Skill Levels - Too High or Am I High Handed?

[Spamdrew]

You all realise that synergy doesn't stack don't you?

IF you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy

Also check his item's he may be trying to use a circlet of persuasion plus a skill boosting item however they are both competence bonuses.

Spamdrew

 

[erian_7]

You all realise that synergy doesn't stack don't you?

Actually, the bonus derived from skill synergy is an unnamed bonus (there is no bonus type labelled "synergy bonus" in the bonus Types listed in the DMG pg. 21). As such, it does stack.

So, to use another skill example, a person with 5 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) and 5 ranks in Use Magic Device gets a total +4 bonus to Spellcraft checks to decipher spells on scrolls. Or a person with 5 ranks in Decipher Script and 5 ranks in Spellcraft gets a +4 bonus on Use Magic Device checks involving scrolls. A final example, a person with 5 ranks in Search and 5 ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering) gets a +4 bonus on Survival checks when following tracks underground.

Diplomacy benefits the most from skill synergy, as it derives a +2 bonus from synergy with Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), and Sense Motive. However, as noted in the PHB pg. 66, the DM can limit certain synergies if desired. So for instance, that +2 bonus from Knowledge (nobility and royalty) does not apply (if the DM so chooses) when dealing with a band of thugs that hate nobility and royalty.

 

[Spamdrew]

Your right I slightly mispoke. What I should have said is that using the core rules you can never have more than one synergy bonus per skill.

Spamdrew

 

[Silveras]

Your right I slightly mispoke. What I should have said is that using the core rules you can never have more than one synergy bonus per skill.

Spamdrew

Incorrect. A quick glance through the Monster Manual shows many, many creatures with multiple, stacking synergy bonuses on Diplomacy. That is the core rules set in action.

 

[PoppaGunch]

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 have a similar problem in my game. One way I managed to bust her down (what is it with the princess types?) was to put her in a locale where her knowledge of the local customs and culture was not complete. She went from a simple, semi-democratic society of tolerance and peace to a harsh, judicial, and religious society that portrays honor as the end all be all of existance. And since it is a culture far from where she grew up, it is very new to her. She faces some social stigma being form another race as well.
I don't do it to burn her though, I do it to challenge her. You want those skill checks? Well I got your ckill checks right here. LoL

 

[Turanil]

I don't see a problem with the character. Plenty of weaknesses and one real strength.

As DM, though, you have to remember that its up to you to interpret what those die rolls actual mean, and the scope of the what they can accomplish.
Its up the DM to provide a super-social character a sense that their abilities matter, but it hardly means that skill set is the solution to every problem. Sometimes persuation isn't just isn't enough, no matter how persuasive you are...

A charming character without wealth, power, or powerful allies is still charming, but hardly capable of winning everyone over to their will. Unless all their after is a dinner date. Then they're set.

I entirely second this opinion.

Maybe this PC is the best negotiator in the entire city. So what? Bluff is not a Suggestion spell, Intimidate is not a Domination spell, and Sense Motive is not a Detect Thoughts spell. Personnaly I would have no problem with this character. Sometimes she would shine and outwit NPCs in social interractions, and at other times she would do very little when you better use a sword against a troll rather than a Bluff check (plus some troll do not speak common, and others are deaf, if need be). Also, you may consider that a Mind Shielding ring could be effective against Sense Motive, well maybe (I don't know what are the rule on that).

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

I did not say that it was okay for a player to come up with an idea and then shove it under the DM nose what I said was an APPROVED character. Before a DM allows a build he should take a good look at it before approving it.

The world should have some NPCs in it that are better than the players either in social skills or fighting it does not break the game if handled right. The PCs in a game are supposed to be good at what they do and it is nice to be good at things it is the same as a fighter being good at killing things. No one tells a fighter not to take feats and builds to be a good fighter. And I have seen plenty of over powerful PCs made from core characters.

According to this DM the other palyers do not have a problem with this so that is not an issue. And he himself said that the game has strong elements of social interaction as well as combat in it.

I also never said that the DM does not have the right to deal with a player who is ruining the game for other people what I said was he should talk to the player and explain why the character needs to be changed and offer to help build something from the core rules.

Having assassins come after the character would teach the character to be more wise in these situations and that just because you can influence the king it may not tbe wise to do so. It is the same as maybe the fighter can kill the Captain of the guard but should he.

And no he should not go easy on her in battle just like he should not go easy on a dumb low wisdom low charisma in a social situation.

That is how you balence the game. By teaching the PCs that even if you can do something maybe it is not always a good idea to do it.

BTW I find DMs who kill characters instead of having the guts and the maturity to stand up to them to be rather cowardly and unsportsman like. It is unfair to use your power to deliberately kill a PC to solve a problem. If the player refuses to stop something that is hurting the game after being talked to then suck it up and ask them to leave.

 

[S'mon]

FWIW I see no problem with a PC being more Diplomatic than the highly-diplomatic city bishop. Joan of Arc must have had a huge Diplomacy score, and she still got burned at the stake. She can win any debate, but if NPCs aren't willing to converse with her she won't get to use her Interaction skills on them. Diplomacy, Bluff
et al are not mind-affecting magic, and unless you use the Epic Level Handbook, they're not presented as such.

I was talking about this yesterday w my fellow DMs Randomling & Stalkingblue. I think it's very important that the DM be clear what a Diplomacy roll is for, what the DC is, and what the result will be of a 'pass'. IMO it should always be an either/or thing, like a to-hit roll or a saving throw. It doesn't matter whether you hit or save by 1 pt, 20 pts, or 100 pts, you still hit or save. Likewise with climbing walls, tumbling, etc. Interaction skills are no different. They enable the PC to accomplish a specific thing - a successful Bluff roll means the NPC can't tell you're lying, a successful Diplomacy roll means (at best) the NPC's attitude towards you becomes Helpful - interpreting this attitude change is problematic, it's important to remember that the NPC doesn't lose their prior motivations. If the prisoner under sentence of death Diplomatises the judge, maybe the judge commutes the sentence from death-by-burning to death-by-decapitation ("Friendly" result, maybe), or even commutes it to life imprisonment ("Helpful" result, maybe, depending on circumstance) but won't order their release, shower them with gifts, and give them the freedom of the city. Not IMC.

 

[GreyShadow]

Have the church assign the bishop a new underpriest to handle these sorts of problems. If she wants to talk to the bishop, talk to Underpriest Weasel first. (Cleric 2, Courier 7)

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

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.

Interestingly enough, after making use of the social skill rules (in 3.0), I had a player make a bard who leans heavily toward social skills, using synergy bonuses and feats to their best effect.

While I haven't hit your level of problem (yet), this is because the character is only 3rd level.

The best way (imho) to deal with social powerhouses is to give logical consequences to this type of build. If you're so persuasive that everyone is friendly to you, then everyone is friendly to you, for better or worse. Villains want you to be their sweety....which isn't always a good thing. "You will learn to love me," they snarl, "as soon as all your friends are dead!" Meanwhile, it would mean so much to the local Duke if you could be there for his son's Knighthood ceremony....

Anyone with a high enough social build is liable to be the campaign world equivilent of a rock star. People flock to be near them. Other people resent them. Someone in a lonely cabin is their "biggest fan," ready to chain them to a bed and break their ankles if need be to get their sole attention.

If you read comic books, check out Hellblazer for what a really persuasive guy might be capable of. Then pick up Ultimate Spider-Man's Ultimate Six storyline to see what having a villain with a "friendly" attitude could be like. Or watch any of the Doctor Who stories where some hideous villain falls in love with the Doctor's companion, kidnaps her, and makes her have to pretend not to be disgusted (-2 circumstance bonus to that Diplomacy check, at the very least). Heck, check out any Doctor Who for what a character with high social skills can and can't do...the Doctor is a primary example.

Raven Crowking