Disable Device – When to say “No”?


Advice

151 to 200 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Just an addendum... puzzles. I encourage my players to try to solve them on their own, but once stumped, I absolutely, positively allow them to make an Intelligence check to solve them.

I don't expect a player who's got a mensa-level PC to be one.

It's fun to give something a try, but it sucks to be required to be as charismatic, intelligent, or wise as your PC.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gwiber wrote:

Rogue of some level comes across a large floor portion that with his trapfinding abilities he notices is very thin, and designed to crumble when walked on.

This is the problem. In similar situations I have had a Rogue player look me in the eyes, and call “Disable Device”. Looking for a DC.

Uhm... How? It's a thin floor. What does he plan to do? Haul in a gantry works and some wood, and lay a new floor over it with a single roll?

Recently the rogue on my group I am running for noticed a trap above the heads of the group in which a single short stick was tenuously holding up a dead fall, beyond said deadfall was a large pool of lava.

We had a minor argument over the matter about how he should be able to just roll “Disable Device” And have it stop the trap, entirely without any rhyme or reason on HOW he was doing it.

The trap was designed to be sprung by a crossbow bolt fired by the ambushers, not by any “Device”. The more or less some total of his argument was “It's in the books. I should be able to do it!”

We eventually agreed he was (Arcane Trickster) Able to lodge a rapier up there with the stick so that it would hold the dead fall if the stick were knocked out., but I could not see HOW a simple Disable Device roll was going to do the job without SOME explanation on how it was going to work.

Many times he has used the rules like this in ST'ing too. When MY rogue came up on a poison needle trapped door. When I wanted to do thing like destroy the door lock instead. Or in one case use a piece of cork to cover the needle location and then open the door (thus letting the piece of cork take the “needle”, insisting that if I meddle with the trap without disabling it first, it would go off and SOMEONE would get hit and need to roll saves or whatever.

At what point can I within rules look at him and say “That's just not going to work.”; and be in the right rules-wise?

The floor situation would be more of an obstacle than a trap. Other than that, it would depend on how much you run RAW, or if you let the game run more like telling a story and that some things traps would need more creative effort from your players than just a dice roll. Traps in your world could be much more complicated and would have much higher DCs and higher chances to trip them, thus making the players think more creatively and less likely to fiddle with them.


shroudb wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i just roll with it with situational modifiers.

for the diplomacy it is simple:

guy walks towards a guarded door:
"i want to roll diplomacy to get in"
"sure, what do you tell the guard?"
"eh, i dont know, whatever, cant i just roll?"
"sure you can, with a penalty due to sircumastancial modifiers being: not a reasonable request"

antoher guy does the same:
"i want to roll diplomacy to get in"
"sure, what do you tell the guard?"
"i say x,y,z, while i also offer him a bit of wine that i have with me to share, and continue with A,b,c"
"sure you can, you also get a +XYZ to the roll due to presenting a very convincing argument"

Anzyr wrote:
Ya, I hate when people make a Character with a different personality then they have in real life and love penalizing them for not being charismatic outside of the game. I mean seriously what did they think we were playing? A roleplaying game?(The above is sarcasm.)
If the penalty or bonus is more than 2 see Anzyr's quote.
Quantum Steve wrote:


Why is it that some GMs, when a PC uses Diplomacy, will expect a player to have a good argument, but when a PC uses archery he will not expect the player to have good aim?

i dont ask the player to roleplay the dialogue if he doesnt want.

i just want him to list me the excuses he gives to get in.

to put it simply, diplomacy for me is how nice you talk and you convice people, that is a roll in the game.
diplomacy ISN'T "my character invents reasons i dont know yet"
such a skill doesn't exist.

if he was already on a point of friendship with a guard and simply went, "hey man, can i just get a quick peak inside" then i would need no reason at all, just the roll for a favor asked. but when you are with a complete stranger, i expect my players to give a reason.

as for the archery example, that is flat out out of context.
a more reasonable example would be a guy with a bow having 10 people in front of him.

he doesn't go like" i...

Even when the context to establish the rapport isn't described by the GM? Knowing what to say is very much part of the CHARACTER'S skill set if he is trained in diplomacy.

Do you give a player this much difficulty using Spellcraft? Shouldn't he have to know what key words to listen for when identifying a spell to counterspell.


Anguish wrote:

Just an addendum... puzzles. I encourage my players to try to solve them on their own, but once stumped, I absolutely, positively allow them to make an Intelligence check to solve them.

I don't expect a player who's got a mensa-level PC to be one.

It's fun to give something a try, but it sucks to be required to be as charismatic, intelligent, or wise as your PC.

You could do like a lot of roleplaying games where you give certain clues or even chances of completing the puzzle based on ranks in knowledge, appropriate skills, or even straight up Int.

Something like:

There's a puzzle with several ancient symbols that can be slid around on a panel. Clearly, some combination will open the way.

(Linguistics X ranks) You recognize the ancient language the text is written in, it says to "Align the sunbeam to light the way". The sliding symbols include an obvious sun-like symbol.

(Knowledge: History X ranks) You recognize the symbols as the gods of an ancient culture, one where the sun god (that symbol, there) is favored predominantly as the "revealer of truth".

(Intelligence of X+) There are only so many permutations and combinations possible on a 5x5 panel. It's obvious these symbols can line up with counter-parts on the outside, one such combination should unlock it. It should only take you about 2 minutes to try them all.
(This is where you can simple extend how long it takes to fiddle with it based on the highest Intelligence. As long as they keep working at it. Higher Int still rewards, as you end up with a shorter roadblock.)


I really agree with Thorin001

lets look at diplomacy skill for what it says.

"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. "

"If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC"

"You can also use Diplomacy to gather information about a specific topic or individual."

So I see changing attitude, making a request, and gathering information as options for a diplomacy skill. This mean that if my roll beats the DC for the task I want to do, I succeed at that task. So whatever you want to believe the skill does and does not do, they should be able to roll for each of these checks and if they pass the DC get the desired result.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I really agree with Thorin001

lets look at diplomacy skill for what it says.

"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. "

"If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC"

"You can also use Diplomacy to gather information about a specific topic or individual."

So I see changing attitude, making a request, and gathering information as options for a diplomacy skill. This mean that if my roll beats the DC for the task I want to do, I succeed at that task. So whatever you want to believe the skill does and does not do, they should be able to roll for each of these checks and if they pass the DC get the desired result.

however, as the DM was forced to point out and make a permanent rule in a game I was in, not while f*#!ing a pig in front of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
however, as the DM was forced to point out and make a permanent rule in a game I was in, not while f+%@ing a pig in front of them.

Actions can certainly modify the DC, but that is different than requiring specific actions.

Nobleman walks in on PC having sex with his daughter. PC tries to talk his way out of it. Nobleman probably starts out as hostile. Actions of daughter can easily give positive or negative modifiers. But unless this is a major NPC who you actually know all of the motivations for the PC should get a chance to talk his way out. He may be able to convince the nobleman that he is a worthy son in law or that the scene was not what it looked like, or any number of other things.

If the PCs just spent an hour or two having dinner with the man there would be several clues as to how to manipulate him, but I seriously doubt that all the dinner small talk was actually handled in character. I doubt that all of the furnishings and knickknacks were fully described. I doubt that all pillow talk with the daughter was done fully in character. Unless you are giving all these clues, which the character has seen, how can you really justify the player making argument. He simply does not have the proper frame of reference.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

GM: "Tell me exactly what your character says."

Player: "As soon as you tell me exactly what my character knows."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:
The occasional, "Yes, I can get us by this, but I'll need two crickets, a piece of chewing gum and a baseball bat", can be fun, but it should be accessible and rare.

"... And that guy's leg."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

GM: "Tell me exactly what your character says."

Player: "As soon as you tell me exactly what my character knows."

That's going in my brain as the right kind of reply to that request.


P1 - I want to use diplomacy to try and have the guard let me through.
GM - What do you say?
P1 - I don't know, whatever to help me get me through.
GM - Okay you take a penalty for that, due to sircumastancial modifiers being: not a reasonable request

P2 - I want to attack that guard (PC is an archer)
GM - okay roll your dice to see if you hit.
P1 - (feeling cheated)WAIT!!! How does he attack the guard? Where is he aiming? How far does he pull the bow? What angle does he use to aim? If he doesn't give all this detail he should take the same penalty I took on my diplomacy check!
GM - You're crazy P1, it's an attack he just rolls the dice, his character knows how to attack, oh and P2, don't forget he's one of your favored enemies.

Yeah, I don't know why a GM would do this, but as far as I can tell, all the GM's who use the first example would do the second example (maybe not reminding about favored enemy, but the point is the same). They seem to think that combat is different than "skills".

Am I wrong on this? Is there something I'm missing about how they view this?


Chess Pwn wrote:

P1 - I want to use diplomacy to try and have the guard let me through.

GM - What do you say?
P1 - I don't know, whatever to help me get me through.
GM - Okay you take a penalty for that, due to sircumastancial modifiers being: not a reasonable request

P2 - I want to attack that guard (PC is an archer)
GM - okay roll your dice to see if you hit.
P1 - (feeling cheated)WAIT!!! How does he attack the guard? Where is he aiming? How far does he pull the bow? What angle does he use to aim? If he doesn't give all this detail he should take the same penalty I took on my diplomacy check!
GM - You're crazy P1, it's an attack he just rolls the dice, his character knows how to attack, oh and P2, don't forget he's one of your favored enemies.

Yeah, I don't know why a GM would do this, but as far as I can tell, all the GM's who use the first example would do the second example (maybe not reminding about favored enemy, but the point is the same). They seem to think that combat is different than "skills".

Am I wrong on this? Is there something I'm missing about how they view this?

a reasonable dm will NEVER ask HOW one says a thing (diplomacy) only WHAT he says.

a reasonable dm will NEVER ask HOW one shoots a bow only WHAT is he doing.

as i said before:

an archer has ten people gainst him, would your dm allow him to say:
ok i shoot at the most dangerous one? or does he actually says exactly what he is doing: i am attacking the second from the left, the one in the robes and wizard hat that seems to be chanting something.

once gain:
diplomacy isn't WHAT you say, it is HOW.
The HOW is your roll, the what is up to the player

thorin001 wrote:
stuff

as i said, this is about asking favors.

and even then, i even set an explicit example where if you was already friendly with a guard no reason would be required.

i don't expect anyone to say to me what they want to say when they try to make someone friendlier.

but when you go against a guard that you have never seen and you say:
"ok let me in"
then yeah, i at leat expect a RAESON as to why he should let you in.
the how you will present this reason is the diplomacy roll.


shroudb wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

P1 - I want to use diplomacy to try and have the guard let me through.

GM - What do you say?
P1 - I don't know, whatever to help me get me through.
GM - Okay you take a penalty for that, due to sircumastancial modifiers being: not a reasonable request

P2 - I want to attack that guard (PC is an archer)
GM - okay roll your dice to see if you hit.
P1 - (feeling cheated)WAIT!!! How does he attack the guard? Where is he aiming? How far does he pull the bow? What angle does he use to aim? If he doesn't give all this detail he should take the same penalty I took on my diplomacy check!
GM - You're crazy P1, it's an attack he just rolls the dice, his character knows how to attack, oh and P2, don't forget he's one of your favored enemies.

Yeah, I don't know why a GM would do this, but as far as I can tell, all the GM's who use the first example would do the second example (maybe not reminding about favored enemy, but the point is the same). They seem to think that combat is different than "skills".

Am I wrong on this? Is there something I'm missing about how they view this?

a reasonable dm will NEVER ask HOW one says a thing (diplomacy) only WHAT he says.

a reasonable dm will NEVER ask HOW one shoots a bow only WHAT is he doing.

as i said before:

an archer has ten people gainst him, would your dm allow him to say:
ok i shoot at the most dangerous one? or does he actually says exactly what he is doing: i am attacking the second from the left, the one in the robes and wizard hat that seems to be chanting something.

once gain:
diplomacy isn't WHAT you say, it is HOW.
The HOW is your roll, the what is up to the player

Where does it say Diplomacy is HOW you say something? I feel you're really skewing the attack and diplomacy example. The WHAT of shooting a bow would be what are you targeting and what angle you're shooting at, drawing the arrow, putting it in position and drawing the bow, if diplomacy what is what you say. The how would be using muscles, the flex of the bow, etc. OR smoothly, rushed, with ease, like a noob. Those all would be the HOW of a bow shot, since that sounds like the HOW of your diplomacy check.

Can you not see that you're changing the definition of WHAT in your examples?
diplomacy, what are you doing? win the guard over.
I exactly say what I'm doing: I am using diplomacy to get through the door on the guard who is guarding the door.

If you said, I talk to the guard then it might be the same as I target most dangerous.

attacking, what are you doing? trying to deal damage.

If you want the WHAT to be what your saying for diplomacy, then you should have the attack do similar.

A reasonable dm should let a skill work as intended.

Dark Archive

I'm trying to follow the dialogue between Chess Pwn and shroudb, but I'm failing. I think there's a disagreement in there somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure.


shroudb wrote:

but when you go against a guard that you have never seen and you say:

"ok let me in"
then yeah, i at leat expect a RAESON as to why he should let you in.
the how you will present this reason is the diplomacy roll.

Diplomacy is the coming up with the REASON as to why he should let you in. If you roll high, it's a very good reason, if low it's not as good a reason.


EDIT:

Grammar Nazi wrote:
I'm trying to follow the dialogue between Chess Pwn and shroudb, but I'm failing.

Your FACE is failing! Oooooh! In your face!


Grammar Nazi wrote:
I'm trying to follow the dialogue between Chess Pwn and shroudb, but I'm failing.

I'm saying that diplomacy and attacking are the same. You say what you want to do, roll, and see if you succeed.

shroudb I feel is saying that diplomacy doesn't determine if you succeed or fail, it only determines how well you say something and that the player needs to come up with the words to say for the diplomacy, and if the player fails to come up with the right words then the diplomacy failed. And I don't really know where the roll comes into play with this.
While attacking is just stating your target and rolling the dice still.
Also it seems that he feels that he's treating them the same by doing it this way.


Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:

but when you go against a guard that you have never seen and you say:

"ok let me in"
then yeah, i at leat expect a RAESON as to why he should let you in.
the how you will present this reason is the diplomacy roll.
Diplomacy is the coming up with the REASON as to why he should let you in. If you roll high, it's a very good reason, if low it's not as good a reason.

i dont see it that way, but i still allow it with a penalty to the roll.

if the reason is good enough i give a bonus to the roll.

for me, diplomacy is more like bluff, the same way that you apply circumstancial modifiers based on what you say when you try to bluff, the same way i see those modifiers being applied when you ask for a favor.

p.e. going to a guard and saying:
ok i want the guard to attack that dude over there, i rolled 17 on my diploamacy is probably going to fail in my table.
going to the same guard, flashing your badge of awesomeness you received from the mayor for saving the city and saying: that dude over there just tried to slay the mayor, so try to stop him and i will have your back, has a reasonable amount of chance to succeed.

ion both occasions i dont believe your character is a stone statue with a blank face just saying those things, he actually looks frantic, pointing and shouting, surely presents his case much better than how i just did, and all those things are the roll.

the reason to roll i want to hear that.

As for what one wants to hear, that isnt diplomact, that is 100% sense motive. So yeah, if one starts talking and pointing things out to a guard to fish what he wants to hear, i would allow a sense motive check, and in this case i will either directly say what the guard likes, or apply a modifier to the accompanying diplomacy check, depending on the player and how he likes to play things.\

Chess Pwn wrote:
Grammar Nazi wrote:
I'm trying to follow the dialogue between Chess Pwn and shroudb, but I'm failing.

I'm saying that diplomacy and attacking are the same. You say what you want to do, roll, and see if you succeed.

shroudb I feel is saying that diplomacy doesn't determine if you succeed or fail, it only determines how well you say something and that the player needs to come up with the words to say for the diplomacy, and if the player fails to come up with the right words then the diplomacy failed. And I don't really know where the roll comes into play with this.
While attacking is just stating your target and rolling the dice still.
Also it seems that he feels that he's treating them the same by doing it this way.

NO:

i specifically said i dont want the WORDS you use. Only the REASON.
that is 100% different.

and yes i say i treat them the same.

because i see BaB as how ell you shoot your bow, not as a decision making tool of what to attack.
and i see diplomacy as how well you use your words, not as a decision making tool of what to say

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Grammar Nazi wrote:
I'm trying to follow the dialogue between Chess Pwn and shroudb, but I'm failing.

I'm saying that diplomacy and attacking are the same. You say what you want to do, roll, and see if you succeed.

shroudb I feel is saying that diplomacy doesn't determine if you succeed or fail, it only determines how well you say something and that the player needs to come up with the words to say for the diplomacy, and if the player fails to come up with the right words then the diplomacy failed. And I don't really know where the roll comes into play with this.
While attacking is just stating your target and rolling the dice still.
Also it seems that he feels that he's treating them the same by doing it this way.

I am in the camp of having a problem with needing to explain the mechanics of my diplomacy. I am terrible at speaking in front of people and have zero ranks myself. If my character has 10 ranks, the dice are my reason. Just like I wouldn't, as a GM, expect my rogue player to pick a lock prop I brought out of the game. That actually really happened to my wife with a friend of ours as a GM. He was a little too much into the roleplaying realism. That is what the dice are for, simulating the skills of the character in front of you. I understand the desire to have a deeper story telling aspect, but the diplomacy stuff puts those without the greatest social skills in a terribly awkward situation.


shroudb wrote:
for me, diplomacy is more like bluff, the same way that you apply circumstancial modifiers based on what you say when you try to bluff, the same way i see those modifiers being applied when you ask for a favor.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Bluff has its table of circumstances and the modifiers for the believability of the lie. Bluff requires you to say what lie you are telling for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

Diplomacy has its own table for the request asked and the attitude of the creature. Diplomacy requires you to say what request you are asking for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

The bluff table has nothing to do with diplomacy rolls, and the diplomacy table has nothing to do with bluff rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

i specifically said i dont want the WORDS you use. Only the REASON.

that is 100% different.

I don't see much of a difference. Isn't the reason a big part of the words you are using?

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - what part of him are you targeting?
p - the part that let my 24 attack roll hit him because of his 23 AC.

I feel that this is the example of how it works using what you're asking for. This is where the reason comes in for diplomacy.

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.
GM - well if you're not giving a reason then it's an unreasonable request and you take a -10 to your check, even though the DC 35 is for making an unreasonable request.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - What's your attack roll?
P - 24.
GM - that's a hit.

This is what I feel you're saying in how you run it.


Tarantula wrote:
shroudb wrote:
for me, diplomacy is more like bluff, the same way that you apply circumstancial modifiers based on what you say when you try to bluff, the same way i see those modifiers being applied when you ask for a favor.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Bluff has its table of circumstances and the modifiers for the believability of the lie. Bluff requires you to say what lie you are telling for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

Diplomacy has its own table for the request asked and the attitude of the creature. Diplomacy requires you to say what request you are asking for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

The bluff table has nothing to do with diplomacy rolls, and the diplomacy table has nothing to do with bluff rolls.

actually i think my way is easier on the players.

after all, all aid requested so far in this thread is at minimum +15dc. i almost never go that high unless the request is stupid.

p.e. the most common given of a guard allowing you to enter what he is guarding is both dangerous AND would could result in punishment.

as is asking the guard to leave his post to assist you in catching a criminal. which i think is moronic, because i expect a guard to actually LEAVE his damn post to chase off a killer, even if that could result in someone sneaking in what he is guarding.

so, if i play by the book, the DC's are higher, but if a player of mine can give me good enough reasons for the guard to do so, then immediatly it can go far lower of a penalty, or even a bonus

lastly, do not forget that:

Quote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.

i can't do that unless i have a reason most of the time:

a lawful good paladin would not abandon his post despite you rolling 100 on a d20.

a lawful good paladin MAY abandon his post if the reason you give is more lawful and/or more good.

so, asking a paladin to "go catch that dude" will autofail
while asking the paladin to "go catch the thief of the royal jewelry and backstaber of childer" will probably succedd


Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i specifically said i dont want the WORDS you use. Only the REASON.

that is 100% different.

I don't see much of a difference. Isn't the reason a big part of the words you are using?

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - what part of him are you targeting?
p - the part that let my 24 attack roll hit him because of his 23 AC.

I feel that this is the example of how it works using what you're asking for. This is where the reason comes in for diplomacy.

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.
GM - well if you're not giving a reason then it's an unreasonable request and you take a -10 to your check, even though the DC 35 is for making an unreasonable request.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - What's your attack roll?
P - 24.
GM - that's a hit.

This is what I feel you're saying in how you run it.

and i say again that's not how i see it:

archer:
player: i want to hit the most dangerous dude with the most ease possible
gm: how?
player: with my 16bab my character knows much more than me in combat, so he automatically knows whom to aim and where to stand.

as oppose to:
player: i will go up that little crate to get higher ground for +1, then i will shoot the obvious looking wizard and not the warrior in full plate and tower shield that is 150ft away
gm: roll for attack


Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i specifically said i dont want the WORDS you use. Only the REASON.

that is 100% different.

I don't see much of a difference. Isn't the reason a big part of the words you are using?

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - what part of him are you targeting?
p - the part that let my 24 attack roll hit him because of his 23 AC.

I feel that this is the example of how it works using what you're asking for. This is where the reason comes in for diplomacy.

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.
GM - well if you're not giving a reason then it's an unreasonable request and you take a -10 to your check, even though the DC 35 is for making an unreasonable request.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - What's your attack roll?
P - 24.
GM - that's a hit.

This is what I feel you're saying in how you run it.

I think asking for a general direction of the diplomacy is reasonable. General as in schmooze, bribe, flirt, flatter, etc.


thorin001 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i specifically said i dont want the WORDS you use. Only the REASON.

that is 100% different.

I don't see much of a difference. Isn't the reason a big part of the words you are using?

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - what part of him are you targeting?
p - the part that let my 24 attack roll hit him because of his 23 AC.

I feel that this is the example of how it works using what you're asking for. This is where the reason comes in for diplomacy.

P - I want to use diplomacy to have the guard let me through
GM - what reason do you give him?
P - the reason that lets my 40 diplomacy beat the DC 35 diplomacy check.
GM - well if you're not giving a reason then it's an unreasonable request and you take a -10 to your check, even though the DC 35 is for making an unreasonable request.

P - I want to use my attack on that guard to damage him
GM - What's your attack roll?
P - 24.
GM - that's a hit.

This is what I feel you're saying in how you run it.

I think asking for a general direction of the diplomacy is reasonable. General as in schmooze, bribe, flirt, flatter, etc.

I agree, so long as you communicate what you want to accomplish and in certain cases how, every GM should be able to work with the situation.

to go along with the examples:
Archer: I want to shoot the wizard
GM: How?
Archer: with my bow...

Converser: I want to persuade the guard to let me pass.
GM: How?
Converser: by persuading him.


shroudb wrote:
it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.

Most of the time it really is not. Unless it is a major NPC with listed personality and goals there is no reason to determine if the guard at the door is a crook on the take or a moral paragon. Just leave it to the dice.


shroudb wrote:

and i say again that's not how i see it:

archer:
player: i want to hit the most dangerous dude with the most ease possible
gm: how?
player: with my 16bab my character knows much more than me in combat, so he automatically knows whom to aim and where to stand.

as oppose to:
player: i will go up that little crate to get higher ground for +1, then i will shoot the obvious looking wizard and not the warrior in full plate and tower shield that is 150ft away
gm: roll for attack

So what's the difference between your example and this example for diplomacy?

P- I will talk to the obvious looking guard and not the statue, and use diplomacy to request he let me through the door.
GM- roll for diplomacy

Because if he's guarding it, letting you through would be "aid that could result in punishment" no matter what "reason" you use.


Axelthegreat wrote:

I agree, so long as you communicate what you want to accomplish and in certain cases how, every GM should be able to work with the situation.

to go along with the examples:
Archer: I want to shoot the wizard
GM: How?
Archer: with my bow...

Converser: I want to persuade the guard to let me pass.
GM: How?
Converser: by persuading him.

archer:

player i shoot the wizard
gm: ok roll for attack with -4 because he is behind cover

gm: you COULD have moved to the side so that he wouldn't have cover though.

player: oh, i don't need to say that, my character has 16bab, so he knows how to fight, and he does that automatically

diplomacy:

player: i ask the guard to leave and go the the shady nearby alley

gm: ok roll with -25 because the guard doesn't want to be punished and it is dangerous for him to do so (both modifiers actually in the table of diplomacy roll)

gm: You could have rolled with a +5 because Jack the Ripper destroyer of worlds is bleeding to death in the alley nearby and you can arrest him.

player: oh i don't need to say that my character says that because i have +15diplomacy so my character automatically gives it as a reason


thorin001 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.
Most of the time it really is not. Unless it is a major NPC with listed personality and goals there is no reason to determine if the guard at the door is a crook on the take or a moral paragon. Just leave it to the dice.

most of the time it is against the values of a guard to let someone pass.

so should all such attempts autofail because 99% of the guards are unamed npcs?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
shroudb wrote:
for me, diplomacy is more like bluff, the same way that you apply circumstancial modifiers based on what you say when you try to bluff, the same way i see those modifiers being applied when you ask for a favor.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Bluff has its table of circumstances and the modifiers for the believability of the lie. Bluff requires you to say what lie you are telling for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

Diplomacy has its own table for the request asked and the attitude of the creature. Diplomacy requires you to say what request you are asking for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

The bluff table has nothing to do with diplomacy rolls, and the diplomacy table has nothing to do with bluff rolls.

actually i think my way is easier on the players.

after all, all aid requested so far in this thread is at minimum +15dc. i almost never go that high unless the request is stupid.

p.e. the most common given of a guard allowing you to enter what he is guarding is both dangerous AND would could result in punishment.

as is asking the guard to leave his post to assist you in catching a criminal. which i think is moronic, because i expect a guard to actually LEAVE his damn post to chase off a killer, even if that could result in someone sneaking in what he is guarding.

so, if i play by the book, the DC's are higher, but if a player of mine can give me good enough reasons for the guard to do so, then immediatly it can go far lower of a penalty, or even a bonus

lastly, do not forget that:

Quote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.

i can't do that unless i have a reason most of the time:

a lawful good paladin would not abandon his post despite you rolling 100 on a d20.

a lawful good paladin MAY abandon his post if the reason you give is...

Guess what, its HARD to talk your way past a guard. He probably is indifferent at BEST, so that's 15+Cha. Asking him to let you past could punish him, so +15 more, we're at 30 now. Oh, and your 3 friends too? thats +15 again (one request for each of them) so now we're at +45.

Can a 10th level bard/rogue/othersocial character manage that? Sure. Or the spellcaster can cast charm person and win an opposed charisma check. Or you could all go invisible. Or sneak. Diplomacy is one way to get past the guard. Heck, you could even knock him out, and heal him up afterward if it was important enough.

Is the request to "let us in" against the nature of a LG paladin guarding the king's sleeping quarters? Yes. There is no circumstance no matter how high you roll that will make the paladin abandon his post there to let you in.

If you want to say: "There is the backstabbing king killer criminal other there, go catch him!" That is a BLUFF check. And you get all the associated modifiers for that. You are not diplomacing the guard to chase after the criminal, you are bluffing him that the criminal is there. Then you get to throw in the bluff table and ridiculousness of the bluff.


shroudb wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.
Most of the time it really is not. Unless it is a major NPC with listed personality and goals there is no reason to determine if the guard at the door is a crook on the take or a moral paragon. Just leave it to the dice.

most of the time it is against the values of a guard to let someone pass.

so should all such attempts autofail because 99% of the guards are unamed npcs?

"I move to the side to remove the wizard's cover" is much different form "There's a wanted murderer bleeding out in an alleyway nearby, and you can go arrest him and I'll just walk through wherever you're guarding."


shroudb wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.
Most of the time it really is not. Unless it is a major NPC with listed personality and goals there is no reason to determine if the guard at the door is a crook on the take or a moral paragon. Just leave it to the dice.

most of the time it is against the values of a guard to let someone pass.

so should all such attempts autofail because 99% of the guards are unamed npcs?

So no guards are ever corrupt and willing to take a bribe? None can be convinced that they are inadvertently helping the evil mastermind who is terrorizing the city? Every last guard is "Sheriff told Mongo to stay here!"


Tarantula wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
shroudb wrote:
for me, diplomacy is more like bluff, the same way that you apply circumstancial modifiers based on what you say when you try to bluff, the same way i see those modifiers being applied when you ask for a favor.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Bluff has its table of circumstances and the modifiers for the believability of the lie. Bluff requires you to say what lie you are telling for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

Diplomacy has its own table for the request asked and the attitude of the creature. Diplomacy requires you to say what request you are asking for the GM to determine the modifiers appropriate.

The bluff table has nothing to do with diplomacy rolls, and the diplomacy table has nothing to do with bluff rolls.

actually i think my way is easier on the players.

after all, all aid requested so far in this thread is at minimum +15dc. i almost never go that high unless the request is stupid.

p.e. the most common given of a guard allowing you to enter what he is guarding is both dangerous AND would could result in punishment.

as is asking the guard to leave his post to assist you in catching a criminal. which i think is moronic, because i expect a guard to actually LEAVE his damn post to chase off a killer, even if that could result in someone sneaking in what he is guarding.

so, if i play by the book, the DC's are higher, but if a player of mine can give me good enough reasons for the guard to do so, then immediatly it can go far lower of a penalty, or even a bonus

lastly, do not forget that:

Quote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.

i can't do that unless i have a reason most of the time:

a lawful good paladin would not abandon his post despite you rolling 100 on a d20.

a lawful good paladin MAY abandon his post

...

err i didn't mean BLUFF, i meant DIPLOMACY.

like there IS actually a backstabbing thief in the alley and you request aid to catch him.

and i'm pretty certain that a paladin guarding a door would leaving in the blink of the eye to save the kings children in the next room from getting murdered in cold blood.

thorin001 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
it is required from me as a GM to know if a request is against it nature.
Most of the time it really is not. Unless it is a major NPC with listed personality and goals there is no reason to determine if the guard at the door is a crook on the take or a moral paragon. Just leave it to the dice.

most of the time it is against the values of a guard to let someone pass.

so should all such attempts autofail because 99% of the guards are unamed npcs?

So no guards are ever corrupt and willing to take a bribe? None can be convinced that they are inadvertently helping the evil mastermind who is terrorizing the city? Every last guard is "Sheriff told Mongo to stay here!"

OFC there are!

that's my whole point.
there doesn't exist a generic "unamed" npc.

one guard's nature may be corrupt and the one next to him the paragon of justice.

that's why for me to adjuacate what is and what isnt against their nature i need the reason you are asking them the favor.


shroudb wrote:
Axelthegreat wrote:

I agree, so long as you communicate what you want to accomplish and in certain cases how, every GM should be able to work with the situation.

to go along with the examples:
Archer: I want to shoot the wizard
GM: How?
Archer: with my bow...

Converser: I want to persuade the guard to let me pass.
GM: How?
Converser: by persuading him.

archer:

player i shoot the wizard
gm: ok roll for attack with -4 because he is behind cover

gm: you COULD have moved to the side so that he wouldn't have cover though.

player: oh, i don't need to say that, my character has 16bab, so he knows how to fight, and he does that automatically

diplomacy:

player: i ask the guard to leave and go the the shady nearby alley

gm: ok roll with -25 because the guard doesn't want to be punished and it is dangerous for him to do so (both modifiers actually in the table of diplomacy roll)

gm: You could have rolled with a +5 because Jack the Ripper destroyer of worlds is bleeding to death in the alley nearby and you can arrest him.

player: oh i don't need to say that my character says that because i have +15diplomacy so my character automatically gives it as a reason

If you are playing on a battlemat then you have a point. If you are not then the player has one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


archer:
player i shoot the wizard
gm: ok roll for attack with -4 because he is behind cover

gm: you COULD have moved to the side so that he wouldn't have cover though.

player: oh, i don't need to say that, my character has 16bab, so he knows how to fight, and he does that automatically

diplomacy:

player: i ask the guard to leave and go the the shady nearby alley

gm: ok roll with -25 because the guard doesn't want to be punished and it is dangerous for him to do so (both modifiers actually in the table of diplomacy roll)

gm: You could have rolled with a +5 because Jack the Ripper destroyer of worlds is bleeding to death in the alley nearby and you can arrest him.

player: oh i don't need to say that my character says that because i have +15diplomacy so my character automatically gives it as a reason

If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers.

You only pick 1 modifier for diplomacy, not all that apply.

Also, is Jack the Ripper actually there? If he's not, then that's a bluff to get him to leave his post, not a diplomacy, so that's not a good example. Now if Jack the Ripper really is there, does the player know that? And does the character know that?

Also with you're archer example, he's making his attack where he wants and makes the best of it with all he knows, moving is a separate action that you have to say you're making. So the archer is doing his best to hit where he's from, there's no "extra" penalty for not moving. Or would you let me say "I move to the side to shoot so he doesn't have cover, but I'm not using any actual move action or 5ft step, But since I described him moving for his attack I don't take the -4 right?"

A person using diplomacy would make the best of everything he has, given the conditions. Any "reason" you could give wouldn't change the level of the request. An elaborate story or a simple story or no story should all have the same DC. I feel fine giving a +1 or +2 to the guy with the elaborate story, but other than that there's no difference.


Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:


archer:
player i shoot the wizard
gm: ok roll for attack with -4 because he is behind cover

gm: you COULD have moved to the side so that he wouldn't have cover though.

player: oh, i don't need to say that, my character has 16bab, so he knows how to fight, and he does that automatically

diplomacy:

player: i ask the guard to leave and go the the shady nearby alley

gm: ok roll with -25 because the guard doesn't want to be punished and it is dangerous for him to do so (both modifiers actually in the table of diplomacy roll)

gm: You could have rolled with a +5 because Jack the Ripper destroyer of worlds is bleeding to death in the alley nearby and you can arrest him.

player: oh i don't need to say that my character says that because i have +15diplomacy so my character automatically gives it as a reason

If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers.

You only pick 1 modifier for diplomacy, not all that apply.

Also, is Jack the Ripper actually there? If he's not, then that's a bluff to get him to leave his post, not a diplomacy, so that's not a good example. Now if Jack the Ripper really is there, does the player know that? And does the character know that?

Also with you're archer example, he's making his attack where he wants and makes the best of it with all he knows, moving is a separate action that you have to say you're making. So the archer is doing his best to hit where he's from, there's no "extra" penalty for not moving. Or would you let me say "I move to the side to shoot so he doesn't have cover, but I'm not using any actual move action or 5ft step, But since I described him moving for his attack I don't take the -4 right?"

A person using diplomacy would make the best of everything he has, given the conditions. Any "reason" you could give...

i am speaking of diplomacy here.

not bluff.

so ofc i assumed that the character (and the player) both knows the situation AND the situation is real.

there is no "grid" for social rolls. in combat the player has to make the tactical decisions, those decisions are completly irrelevant to the character with 16bab and int 14 and the character with the 0 bab and 6int. it is the PLAYER that makes the tactical decisions in a grid.

same is for diplomacy, a player is given the tools (he knows about a murderer in the alley that he can't catch on his own) and i ask what his tactics are.

or should everytime combat is initiated say to the 6int barbarian: you can't go attack the wizard, because the fighter is nearer and your character is stupid?


shroudb wrote:

that's my whole point.

there doesn't exist a generic "unamed" npc.
one guard's nature may be corrupt and the one next to him the paragon of justice.

that's why for me to adjuacate what is and what isnt against their nature i need the reason you are asking them the favor.

If you had that statted prior to the party's interaction with the guard then you have a valid point. If not then you are just fishing for ways to adjust the DC, and most likely trying to adjust it upward.


shroudb wrote:

err i didn't mean BLUFF, i meant DIPLOMACY.

like there IS actually a backstabbing thief in the alley and you request aid to catch him.

and i'm pretty certain that a paladin guarding a door would leaving in the blink of the eye to save the kings children in the next room from getting murdered in cold blood.

Ok, so assuming the guard is unfriendly. Its a 20+CHA to move him up to 2 steps on the attitude chart. Assuming you succeed then he is now indifferent and you can now make a request.

Making the request, is 15+CHA and one modifier. For him to go arrest the bleeding out criminal I would determine is simple aid, so thats a +0. So DC 15+Cha to ask him to arrest the criminal.


Chess Pwn wrote:
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers.

I had this wrong and my last post uses the correct example. Thanks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
there is no "grid" for social rolls.

That means that there is much less context for the player to make is decisions in. Which in turn means that it is even more incumbent on the CHARACTER'S abilities.


Tarantula wrote:
shroudb wrote:

err i didn't mean BLUFF, i meant DIPLOMACY.

like there IS actually a backstabbing thief in the alley and you request aid to catch him.

and i'm pretty certain that a paladin guarding a door would leaving in the blink of the eye to save the kings children in the next room from getting murdered in cold blood.

Ok, so assuming the guard is unfriendly. Its a 20+CHA to move him up to 2 steps on the attitude chart. Assuming you succeed then he is now indifferent and you can now make a request.

Making the request, is 15+CHA and one modifier. For him to go arrest the bleeding out criminal I would determine is simple aid, so thats a +0. So DC 15+Cha to ask him to arrest the criminal.

yes.

and a dc of min 30+cha to ask him to "abandon post and go to the alley behind"

both are requests to abandon post given different reasons though.

that's why i say that reasoning is important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


so ofc i assumed that the character (and the player) both knows the situation AND the situation is real.

same is for diplomacy, a player is given the tools (he knows about a murderer in the alley that he can't catch on his own) and i ask what his tactics are.

shroudb one thing that will really help in the future is clarifying some wording. I want to make sure what you mean when you say penalty. Going against a DC 15 instead of DC 5 isn't a penalty. If you are using the word penalty to mean the increased DC for a different request it will lead to confusion. Now if you are meaning that the DC is the same and you're modifying beyond that then penalty is the right word.

Now back to your example, What are you asking the guard to do? are you requesting he let you through or requesting his help in helping you catch the murderer in the alley. Those are different diplomacy checks because they are doing different things.
OR
are you telling the guard about the murderer in hopes he runs off and catches the guy, thus leaving the door unguarded for you to get through? If that's the case you might not even need to use diplomacy at all. Just tell him and let the guard do the rest. If it requires a diplomacy check I'd still feel it would be against DC15+ because he could get punished for leaving his post when people were around to slip in.


Chess Pwn wrote:
shroudb wrote:


so ofc i assumed that the character (and the player) both knows the situation AND the situation is real.

same is for diplomacy, a player is given the tools (he knows about a murderer in the alley that he can't catch on his own) and i ask what his tactics are.

shroudb one thing that will really help in the future is clarifying some wording. I want to make sure what you mean when you say penalty. Going against a DC 15 instead of DC 5 isn't a penalty. If you are using the word penalty to mean the increased DC for a different request it will lead to confusion. Now if you are meaning that the DC is the same and you're modifying beyond that then penalty is the right word.

Now back to your example, What are you asking the guard to do? are you requesting he let you through or requesting his help in helping you catch the murderer in the alley. Those are different diplomacy checks because they are doing different things.
OR
are you telling the guard about the murderer in hopes he runs off and catches the guy, thus leaving the door unguarded for you to get through? If that's the case you might not even need to use diplomacy at all. Just tell him and let the guard do the rest. If it requires a diplomacy check I'd still feel it would be against DC15+ because he could get punished for leaving his post when people were around to slip in.

in the diplomacy table, there is the base chaeck plus bonuses and penalties to the DC, those are exactly the opposite of saying bonus or penalty to the check.

so, a dc of 10, with a bonus of +10 to it's dc, is the same as a dc of 10 with a penalty of -10 to the check.

furthermore, my example is two different ways to tell the same thing:
i will give two examples to make myself clear:
a murder is wounded, but still potentially deadly for the player. there is a guardhouse nearby with a lone guard standing duty.

my player can go and tell to the guard: go behind the alley to help me.
or he can say to the guard come behind the alley to help me catch this important murderer.

the first request has a 15 bonus to the dc (or 15 penalty to the skill)
the second might, depending on how i will rule circumstances have a much lower bonus to the dc (or to the penalty to the player).

the second example is the lawful trusted bodyguard staying guard in front of his majesty's castle. the players know that an assasin has infiltrated the house and is going to kill the children inside.

my player goes to the bodyguard and says: quickly leave your post and go to the children's room.
the bodyguards lols at the request (autofail)
option b) my player runs to the paladin and says: quickly the assasins guild has sent someone to murder the children, he is already inside via a secret door in the back
the paladin may now go to the children room, if the check succedds, or he may ignore their request and go straight to the king's bedchamber to make certain that he is still well and decide to guard him unless he is ordered otherwise.

edit:
to clarify, i don't need the WORDS the character is using.

so if p.e. a player says to me:
i tell the bodyguard to come and help me, and i will tell him about the assasin and the secret door.
then i'm all good.

but if a player says:
i tell the bodyguard to come and help me. and he doesn't say anything else, then...


shroudb wrote:

and a dc of min 30+cha to ask him to "abandon post and go to the alley behind"

both are requests to abandon post given different reasons though.

that's why i say that reasoning is important.

Ok, PC walks up to guard, request "let me by" is +15.

PC walks up to guard, request is, "arrest the criminal bleeding out in the alley" is +0.

Yes, it depends on what the "request" is. If all the PC gives you is, "Let me by" then you go with the DC for that.

These are two separate requests, not the same thing. Yes, the PC has to state what the request is. You then determine what the modifier for that request is.

Again, this assumes that criminal bleeding out in the alley is an actual truth the PC knows. If it isn't, then its a bluff check.


Tarantula wrote:
shroudb wrote:

and a dc of min 30+cha to ask him to "abandon post and go to the alley behind"

both are requests to abandon post given different reasons though.

that's why i say that reasoning is important.

Ok, PC walks up to guard, request "let me by" is +15.

PC walks up to guard, request is, "arrest the criminal bleeding out in the alley" is +0.

Yes, it depends on what the "request" is. If all the PC gives you is, "Let me by" then you go with the DC for that.

These are two separate requests, not the same thing. Yes, the PC has to state what the request is. You then determine what the modifier for that request is.

Again, this assumes that criminal bleeding out in the alley is an actual truth the PC knows. If it isn't, then its a bluff check.

i meant it more like:

come with me behind the alley
vs
come with me behind the alley where is an injured criminal

OR

let me enter the guardhouse
vs
let me entr the guardhouse because inside there is an antidote for my dying friend that he will perish within 1min

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
I would suggest not penalizing for a poor description. Simply reward the good descriptions.

It is the players effort in conveying the character's skills that I reward. I won't penalize the player's lack of verbal skills, I will reward a genuine effort.

Like anything else in life, the player's skills will improve with practice.


See that's where a big difference is. Determining the DC isn't a penalty. The PC gives you the request and then you determine the DC.
Yes different requests have different DC's. Those aren't penalties.
Those aren't different "reasons" for the guard to let the PC through the door. You're not saying, let me through the door because there's a murderer in the ally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

edit:

to clarify, i don't need the WORDS the character is using.

That makes this situation much better. I've had many GMs who want people to say exactly what they want their character to say.

Scarab Sages

shroudb wrote:
or should everytime combat is initiated say to the 6int barbarian: you can't go attack the wizard, because the fighter is nearer and your character is stupid?

I fully support this.


shroudb wrote:


i meant it more like:
come with me behind the alley
vs
come with me behind the alley where is an injured criminal

OR

let me enter the guardhouse
vs
let me enter the guardhouse because inside there is an antidote for my dying friend that he will perish within 1min

Those have the same DC. In both your examples it's not easier or harder for either of the options. (example 1 might be different if you were telling him to arrest the criminal, but that's a GM call of what modifier to use, and isn't required to be easier)

151 to 200 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Disable Device – When to say “No”? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.