Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
I had my first game last night of Kingmaker. I have seven players so I have to do some changes to certain things. One of the characters is a rogue “diplomat/spy” his diplomacy at 1st level against bandits is +16. So, when Oleg asked them to help him with his bandit problem he wanted to go out and negotiate with them and get them to either leave or make negotiation of what they were allowed to take. My first thought was that Happs would just ignore him and have his men shoot him and move on, because he insisted that he meet them outside the walls before they got all the way to the Trading post. But I didn’t want to take away from his effort to do diplomacy and use his skills that he built the character for. So, I had a dialogue start up when they got to him. His diplomacy checks were constantly 25 or higher toward the bandits. So I allowed a dialogue knowing that Happs was going to be insistent of going and taking what they came for. I don’t mind him wanting to use diplomacy, and I did allow it to keep the other bandits from shooting him before they got into the fort, but I’m not sure how to proceed every time he attempts this. He spent thirty minutes role playing trying to convince a captured bandit to turn his life around. With constant high diplomacy rolls he could turn all of the bandits to at least indifferent with lifting a finger if I went just by the diplomacy rules. How should proceed with this character? I don’t want to make it to where he can’t use his main skill well, but if he keeps trying to convince bandits turn from their ways then I’m not sure how to handle each individual situation. I’m just looking for advice for this.
Thanks.
Well, Diplomacy doesn't always work. Some people are dead set in their way that, you can't get them to change their mind. In the bandit example: someone born and raised in this lifestyle will be less likely to be persuaded to change. Same goes for someone wanted by the authority or seeking revenge, as there is not other lifestyle for them.
So, without stonewalling him, when he'll want to use Diplomacy, think about it and the motivation of this group and decide if it's one of thoses instances where it won't work. Even the rules cover this (bolded):
Quote: INFLUENCE ATTITUDE
[...]
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
The bit after, about the bolded part, about the duration, is also important to keep in mind.
Also, the Pathfinder Player Companion: Giant Hunter’s Handbook offers this option for negotiation, but even this requires a good Bluff still to even consider it.
Quote: SUGGEST COURSE OF ACTION
You can use Bluff and Diplomacy together to make a request of a creature, without it even realizing you have made the request.
Check: You can gradually coax a target into thinking a suggestion is entirely its own idea, making the creature more likely to act on the idea than if you had suggested it outright. You discuss topics subtly relevant to the request, asking leading questions and narrowing the scope of the conversation so that the target eventually decides to take a specific action you have led it to.
You first attempt a Bluff check to convince the target that your request was actually its idea. This is always treated as far-fetched circumstances, resulting in a –10 penalty on the check. If successful, you then attempt a Diplomacy check to make the request of the creature, treating its attitude toward you as indifferent for this single request (regardless of its actual attitude).
Action: Planting a notion and then coaxing a target into suggesting the notion himself each require at least 1 minute of continuous interaction. This can be difficult to arrange with a hostile or unfriendly creature.
Many GM's don't use the RAW for Diplomacy and players can run ragged over the skill if they maximize that aspect.
Someone can have a "hostile" attitude towards the PC without being overtly violent, so that can set the DC to start at 25. I'm not saying artificially inflate every encounter, but it is an option for plot-reliant points.
NPC frustration of the conversation resulting in, "Yea, not gonna do that." and attacking or walking away from the dialog can prevent the 1min required to influence and prevent a check.
The GM can set circumstance penalties based on plot hooks.
I, for one, enjoy the social skills aspect and as a player I respect GM's that do not gloss them over with just a die roll and this results. As a GM, I try to encourage the players to be more verbally detailed as well, "Speak as if you are the PC... what are you saying?" But I know some players are not as comfortable as others articulating themselves and do not want to ruin their fun by being insistent.
I think your instincts are right to not just outright disallow it. However, as mentioned above, you need to also consider the motivations of the various NPCs. Or, to put it another way, you wouldn't force the party to lay down their weapons because the bad guys rocked their diplomacy roll. (i.e. what's good for the goose is good for the gander).
In the general scheme of the bandits, here's how I would break it down:
1. Your general bandit is really, little more than a bully. He/she is also fairly lazy (its why they are bandits rather than working a trade). They don't really want to fight, especially with deadly weapons, because that might result in them being injured, or worse. What they do want is to intimidate the common folk into giving them something for nothing. So the idea of making them "indifferent" pretty easily actually does make some sense. I mean sure, they'd prefer to get Oleg's goods for themselves, but not at the cost of severe injury and/or death to their comrades. A good diplomacy by the rogue can convince the bandits that its not really in their best interest to actually go through with this fight.
2. Will they completely change their ways? Eh, maybe, maybe not. As stated above, the result is relatively short lived. They might convince the party that they have seen the error in their ways, but when they find themselves living on scraps because they don't have a good trade, or because they can't take the regimented lifestyle of a professional soldier, etc. they'll be back to their bandit ways -- though they may decide its best to go somewhere else if they are sufficiently fearful of the party.
3. Middle Men. The middle men like Happs and the female above him are in a stickier situation. If they don't produce results then they risk the wrath of the Stag Lord, so they have to come up with a way to save face in that situation. They will also likely make this known to the party if they are even considering the party's offer. In short, they'll need some sort of protection or else something they can take to Staggy.
4. The Boss (aka Staggy). Yeah, he's not interested in talking. You'll have better luck trying to convince a tiger to shed its stripes.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Well, I made Happs insistent on going into the fort, so they eventually went in. When they entered a few of the PCs did not attempt to hide at all. Chaos ensued and most of the bandits died, Happs got trampled by a spooked horse after he was tripped by the Monk. The Rogue then tried an intimidate and the rest of them started to run. One almost got away but eventually ran out of steam and the monk caught up with him. In the end the one the Monk caught up with was convinced to leave the forest and try to start a new life somewhere else. The one they caught alive in the fort spent a good deal of time being interrogated by the Rogue and Sorcerer of the group and eventually caved. The rest were hung. Because of the size of my group there were six bandits that showed up, including Happs.
Garg, I'd say that even at lower level "bully bandit," entering a discussion with a "victim" and making the decision not to rob them due to that discussion would earn punishment from their superiors - it damages the reputation of the organization, makes them appear weak, encouraging resistance from potential marks.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"You're a good guy, Andre. I hates to rob ya, I do! But I gotta pay my cut to the boss, yeah? So c'mon, hand it over. Don't make me an' the guys haveta hurt you an' your friends, eh? We wouldn't like that, on account a you being our bud an' all."
Recent threads in Kingmaker
|
