Dealing with talk monkeys

[Keenath]

Anyways. The mechanics don't really mean anything by themselves. I have +12 Intimidate; the DC is 22. I rolled a 23.

That doesn't tell us anything at all*. We aren't rolling just to compare numbers; we're resolving a fictional situation.

I just disagree here. The roll does tell us something; it tells us if you were successful or not. What form that success takes, what consequences it has, that is not determined by die roll -- but if you're my DM, you better not ever tell me that rolling a 23 against a DC of 22 is a failure, because it clearly is not. You can penalize my roll if you want to, based on my RPing, but if I still succeed after that -- yeah, I succeeded!

 

[LostSoul]

What I mean is that you need to consider what's going on in the fiction as well, not only the number.

Imagine you sit down at a table and this is the first thing that happens:

DM: Roll your Intimidate.
Player: 23.
DM: The DC was 22, so you succeed.
Player: Um, cool?
DM: Now roll your initiative.
Player: 14?
DM: What's your AC?
Player: 19.
DM: You take 8 points of fire damage.
Player: Oh no!

It's stupid, but that's all I was talking about.

 

[Garthanos]

knee "jerk" post deleted

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I just disagree here. The roll does tell us something; it tells us if you were successful or not. What form that success takes, what consequences it has, that is not determined by die roll -- but if you're my DM, you better not ever tell me that rolling a 23 against a DC of 22 is a failure, because it clearly is not. You can penalize my roll if you want to, based on my RPing, but if I still succeed after that -- yeah, I succeeded!

One of the major problems I see with the Diplomancy/Intimidate skill is managing expectations. These skills are slightly different than the others in that the player has to state what the intent is before the DM sets the DC.

For instance, Rogue wants to climb the wall... DC is pretty much out of the book and the results of success/failure are also pretty much by the book. Both player and DM *know* what the goal of the skill check is.
They are also unique in that follow-up skill checks or supporting skill checks may be needed to know what the result is...

Your Diplomonkey walks up to the hobgoblin guards and rolls his check... what is he trying to accomplish? You don't know and make a guess at the DC.. too easy to bypass the entire encounter and now people are miffed.

An option would have been something like the following:

Diplo: I walk up to the guards and use diplomancy
DM: Ok, roll a Insight check, normal DC
Diplo: 33! yeah!
DM: You realize these hobgoblins are professional Soldiers protecting thier camp. Letting you and your armed cadre pass would result in thier execution...
Diplo: Oh.. um.. Hey guard, I am a messenger with direct orders to speak to General Yahoo. Send those three lackeys to summon him quickly! {aside, hey guys, get ready to attack as soon as these minions are out of sight}

DM: That sounds like a solid plan, roll a bluff check to pretend to be the messenger, then a Hard Diplomancy check to get him to send extra bodies on a simple mission.

One skill roll doesn't invalidate the entire encounter, but the skill use can decisively alter the combat... even when the hobgoblins are in no way going to let the armed group pass.

 

[Keenath]

One skill roll doesn't invalidate the entire encounter, but the skill use can decisively alter the combat... even when the hobgoblins are in no way going to let the armed group pass.

Sure, see, that's something they definitely could have pulled off. I probably should have asked for the insight check and all that, but that's why I asked the question, to see what I could've done.

My mental calculation, as DM, is to say "Okay, three skill successes, that's worth three minions or most of one monster." If I think of skill checks like non-violent attack rolls, it makes it easier to figure out how much effect they should have.

 

[Chimerasame]

What you're saying here is essentially letting flavor text (of what the power is based on) determine flavor text (of how exactly the monsters respond to the intimidation). A mechanical difference would be that sometimes you apply a -2 penalty to the warlock's check because this particular character "isn't afraid of magic" or something, which I would never do*.

I think Garthanos is suggesting that it's OK to do it as long as you do it fairly for everyone. Sometimes magic works better, sometimes not-magic works better. Sometimes divine magic works when neither arcane nor martialness would, so bring on the invokers!

This is covered in the DMG, by the way; it says that a "particularly favorable circumstance" can grant +2, and a "particularly unfavorable circumstance" can grant -2.

Edit: spelling

 

[Saeviomagy]

As previously indicated, I'd be happy to let a diplomacy check do the exact same thing that an in-combat intimidate check could do - cause the foes to back down once bloodied "You guys have done your part, and you're obviously going to lose. Why don't we all act like civilized adults: we'll let you live, and you run away".

Or alternately doing something like being able to keep them talking until one heads off to the loo/out for a smoke etc, and thus fighting one less creature. Or even getting them to open the gate and have a game of cards (they'll still fight you if you try to pass, but at least the gate is open).

Totally bypassing the encounter is too much though: it causes all the effort put into creating the encounter to go to waste, it makes any character without diplomacy feel bored, and it's going to mean that you run through entire adventures in a single night with about 10 die rolls.

 

[Garthanos]

I think Garthanos is suggesting that it's OK to do it as long as you do it fairly for everyone. Sometimes magic works better, sometimes not-magic works better. Sometimes divine magic works when neither arcane nor martialness would, so bring on the invokers!

This is covered in the DMG, by the way; it says that a "particularly favorable circumstance" can grant +2, and a "particularly unfavorable circumstance" can grant -2.

Edit: spelling

I am pretty sure he understood that and is being stubborn apparently the people of his world are utterly lacking in the prejudices common on other worlds... My goblin tribe is under an oppressive heal of a dark warlock so one talking nice isnt going to convince me much... is too implausible and jips his players of fairness...etc.... whether the idea is in the DMG or not... I wonder which j word applies. I think he must consider the whims of random chance sacrosanct and shouldn't be at all ameliorated by anything as trustworthy as modifiers chosen by the DM

 

[DracoSuave]

Particularily unfavorable circumstances won't include character class so much. Part of having a skill is knowing how to overcome apparent shortcomings.


However, if the player -uses- their class and roleplays out in such away that it becomes applicable, then yes, you would.

So the goblin might be afraid of those that make deals with demons.

If the warlock convinces the goblin that he is 'not like those guys' then he'd get a positive modifier. If he instead tries to use his power to conjole the goblin in a way he does not like, that'd be a negative modifier.

Class should not determine circumstances, or else 'A Wizard Did It' becomes an excuse to give certain favored powersources a modifier for no other reason than they won the 'Pick a Class' lottery.

However, if they roleplay out their capabilities in a way that affects the encounter, -that- is when circumstance bonuses are called for.

 

[Garthanos]

Particularily unfavorable circumstances won't include character class so much.

But it certainly could and yup race and class and homeland... all fair game pretending they don't influence people (and in the real world in ways far more extreme than a +-2 mod indicates) is sticking ones proverbial head in the sand... whether you personally like distinguishing people that way or not.