Skill Levels - Too High or Am I High Handed?

[S'mon]

Is the PC damaging the campaign? If not, no problem. Generally I like high-skill PCs, they tend to be underwhelming in combat but that's ok.

 

[RavenProject]

So, a 16 year old princess. Hmm, her weakness is combat and thus she shouldn't be a problem... for long. That is not to say you should kill her on purpose but if the party becomes involved in a battle you shouldn't spare her on purpose either. If the princess is lying and tricking her way through every opposition, she'll be dead very fast. At least in my world.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The problem is that she far outstrips all of my NPCs in the social department. The city's bishop is considered very social based and he can't hold a candle to this character. The PC is completely social based, having no combat skill and very low rankings in knowledge based skills. Her primary focus is social interaction. However, in that capacity she is unbeatable.

First off, consider revamping some NPCs. IMC, no one with less than 4-5 levels gets any position with authority without some kind of special exception. Bishops have multiple parishes report to them, each with their own little heirarchy of power. A priest assigned a parish of any importance should be 4-5th level (not necessarily cleric) and a bishop should be 8-10th level (not necessarily cleric).

IMC, priests with social/political status tend to be less magically powerful than politically powerful. So a bishop is often an Adept 3/Expert 4/Noble 3. Feats are social, more than combat/magic oriented.

Furthermore, bishops have the church to supply items of office. The bishop doesn't own the items but the office of the bishop does. So the Bishop of Canturbury (whoever it might be) would always have access to a robe of protection +3, a miter of charisma +2, a ring of diplomacy +5/Sense Motive+5, vestments of Bluff +5, and possibly a Rod of Splendor (Canturbury was an important location).

The same goes for guildmasters, nobles, and other people of importance. A police chief is far more a creature of politics than investigation and a general is more a tactician than a fighter who can win a 6-to-1 melee.

Lastly, she has limited amounts of knowledge. Basically, she can get people to like her, but can she convince them to *do* anything? Do you know someone IRL that's likeable but tends to not know anything? That's this girl.

You can't negotiate well if you don't know what things are worth and a classic negotiating technique is to bring in something completely unrelated as a requirement or possibility. This socialite could wind up agreeing to go pick up the Hound of the Baskervilles and take it to the kennel just because she doesn't know any better.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Is the PC damaging the campaign? If not, no problem.

This is the part I keep wanting to hear about, too.

Having high skill bonuses (even extremely high skill bonuses) is not in and of itself a problem. Even a character with high skills who knows how to use them to the best possible effect isn't necessarily a problem, provided that they're not that good at everything. It sounds like this particular character is a fantastic talker but is pretty much mediocre in other areas, so there's apparently nothing wrong there.

Here's a perspective you may want to consider: the player of this character is obviously interested in being able to out-talk any NPC who crosses her path. Probably this should only bother you as a GM if you know for a fact that the game you're running isn't going to have much talking, and therefore the player is sinking skill points and effort into becoming really good at the one thing she'll never, ever get a chance to do during the game. That's a problem, and something you need to resolve (either by adjusting your game to give her a chance to show off these skills she's put so much effort into getting, or by telling the player how the game is going to work so those skills can be put someplace more useful).

Or maybe you just don't like the idea of a character being so good at any one thing that it is practically inconceivable that they would ever fail miserably at it. In that case, I'd say that the problem is all yours. Personally, I'd say to let the skills stand and learn to accept and enjoy successful and competent characters as much as we all enjoy failing and overwhelmed ones, but that's just me. If you need to make the character fail, have her fail at something she genuinely sucks at instead of worrying about how to make her fail at the one thing she's devoted all of her energies to being the absolute master of. I mean, she's better than all the NPCs? Then she's better than all the NPCs, big deal. She should probably start becoming famous for it, and should be asked to represent various interests at negotiations all over the place. She should be making enemies and opponents who will discredit her, and she should be able to use her own diplomatic skills to restore her reputation.

Or maybe the player has been burned by playing a low-social-skill character before, and is just sick of being pushed around verbally by NPCs. So out comes this social-monster PC, who is capable of accomplishing any diplomatic tasks set before her with a minimum of fuss. If that's the case here, it might make you wonder about how you've been playing out PC/NPC interactions in the past. I remember one GM I had who insisted that every NPC was a iron-willed incorruptible smug little bastard who never revealed any secrets EVER, no matter how much better a PC might have been at talking, or torturing, or anything. Totally annoying, and it took a while to break him of that habit.

I suppose if this were my game, I might have a problem with a player who isn't particularly talkative or socially adept playing a character with such high social skills, just because social characters are more fun to listen to when they're actually saying interesting and fun things. "I...uh...get him to let us in...*rolls die*...that's uh...a total of 41," is kind of a drag for everyone involved, I think. On the other hand, I'd probably just let the fumble-tongued player with the very social character run with it, because eventually he'll either start coming up with cool things to say as he develops more confidence in his character, or he'll get sick of "uh...a total of 41"-ing his way through conversations and decide to do something else.

--
but yeah, anyway, i'd like to hear why this character is such a problem
ryan

 

[ruleslawyer]

To echo many of the other folks on this topic, I just don't see how this is an unbalanced character. There's only so much you can do with social skills in a typical D&D game; even if your game is atypical and confined largely to social interaction, as tacky pointed out, a time-honored way of dealing with a character who can outfox and out-talk you is just to set the mob on them, as was done in Greece and Rome. (A targeted assassination works fine, too.) As a DM, I'm much more worried about PCs who overspecialize in the doing-ridiculous-amounts-of-damage-in-one-round department than I do about folk who (heaven forfend!) max out their social skills. The reason the courtier gives a bonus to Diplomacy is that the class HAS to talk its way out of conflict, due to being utterly useless in said conflict.

 

[ph0rk]

Bear in mind, though, that unless you can see where the player CHEATED to get those scores, you shouldn't penalize them. You'll just have to see what you can do to balance things from here on.

I'd go ahead and disagree. With scores that high, i don't think it is out of the ordinary to expect the player to explain how he got those scores. if he can't, g'bye high scores. where the hell did the extra +14 to diplomacy come at level 6?

If it is a legal build (and not some lame-o artifact) then woo-ha, he did an awesome job.

The Courtier is from Rokugan

have you considered a penalty to cha based skills for being an outsider?

frankly, looking at the level selection, i'd expect the character to drop like a sack of potatoes in a fight. As for talking her way out of a fight, check out the modifiers to most skill-based skills for hostiles or someone you already suspect, etc.

as for the player complaining about remaking a core character...

release a memo stating all future characters are to be core.

arrange for miss priss to have a date with a few dozen half-troll ogre magi.

*wipe hands*

-----


Are you allowing the players to use more than a standard array to create their ability scores?

 

[Elf Witch]

I'd go ahead and disagree. With scores that high, i don't think it is out of the ordinary to expect the player to explain how he got those scores. if he can't, g'bye high scores. where the hell did the extra +14 to diplomacy come at level 6?

If it is a legal build (and not some lame-o artifact) then woo-ha, he did an awesome job.



have you considered a penalty to cha based skills for being an outsider?

frankly, looking at the level selection, i'd expect the character to drop like a sack of potatoes in a fight. As for talking her way out of a fight, check out the modifiers to most skill-based skills for hostiles or someone you already suspect, etc.

as for the player complaining about remaking a core character...

release a memo stating all future characters are to be core.

arrange for miss priss to have a date with a few dozen half-troll ogre magi.

*wipe hands*

-----


Are you allowing the players to use more than a standard array to create their ability scores?

I don't blame the player for whining as a player I find it rather frustrating that a DM approved character that I enjoy playing has to be changed because the DM thinks it is to powerful.

From what you are telling us I don't think it is to powerful get her into a fight and she will be useless and you yourself said that social is 30% so that makes 70% not related to her skills.

I have two level of courtier and ten levels of fighter I wanted a character who was my concept of a knight without the magic of a paladin I took feats to help boost my social skills and a feat that made certain knowledge skills class skills. The courtier does boost social skills a lot. If you are worried about it so much build your NPCs with courtier class.

I don't understand this would you have a problem if a fighter had great stats and would you just throw up your hands and say never mind you will always win or would you build NPC fighters with good feats to challenge the fighter? You can do that with social too as many have already pointed out.

 

[takyris]

I don't blame the player for whining as a player I find it rather frustrating that a DM approved character that I enjoy playing has to be changed because the DM thinks it is to powerful.

This is just silly. If you're going by the core rules, that's one thing, but the DM has the right to say both "No, this new class from this book does not work with my campaign" and "These two classes from these two different books combine in a way that ruins the fun for other people."

Telling the DM to increase the power level of all his NPCs to match the PC is a shortsighted viewpoint. In order to make a character who will even remotely challenge this PC, the DM will have to make characters who could convince the other PCs to give over all their money without trouble. Add to this the fact that the PC is powerful in an area that the DM cannot use back at the PCs -- social skills, where even if the NPC has a +34 Bluff check and the PC has no ranks in Sense Motive and a Wisdom of 8, the player can say, "Nope, I still decide that I don't want to go along with it, even though I can't sense anything untrustworthy about him" -- and you've got a PC who can change the entire face of the campaign. The only way for NPCs to compete is to smear the PCs names with incredibly powerful Diplomacy checks against other NPCs. Do the other players in the group relish the idea of being outcasts and criminals one week, then heroes again when the PC makes an even bigger Diplomacy check, and then outcasts again the week after that when another NPC smears them, and then heroes again, and so on?

If this character doesn't fit the concept of the DM's game, and the DM believes that it's affecting the group's overall enjoyment level, then the DM is completely right to, at the very least, ask that it be built with the core rules.

Or, on the other hand, the DM could simply have five ogres ambush the character. This PC would, in a single fight, be smooshed, and then that would be the end of that. I'm sure that the PC's player, who is adamant about building someone this focused, will have no trouble accepting the utter weakness of the character in the area of personal defense and combat. That is what people are saying, right? That the DM should just play by the rules, and that if this character is weak in combat areas, the DM shouldn't go easy on the PC just to keep her alive? So if the evil bad guys know that the PC is capable of turning the king's opinion against them, and if their most logical choice is to eliminate the PC, then the PC's player will understand when the assassins come calling?

I actually did this to one of my PCs, a bard who had done enough high-profile public stuff that it became obvious to the campaign bad guys that he was going to be trouble. They lured him out into the woods and tried to kill him. He survived, barely, but was much more careful from then on. It wasn't me, the DM, trying to kill him. It was a natural result of him tweaking the noses of very powerful people.

 

[Seravin]

The character in question is a Warrior 1, Courtier 3, Expert 2, Wizard 1. In my campaign, the characters started with NPC classes and moved into their respective PC classes. Everyone essentially designed their characters as an NPC for free, and then added a 1st Level class. This character joined the group when everyone was 4th level.

Sounds like an intriguing character concept. I'm running a Night Below game in which one of the players is doing something similar. Her 'courier' started out as a straight rogue (and still is in the story hour) who's goal was to be able to interact with everyone. Everyone.
She cross-classed into speak languages every level and devoted a skill point to diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and gather info practically every level.

The problem is that she far outstrips all of my NPCs in the social department. The city's bishop is considered very social based and he can't hold a candle to this character. The PC is completely social based, having no combat skill and very low rankings in knowledge based skills. Her primary focus is social interaction. However, in that capacity she is unbeatable.

She's sounds like she's good at her job - just like I assume the party's fighters and wizards are as good as theirs. The thing is, it's easier to create a better fighter and wizard - those classes make sense in the game. A bishop might be quite sociable, but in the end he's a bishop and probably has other focuses (foci?) and thus not as specialized.

Sure, I could go gunning for her socially. Make NPCs that are able to keep up with this 16 year spoiled princess. Yes, the character is only 16 years old. However, that just seems contrived. I have asked the player to remake the character under "Core Rules" and I have faced some strong resistance. I was wondering if I am just being a control freak by wanting some balance in the campaign world.

I personally wouldn't ask the player to remake the character - there would be little point, as I bet she could virtually recreate the character with a little thought - at best you push the problem off for a level or two. Still, if it's not working for you, try trading out abilities instead. Explain what problems are causing you headaches and see how she's willing to help. The game is suppose to be fun for both player and dm. Delayed advancement until you get a handle on things might be okay with her

Another thing you might want to do is look at the character's place in the campaign world. Amongst the Imperial citizens in my game, a sixteen year old girl, noble or not, would constantly have to prove herself, especially if she doesn't have any strong talents.

Sure, she can fight a little better than the average raw recruit, but she's only an apprentice wizard at best. People who met her and talked with her would find her friendly and likeable (normally at least, barring other circumstances), but she would probably be treated like a favored daughter by the older folk and at best a 'young' woman with some small skills by those closer to her age. Likeable, yes, but not someone they'd even necessarily listen to or even take advice from unless she's developed a track record of knowing what's going on and has given good advice before.

A truly social equal or nemisis for her would be a thieve's guild leader, an ambassador, a merchant, or better yet (I think) a spy. Someone who depends on the same skills and who also has strength in the knowledge skills she lacks. (example: Knowledge (Local) allows for instantaneous checks to know some fact relating to the area rather than spending a few hours trying to find someone who knows something.)

In my game I had to pay close attention to the motives of the people my players interacted with and figure out beforehand how they would react to the various players. Kind of like designing a fighting encounter really.

I also had to determine what the various attitudes meant in my game. My favorite example is: The party meets a mind flayer and instead of flattening them immediately decides to talk (maybe from the shadows where it can't be seen). The face character talks, rolls a 20 and generates a 43 on the diplomacy roll - the mind flayer goes from unfriendly straight to helpful.

My interpretation of that particular attitude shift would indicate the following - first the mind flayer views the character (and only the character) favorably - she just took herself off the menu. Second, the mind flayer is still going to want to eat brains, her companions are potentially fair game but unless it was hungry would probably not upset her by eating her friends (in front of her at least). Third, its plans for world domination are still forefront on its mind. It won't tell her about the plans unless it can see a way of using her (in a non-harmful manner) and certainly wouldn't stop the plans for her - though it might delay long enough for her to get away (giving her a chance to try and stop it).

Worst case for her, the flayer might start to obsess over her and decides she would be the perfect companion - one of the slave-races that could understand and be useful - once she was enslaved and became properly tractable. She'd be like a pet who's particularly well trained - kind of like a human herder.

In the city, the bishop might look upon her kindly and humor her, but he'd listen to the fighters first in matters of war (what army did she command?), the merchants in matter of trade (what merchant house is she a member of? How much in trade does she bring to the city?), and wizards of power in matters of magic. Sure, she'd be useful in finding things out but who'd trust such a young person's interpretation of the data (adults are funny that way)?
Still, he'll help her when she's in trouble as long as it doesn't significantly endanger him or his position (ex: "I believe you when you tell me you didn't kill the guard, but you are a fugitive. I'll have to summon the guards, but I am old it will take me several minutes to find them. Find the evidence to clear yourself and come to me - here's a few coins and a potion for that nasty cut.")

Anyway, the post is almost long enough. Whatever you decide to do, make sure you talk it over with the player - especially in how you'll deal with her diplomacy rolls and NPC reactions. Helpful shouldn't mean slave, merely concerned enough for her welfare to actually stir themselves to help.
Also, plan your encounters appropriately - the diplomacy encounters shouldn't outnumber the fighting encounters. The good news is that there's a potential plot point in every diplomacy encounter.

-Good luck in whatever happens.

 

[Seravin]

Almost forgot to add:
1) Don't forget the practiacally impossible rule. If in your estimation it's only just barely possible with extreme luck, she'll need 10 ranks plus take a -20 circumstance penalty. I count convincing the bandit leader to stop his thieving ways and take up a more useful career in this category - The bandit would be hostile to that idea and she would have to get a helpful result with the -20 penalty.

2) Also, retries are generally not useful, barring extenuating circumstances. A person who decides he/she doesn't like her (say based on rumors before meeting her) probably isn't going to change his/her mind without extenuation circumstance (say with a -20 penalty) - no matter how friendly the character.