Diplomacy +23 at 3rd level??? Help, my player must be wrong!!!

[BlackSeed_Vash]

All i can say is pray your play can never get a 150 on a diplomacy check. According to the Epic Handbook, that turns a hostile npc to fanatic.

Fanatic
The attitude of fanatic is added here. In addition to the obvious effects, any NPC whose attitude is fanatic gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution scores, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a -1 penalty to AC whenever fighting for the character or his or her cause. This attitude will remain for one day plus one day per point of the character’s Charisma bonus, at which point the NPC’s attitude will revert to its original attitude (or indifferent, if no attitude is specified).

Treat the fanatic attitude as a mind-affecting enchantment effect for purposes of immunity, save bonuses, or being detected by the Sense Motive skill. Since it is nonmagical, it can’t be dispelled; however, any effect that suppresses or counters mind-affecting effects will affect it normally. A fanatic NPC’s attitude can’t be further adjusted by the use of skills.

Attitude Means Possible Actions
Fanatic Will give life to serve you, fight to the death against overwhelming odds, throw self in front of onrushing dragon, etc.

 

[Jdvn1]

All i can say is pray your play can never get a 150 on a diplomacy check. According to the Epic Handbook, that turns a hostile npc to fanatic.

Once the player gets to +130 Diplomacy, it might be a good time to end the game.

 

[Thurbane]

Always had a fundamental problem with the mechanics of Diplomacy myself - that and the fact that some players (and DMs) seem to think a stat on a piece of paer is a replacement for actually roleplaying the interaction between PCs and NPCs. The whole "oh wow, lookit that, Karthaxas the Ancient Red Wyrm now considers me to be like his long lost son and will do anything I ask!" factor just does not sit right with me. An ingame skill should never, never replace roleplaying IMHO...

Anyway, back ontopic - doesn't the synergy from Knowledge (Nobility) only apply when dealing with nobles or royalty? Is there a rule that states this? I can't imagining knowing that Lord Muckymuck's favorite meal is sugared pork treats will help the player make a friend of a half-orc barbarian who's barely been in a city before.

Finally, I don't think anyone has factored in "help another" rolls when considering the max bonus, either...

 

[Iku Rex]

Always had a fundamental problem with the mechanics of Diplomacy myself - that and the fact that some players (and DMs) seem to think a stat on a piece of paer is a replacement for actually roleplaying the interaction between PCs and NPCs. The whole "oh wow, lookit that, Karthaxas the Ancient Red Wyrm now considers me to be like his long lost son and will do anything I ask!" factor just does not sit right with me. An ingame skill should never, never replace roleplaying IMHO...

Yeah. And don't get me started on how some players (and DMs) seem to think that a stat on a piece of paper is a replacement for actual combat. I mean, if a player thinks his epic rogue can dodge a trap, he'd better be prepared when the DM brings out his poisoned arrows and demands that the player shows everyone how its done. Sure, acting out a battle with a dragon might be impractical, but at the very least the player should be able to describe, in detail, how a legendary warrior with near supernatural skill and talent would fight. If he can't he needs to make a more realistic character, with, say, the fighting skill of a out-of-shape geek with no combat training.

And bring a flamethrower to the game once on a while. Keeps the players from making those glib "I roll a reflex save to avoid the effects of the breath weapon with my evasion ability" comments. Don't tell, bub, SHOW!

 

[Thurbane]

Yeah. And don't get me started on how some players (and DMs) seem to think that a stat on a piece of paper is a replacement for actual combat. I mean, if a player thinks his epic rogue can dodge a trap, he'd better be prepared when the DM brings out his poisoned arrows and demands that the player shows everyone how its done. Sure, acting out a battle with a dragon might be impractical, but at the very least the player should be able to describe, in detail, how a legendary warrior with near supernatural skill and talent would fight. If he can't he needs to make a more realistic character, with, say, the fighting skill of a out-of-shape geek with no combat training.

And bring a flamethrower to the game once on a while. Keeps the players from making those glib "I roll a reflex save to avoid the effects of the breath weapon with my evasion ability" comments. Don't tell, bub, SHOW!

Very droll.

I don't know if that was posted purely for comical value, but if it wasn't, you completely twisted my point - which is basically if you use skills and rolls as a substitute for roleplaying, you might as well be playing a computer game, and remove PC/NPC roleplaying interaction altogether.

Obviously not EVERY aspect of a game can be enacted at the gaming table, but I'm beginning to wonder if some people know what the "RP" in "RPG" stands for...

Roleplaying interractions doesn't suit every group, but speaking for myself, if it were removed from my game, I'd rather go over to an entirely combat related game like Napoleonic Lead Figure Wargaming.

Different strokes and all that.

 

[Justin Bacon]

On the other hand, if you are looking for a curb to such monumental bonuses, you can house-rule that the skill synergy bonuses are named - circumstance bonuses or the like. Do that, and he drops about 4 to 6 points. On the other hand, it takes TEN ROUNDS of talking to change someone's reaction, so it's not that unbalanced. If the enemy is attacking you, most combats are done and over with in one minute anyway.

I've been reading this on quite a few forums recently. It's not true. You need to turn the page and finish reading the skill description.

A rushed Diplomacy check can be attempted as a full round action with a -10 penalty. Strictly by the book, our 1st level character with a +23 Diplomacy skill bonus has a 65% chance of prematurely ending any hostile encounter by turning the opponents from Hostile to Unfriendly, an attitude where they won't resort to violence. By 7th level, they'll be able to automatically end any combat before it begins without even straining that much. (They could probably manage it by 5th if they invested in the right equipment.)

The Diplomacy rules are flat-out busted. Rich Burlew's corrections (www.giantitp.com) are a good place to start fixing them. My current rules for Diplomacy look like this:

Persuasion: You can propose a trade or agreement to another creature with your words; a Diplomacy check can then persuade them that accepting it is a good idea. Either side of the deal may involve physical goods, money, services, promises, or abstract concepts like "satisfaction." The DC for the Diplomacy check is based on three factors: who the target is, the relationship between the target and the character making the check, and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal proposed.
Check: The base DC for a persuasion check is 15, modified by your relationship with the character you’re trying to convince and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal being proposed.
Target’s Check: The character you’re trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 20). If the check succeeds, double the bonus or penalty provided by the risk vs. reward factor. A failure on this check has no effect. You can choose to oppose the target’s Sense Motive check with a Bluff check, in which case the bonus or penalty is only doubled if their check result both succeeds (against DC 20) and exceeds your Bluff check. (Obviously, you would only want to make a Bluff check if you’re proposing a bad deal.)
Success or Failure: If the Diplomacy check beats the DC, the subject accepts the proposal, with no changes or with minor (mostly idiosyncratic) changes. If the check fails by 5 or less, the subject does not accept the deal but may, at the DM's option, present a counter-offer that would push the deal up one place on the risk-vs.-reward list. For example, a counter-offer might make an Even deal Favorable for the subject. The character who made the Diplomacy check can simply accept the counter-offer, if they choose; no further check will be required. If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation.
It should be noted that, just because a deal has been accepted, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the other character is happy about it. If you use your relationship to take advantage of someone, it may affect their future relationship with you (at the DM’s discretion).
Action: Making a request or proposing a deal generally requires at least 1 full minute. In many situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.
Try Again: If you alter the parameters of the deal you are proposing, you may try to convince the subject that this new deal is even better than the last one. This is essentially how people haggle. As long as you never roll 10 or less than the DC on your Diplomacy check, you can continue to offer deals.

DC Relationship (Example)
-15 Intimate (someone who with whom you have an implicit trust; a lover or spouse)
-10 Friend (someone with whom you have a regularly positive personal relationship; a long-time buddy or sibling)
-5 Ally (someone on the same team, but with whom you have no personal relationship; a cleric of the same religion or a knight serving the same king)
-2 Acquaintance – Positive (someone you’ve met several times with no particularly negative experiences; the blacksmith that buys your looted equipment regularly)
+0 Just met (no relationship whatsoever)
+2 Acquaintance – Negative (someone you’ve met several times with no particularly positive experiences; the town guard that has arrested you for drunkenness once or twice)
+5 Enemy (someone on an opposed team with whom you have no personal relationship; a cleric of an opposed religion or the orc bandit robbing you)
+10 Personal Foe (someone with whom you have a regularly antagonistic personal relationship; an evil overlord you’re trying to thwart or a bounty hunter sworn to track you down)
+15 Nemesis (someone who has sworn to do you, personally, harm; the brother of a man you murdered in cold blood)

DC Risk vs. Reward Judgment (Example)
-15 Fantastic (The reward for accepting the deal is very worthwhile; the risk is either acceptable or extremely unlikely. The best-case scenario is a virtual guarantee. Example: An offer to pay a lot of gold for information that isn’t important to the character.)
-10 Good (The reward is good and the risk is minimal. The subject is very likely to profit from the deal. Example: An offer to pay someone twice their normal daily wage to spend their evening in a seedy tavern with a reputation for vicious brawls and later report on everyone they saw there.)
-5 Favorable (The reward is appealing, but there’s risk involved. If all goes according to plan, though, the deal will end up benefiting the subject. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle against a weak goblin tribe in return for a cut of the money and first pick of the magic items.)
+0 Even (The reward and risk more or less even out; or the deal involves neither reward nor risk. Example: A request for directions to someplace that isn’t a secret.)
+5 Unfavorable (The reward is not enough compared to the risk involved. Even if all goes according to plan, chances are it will end badly for the subject. Example: A request to free a prisoner the target is guarding in return for a small amount of money.)
+10 Bad (The reward is poor and the risk is high. The subject is very likely to get the raw end of the deal. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle against an ancient red dragon for a small cut of any non-magical treasure.)
+15 Horrible (There is no conceivable way the proposed plan could end up with the subject ahead or the worst-case scenario is guaranteed to occur. Example: An offer to trade a rusty kitchen knife for a shiny new longsword.)

Convince: You make a Diplomacy check (DC 15) if you want to convince someone of something that you believe. (If you’re trying to convince them of a lie, it’s a Bluff check.) This DC is adjusted by the relationship between you and the person you’re trying to convince, just like a persuasion check.
Target’s Check: The character you’re trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 10). If the check succeeds, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your Diplomacy check (they sense your honesty). This works just like the Aid Another action, so you gain an additional +1 bonus for every 10 points that their check exceeds DC 10.
Success or Failure: If your check succeeds, the other character believes what you’re telling them. (Or at least believes that you believe it to be true.) Of course, what they choose to do with that information depends on the character.

Haggling: If you’re haggling, you can make an opposed Diplomacy check to get a better price.
Merchant’s Check: The character selling the item makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the buyer’s check.
Relationship: As with a persuasion check, the DC of the buyer’s check is adjusted by the relationship they have with the merchant.
Buyer’s Check: The buyer’s check is compared to the DC set by the merchant’s check, with the result determining whether the haggling was favorable or unfavorable to the buyer. (It should be noted that these results match the Risk vs. Reward scale used for persuasion checks.)

Check Result Price Adjustment (Risk vs. Reward for Merchant)
DC - 15 +30% (Fantastic)
DC - 12 +25%
DC - 10 +20% (Good)
DC - 7 +15%
DC - 5 +10% (Favorable)
DC - 2 +5%
+0% (Even)
DC + 2 -5%
DC + 5 -10% (Unfavorable)
DC + 7 -15%
DC + 10 -20% (Bad)
DC + 12 -25%
DC + 15 -30% (Horrible)

In general, merchants won’t haggle more than 30% above or 30% below the normal price of an item.
As with any Diplomacy check, the actions of a PC should not be dictated by the check result – if they’re unhappy with the result, they should be allowed to walk away from the sale. NPCs, on the other hand, should generally follow-through on a check result.
Retry: No, although the PCs could haggle over the price of a different item or haggle with a different character for a similar item. A haggling check represents the entire negotiating process between buyer and seller; the result is the best price the PCs are going to get from that buyer or seller.

Overcome Intransigence: Some characters simply won’t listen to any attempts at negotiation or deal-making. To overcome their intransigence, you can make a Diplomacy check with a DC of 15 + the subject’s HD + the subject’s Wisdom modifier + the subject’s relationship modifier. If the check succeeds, you can then make a Diplomacy check as normal.

Charm Spells: A charmed creature is treated as having a Friendly relationship to the caster (-10 to Diplomacy DC), which replaces any previous relationship modifier. Thus, by charming an enemy, the DC drops from +5 to -10, a decrease of 15. The caster can now talk the creature into anything this improved relationship allows.
Because the effect is based on the spell, the caster can make a Spellcraft check in place of a Diplomacy check when dealing with charmed creatures.

 

[Justin Bacon]

I took a look at those rules, and I think they work pretty well for cases where the deal is about something of substance and/or the PCs have an ulterior motive. An argument can definitely be put forth that higher-level people should (generally) be harder to convince to agree to something; their time is more valuable than that of commoners, and the resources they commit to a plan will be more significant.

The problem is that they're hard to convince of things which benefit them. If you offered to give a million gold pieces to Zeus with no strings attached, Zeus will turn you down flat.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Sure, just don't walk up to a table I'm DMing in and expect them to stack. :shrug:

If you specifically put that into your house rules, I might play with you (although I'm generally leery of any house rules which serve no justifiable purpose).

If you claim that this isn't a house rule, then I definitely won't be playing with you.

 

[Justin Bacon]

I entirely agree with your interpretation of number 1. For number two and three, you are right in that I missed the special section on untrained checks. For number three, I still think it's silly that about 25% of the population (Int < 10, roll 10 or less on 1d20) can't name their own country.

I wouldn't give "name of the kingdom you're living in" a DC of 10 (for precisely that reason).

There are other cases. For instance, if you don't have ranks in Listen and you want to talk to someone who is 10 feet away, they'd better be shouting, because the Listen DC to hear 'People Talking' at that range is DC 1 - and you have to beat a check by at least 10 to understand what they're saying.

I wouldn't try to hold a conversation with someone standing 10 feet away, either. If I did, raised voices (not necessarily shouting) would be involved.

DCs aren't really given for that. For the sake of argument: Raised voices = DC -5. Shouting = -10.

Also, the lowest DC to appraise something is a 12, meaning that most people apparently don't know that 10 silver pieces are worth a gold piece. Biting social commentary aside, that's clearly just a silly little snag in the rules.

Actually, even if you were to fail that Appraise check (assuming that we agree with your general premise that Appraise should be applied to coins, which I don't), you'll still have a general sense that 10 silver pieces are worth "something like a gold piece". Read the skill description. Failing the check doesn't mean you're completely clueless.

 

[Pielorinho]

The problem is that they're hard to convince of things which benefit them. If you offered to give a million gold pieces to Zeus with no strings attached, Zeus will turn you down flat.

This is a very good point. I think I'd rule that it takes no diplomacy check at all to convince someone to do something obviously in their best interests. If the deal appears too good to be true, then either it isn't true (in which case a bluff vs. sense motive check is appropriate), or it is true (in which case I'd still probably allow a sense motive check with a low DC, modified by the persuadee's previous experience with the persuader).

Naturally, if you're trying to persuade someone to do something that's obviously in their best long-term interests but involves short-term pain (e.g., "Eat your veggies, junior!"), we're back to square one. This only applies when you're wanting to do something the other person will immediately like.

Daniel