends had no freaking clue why. from then on out my character was certainly more cautious with his diplo-baggery and stopped breaking encounters by turning hostiles friendly. im not saying you SHOULD punish your player like this, but it cant hurt to put the fear of god(gm) in him, right?
@Wraithstrike:
Basically i'm worried that diplomacy, as it is, is often better than mind control.
It doesn't take into consideration the level of the png, his motive, there's no save or way to avoid it.
By rules the dc is based on the attitude and the charisma bonus(which i think is incredibly stupid since it don't take into consideration the level of the "opponent", plus i really fail to see how charisma help you in this kind of situation, wisdom seem way more appropiate).
So this player could easily befriend (with no rational argoument at all but that's not the main problem), say, a lvl 20 wizard who lived 1000 years; an helpful lvl 20 wizard will " Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril."
And you can ask *a lot* of things to such a powerfull character without him being in serious peril or going against his nature. This in just one minute. Plus the whole "request diplomacy modifier" is just ridiculus since of course first you'll bring him to friendly and then do the requests.
This is prone to just too much exploit.
am i to never let them met powerful png in order to avoid this? am i to avoid let them met with anyone important?
Is, say, a prime minister with 6 lvl on "nobleman" with a +1 cha bonus such an idiot that all that it takes for him to change his mind (ok for some *hours*) is to talk for 1 minute to *any* bard of the realm? By rules yes.
Let's assume he's indifferent (or even unfriendly) a simple lvl 1 bard who never left the worst tavern in the city could make him friendly and them have granted a great deal of request with some (not to much) luck, does this make any sense?
Another one of my biggest worry is that this will make everyone loke like a dumb fool.
And as a side worry i can't bring myself to like it when someone try to convice another one with some of the most stupid reason in the world, i'm not asking the players to be actor but to at least make some sense in their argoument.
Some people in the thread suggested that "when someone is helpful it doesn't mean that ... " "based on his nature they will do this..." and so forth but these are all things added by the dm based on common sense, not included in the rules.
Sure the rule talk about gm discretion in some point but that's just like saying "hey do what you want if needed",/sarcasm on thank you, i know i could do it anyway. sarcasm off/
All of this to say:
I WANT the players to be able to comeup with different and interesting solutions trought social skill, i LOVE when someone make a great use of such skills to deal with a problem in a way i hadn't expected. But i don't want it to be an "i win" button in every conversation (like it is by rules with almost everyone who isn't trying to kill them in that specific second or have a monstrous charisma) and i don't like when this "i win" button is pressed while arguing with the worst argoument ever conceived by the human mind
|
|
Well, friends of this "diplomanced" NPC are going to notice if they start acting strange.
They could easily convince said NPC, that maybe they should not be so helpful.
Also, you don't have to reveal if they were successful or not. It is easy enough to have a NPC fake being helpful.
Higher level NPCs are also likely to have magic items that may have effects, like the Detect Lies, or Zone of Truth spells.
Let's not forget that in such a setting, that rumors and reputations exist. The PCs may have some nasty rumors spread about them, and end up with a bad reputation.
If you really want control, I would cut Mythic and Psionics.
If you want rules that do that, perhaps you'd be better off with a board of video game instead.
You know, i was going to reply to your post in some serious way, then i read this childish comment and decided to follow George Carlin advice and not argue with you.
Have a good day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy doesn't change the person that is getting diplomacy-ed... they're the same person, with the same motivations desires interests etc. All that is different is that they think of the diplomacy-er in a positive light, and respond to them in a friendlier way.
Ask yourself, what would this NPC do for a friend? Because they view a guy who rolled a high enough diplomacy check as a friend!
That's it. Someone with a high diplomacy is simply likeable, people tend to like them. They make friends wherever they go, and receive warm welcomes.
The 1000 year old wizard likes the guy he is chatting with who rolled that 45+ diplomacy check. He hasn’t had such an interesting and engaging conversation in decades and the guy reminds him of a friend he had centuries ago. He likes him!
It doesn’t mean he’ll risk his neck for this dude, not at this point anyway. He didn’t make it a 1000 years by risking his neck every time he met someone. But, if he can off the guy some advice? Done. Maybe tell him a story about some lost lore? Sure why not! He might even be so inclined to waive a minor fee for a spell or two, should he have them prepared and doesn’t really expect to need them. Why not?
And maybe eventually, over repeated encounters, with positive two way interaction of a helpful nature, this high diplomacy guy might actually genuinely make a long lasting friend out of this wizard. Or, if he is always a taker taker taker, then maybe not… the wizard might pick up on his selfish needy tendencies and grow cold to him over time. I doubt he’d like feeling taken advantage of much.
So his starting attitude could eventually shift, either up or down, depending on the actual content of their interactions.
Diplomacy only modifies that starting attitude (and only by 2 steps) for a little while… it is the actual ongoing interactions that might change it more permanently.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Whatever you do, talk with the player first and work something out. Give them a chance to rebuild the character if your interpretation of the skill isn't their interpretation of the skill.
Read up and understand the skills being used and stick to the RAW. 90% of the "OMG this is broken!!" is down to players/GMs not understanding the built in limitations (sometimes intentionally most often due to misunderstanding). When I say "understand" look at ways it can be abused and then see if there is a counter within the rules.
Don't try and screw the player over because he made an effective build.