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

[Scion]

So long as we are clear that by the raw they do stack.

Anyway though, all houserules should be told to incoming players anyway so that they can adjust accordingly

As for an earlier posters, 'why would anyone need a bonus that high' question, have you seen the dc's that are required here? Both by the raw and the proposed houserule. Especially if it needs to be done quickly (-10 to the check). Taking all of that into account +23 almost seems too low considering which means that the dc's are probably much too high.

 

[Pbartender]

Because they're both essentially Skill Focus.

No they are not. If they were, there would be only one feat, Skill Focus, that would give the option of a +3 bonus to one skill, or a +2 bonus to two skills.

If you don't allow people to take Skill Focus over and over for the same skill...

People can't can't take Skill Focus over and over for the same skill, because the feat specifically forbids it. Take a look at that 'special' condition for the feat...

SKILL FOCUS [GENERAL]

Choose a skill.

Benefit: You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

Pretty straight forward isn't it?

...why would you let these two stack.

I would let Skill Focus and any of the other +2/+2 feats stack, because they are two unnamed bonuses derived from different sources. That too is something clearly stated in the rules...

A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

Again, that's pretty explicit.

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

They're both skill focus because we've accepted that skill focus is essentially +3 to one skill or +2 to two skills. It goes with the spirit of the rules, at least, to our minds.

Your game, your house rule... I guess. :\

Personally, I wouldn't buy it. It's too hard on those people who actually want to be really good at something outside of combat. After all, they have to burn two feats to get the entire +5 bonus. In my experience, few PCs are willing to take that kind of hit, and only the NPC merchants and craftsmen end up with that combination of skill feats anyway.

 

[rkanodia]

All of these can be handled.

I think we may have a miscommunication. I am not trying to argue that a DM should make it difficult for PCs to find out the Soup of the Day, or get Rex to come over, or know the name of the kingdom they are in. For all of those things, the PCs should just be able to say "I do it" and the DM should say "OK".

The point I was getting at is that it's OK for the Diplomacy house rules (mentioned earlier in the thread) to not really work for certain trivial cases, because other skills have the same problem. You deal with those cases by acknowledging the silliness of requiring a skill check, and just forget about the check.

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.

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. 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.

The whole point I am getting at is that stupid little things like that don't matter. Ridley's Cohort argued against the Diplomacy house rules because, if you follow them exactly as written, you could fail to buy a drink or get the time of day from your lover. I say that doesn't really matter: I hadn't even thought about using the Diplomacy skill to handle those situations, so I don't care if the Diplomacy skill can handle those situations.

 

[angry monkey]

-As I am German I don't know how to talk like a Pirate, but if anyone wants, I can talk like a Kraut

AAARRRRRRRRGH,
That be no excuse ya land lubber!

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/howtogerman.html

Grubse Got

(Sorry, I'm sure I butchered that, but I dropped out of German class)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The point of this long-winded monologue is to highlight the reasons I have for my opinion: I think that the house rules are worth looking at, because the increased value that they offer as compared to the SRD rules (in terms of accuracy of modeling character interactions, and in terms of providing a clear, unambiguous framework for PCs and DMs to use) is greater than the value that they take away by breaking some trivial cases. I would rather say 'This trivial situation gets you a specific outcome without requiring a check, even though if I were to make you roll a check according to the literal rules, you'd probably fail it' (as I'll have to with the house rules) than say 'This serious situation is going to be resolved in a nonspecific way according to a set of modifiers that I'm choosing entirely by fiat, without any sort of guidelines' (as I currently have to do all the time with the SRD).

That being said, I haven't tried the house rules in actual gameplay yet. I'll keep you posted when I find out how it goes.

Edit: And if'n ye be finding the house rules not ta yer likin, well then I be havin a short plank 'pon which yer welcome to be takin a long walk, landlubber!

Fair enough.

I would say those house rules are certainly worth a read, but I recommend against using them as written.

I used the trivial cases as a rhetorical tactic to point towards the mechanical problem. My main complaint is the rules obliterates any incentive for a high level character to grab a few ranks in Diplomacy ("just to round out his personality").

In real play I would expect any truly non-trivial negotiation for a 20th level PC will require the character to hit DC 40+ using those house rules. So a 20th level Sorceror who has his 30 Cha and 5 ranks of Diplomacy cannot conceivably succeed if the DM asks the player to pick up the die and roll. A Fighter who maxs out Diplomacy as a cross-class skill cannot usefully apply the skill except with the most minor NPCs.

That creates a peverse incentive to not take Diplomacy at all for most characters.

 

[angry monkey]

I agree Ridley's cohort.

And my main feeling on this topic is that you should feel lucky to have someone in your campaign who wants to focus that hard on something that doesn't end in a point.

Two feats for a role playing ability? wow. That could have been power attack and cleave, point blank shot and rapid shot, or combat reflexes and dodge. They took those two feats and good for them. Plus all those skill points...

If I were the DM I'd throw in extra negotiations to keep them using the Diplomacy Dice.

 

[rkanodia]

In real play I would expect any truly non-trivial negotiation for a 20th level PC will require the character to hit DC 40+ using those house rules. So a 20th level Sorceror who has his 30 Cha and 5 ranks of Diplomacy cannot conceivably succeed if the DM asks the player to pick up the die and roll. A Fighter who maxs out Diplomacy as a cross-class skill cannot usefully apply the skill except with the most minor NPCs.

That creates a peverse incentive to not take Diplomacy at all for most characters.

I can see what you mean about how the house rules could provide a disincentive to pick up a few ranks. That sorc will probably have a +8 Cha mod or so (16 base + 4 from levels + 6 from item), +4 with greater heroism (or other morale booster), +3 from a circlet of persuasion (not too expensive), for a total of +20. If you give a +5 Wis mod to a generic level 20 character (probably clerics will be higher, most will be lower), then the DC starts at 40, putting it outside the character's reach unless it's a very favorable deal for the NPC. If the NPC is at all hostile, the PC can forget about it.

I hadn't really considered the 'dabbler' case. It's tough to give a dabbler any real utility without making things trivially easy for the expert. Perhaps one thing that could be done is double the size of the favorability modifiers. -10 just really isn't a big enough penalty for convincing someone to trade their castle for a string (unless, of course, you tell them it's a magic string, in which case they're entitled to a Sense Motive check against your Bluff); after all, this means that a duke who's 75% likely to trade you his castle for yours is 25% likely to trade it for the string. Likewise, +10 isn't a big enough bonus for convincing someone to give you the time of day in exchange for a bag of money. This might give the dabbler a reason to grab some diplomacy without making it too easy for the master. Actually when I think about it, maybe it makes more sense to double the relationship modifiers as well and give the skill a base of 10 instead of 15.

Here's a few test cases for high levels, assuming you're always acting on a level 20 NPC with +5 Wis mod:

10 + 20 + 5 + 20 + 20 = 75: Convince your arch-nemesis to agree to a horrible plan. Who can do it? A 20th-level bard with 23 ranks of diplomacy, +12 Cha mod (18 + 5 from levels + 5 from wishes + 6 from cloak), +6 from synergies, +3 from skill focus, +2 from negotiator, +2 for being a half-elf, +2 for bardsong, +3 from circlet of persuasion, +4 from greater heroism, +1 from a luckstone, on a lucky roll.

10 + 20 + 5 + 10 - 0 = 45: Convince an enemy to agree to agree to a fair plan. Who can do it? A character with 23 ranks of diplomacy, +6 Cha mod, +4 from synergies, +3 from circle of persuasion, most of the time, or the diplomacy ultra min/maxer, all the time.

10 + 20 + 5 + 10 - 20 = 25: Convince an enemy to accept a very favorable plan.
10 + 20 + 5 + 0 - 10 = 25: Convince a stranger to accept a favorable plan.
10 + 20 + 5 - 10 + 0 = 25: Convince an ally to accept a reasonable plan. Who can do it? A character with 8 ranks of diplomacy, +3 cha mod, +2 from synergies, +3 from circlet of persuasion, most of the time, or the diplomacy expert, all the time.

10 + 20 + 5 + 0 - 20 = 15: Convince a stranger to accept a very favorable plan. Who can do it? A character with 1 rank of diplomacy, +2 cha mod, +2 from synergies, most of the time, or the diplomacy dabbler all the time.

10 + 20 + 5 - 10 - 20 = 5: Convince an ally to accept a very favorable plan. Who can do it? Krunk the loudmouthed, horrifically scarred half-orc barbarian most of the time, Average Joe all the time.

I think this might work out a little bit better. Any thoughts?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Perhaps one thing that could be done is double the size of the favorability modifiers. -10 just really isn't a big enough penalty for convincing someone to trade their castle for a string (unless, of course, you tell them it's a magic string, in which case they're entitled to a Sense Motive check against your Bluff)[...]

I think this might work out a little bit better. Any thoughts?

I think it's an improvement over the original Burlew system. I'm still not convinced that the DCs are completely fair, but then again the core DCs aren't great either.

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

I think we may have a miscommunication. I am not trying to argue that a DM should make it difficult for PCs to find out the Soup of the Day, or get Rex to come over, or know the name of the kingdom they are in. For all of those things, the PCs should just be able to say "I do it" and the DM should say "OK".

I agree.

The point I was getting at is that it's OK for the Diplomacy house rules (mentioned earlier in the thread) to not really work for certain trivial cases, because other skills have the same problem. You deal with those cases by acknowledging the silliness of requiring a skill check, and just forget about the check.

Yes, but these house rules should ALMOST work. As Ridley's Cohort pointed out they can be used as a base, but they still need work and your last proposal sounds quite good in this regard.

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.

Well I would put the DC at 0 for really trivial questions (and people having Int < 10 are less than 50 % of the population, btw.)

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.

Okay, that's a little bit silly, but if there's anything else going on around you, it 's quite possible you can't overhear what's being said 10 feet (3 meters) away from you. Just try yourself overhearing two people talking not too loud if there are any other conversations going on around them. And, as you can try each round to listen you will hear almost half of the conversation anyway (if you don't take 20, but roll).

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.

Well as normal silver pieces are not normally object to appraisals, that's way out there. But let's see: foreign currency, ancient coinage, silver pieces that were tempered with, forged coins, maybe even strange exchange rates (e.g. one pound is worth twelve shillings or 240 pence, four farthings are worth a penny).
Even if you fail this check, you will get (2d6+3)x10 % of the value which is almost correct.
Most peasants wouldn't know anyway, because the only use barter.

Edit: I just checked the rules; you got me there. By the RAW you cannot estimate common objects when failing an Appraise Check. That's silly. I would give a DC less than 10 for abundant objects like coins.

The whole point I am getting at is that stupid little things like that don't matter. Ridley's Cohort argued against the Diplomacy house rules because, if you follow them exactly as written, you could fail to buy a drink or get the time of day from your lover. I say that doesn't really matter: I hadn't even thought about using the Diplomacy skill to handle those situations, so I don't care if the Diplomacy skill can handle those situations.

I agree with that, but it seems these house rules are just less than perfect. Your last modification is definitely a big step in the right direction.

 

[Felonius]

I used the trivial cases as a rhetorical tactic to point towards the mechanical problem. My main complaint is the rules obliterates any incentive for a high level character to grab a few ranks in Diplomacy ("just to round out his personality").

If a player takes a few diplomacy ranks "just to round out personality", why would the fact that he's not able to influence the greatest individuals around be a disappointment?

In real play I would expect any truly non-trivial negotiation for a 20th level PC will require the character to hit DC 40+ using those house rules. So a 20th level Sorceror who has his 30 Cha and 5 ranks of Diplomacy cannot conceivably succeed if the DM asks the player to pick up the die and roll. A Fighter who maxs out Diplomacy as a cross-class skill cannot usefully apply the skill except with the most minor NPCs.

Why is either example an undesirable result? I don't see why either example character should be able to easily influence one of the greatest heroes in the world, who is also almost supernaturally wise (20+ WIS).

The sorcerer has +15 Diplomacy. If the sorcerer serves the same cause and he's making a deal that is perceivably relatively low in risk with a potentially good reward, the DC drops to 30 and he can make it with a roll 15+. Not bad for a dabbler considering who he's trying to convince, but then again the sorcerer has an unearthly charisma.

The sorcerer can also convince a 10th lvl NPC who he just met to accept an even deal on a roll 10+.

The fighter example has 11 ranks + misc modifiers. A total of +15 would not be far fetched, so he can pull off similar diplomacy stunts as the example sorcerer. Not bad for a plain fighter, but then again he uses all his freetime to learn the art of diplomacy.

Neither character is specialised in diplomacy, the other is a dabbler and the other disregards his class skills. Both can perform medium diplomacy tasks for their level, as they should.

That creates a peverse incentive to not take Diplomacy at all for most characters.

Obviously I disagree.

- F