Skill Levels - Too High or Am I High Handed?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

One of the good things about social skills in the current version(s) of the game are that a fairly inexpert player can play an expert character, and vice versa. When silver-tongued players get their characters snubbed in favor of the fast-talking character played by the guy with the least social skills in the group....well, it's no different than Jock the Wizard being unable to compete in swordplay with Nerd the Fighter, is it?

I grant bonuses and penalties for how the player states his case, but I also assume that the character may word things a little better or a little worse. Also, after the player tells me what the player says, I decide what skill check (if any) is appropriate. I never allow, "I tell him to let us in or we will kill him....I roll a 41 on my Diplomacy check!" "Hmmm...sounds like Intimidate to me...."

Raven Crowking

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

This is exactly it.

In the case of the powerhouse fighter, peasants come to her because they hope she can save their loved ones from the [Insert Monster Here] and young punks go gunning for her to improve their reputations.

The clerical type who can cure anything? Be certain that he is asked to cure a lot more than just his fellow party members. When Johnny falls off the inn roof and breaks his arm, the party might be forced to go adventuring with one curative spell less, wait another day, or seriously damage their reputations.

Wizardy McWizard? Offers of apprentices all the time. Farmer's sons who don't have the intelligence to farm well could surely fetch for the wizard? Also, other wizards might want to gain spells from the wizard character's spellbooks -- by trade, purchase, theft, or murder.

Etc., etc., etc.

In the real world, we note the strengths of those around us. The whole idea of an adventuring party is to use the strengths of your friends to accomplish those things you cannot do yourself. The same is true of societies, from the smallest burg to the largest nations. If you're good at something, people notice, and they want to use your talent to their best advantage. Less talented people might be jealous...or admiring. More talented people might be concerned with the rising "young bucks"...or take them under their respective wings.

If you take the logical consequences of any PC build into account, there is no PC build that cannot be handled in a game.

(Now, before you all try to create a PC build that can't be handled, just to show me, be aware that A: GM can say "no", especially before the PC is allowed into the world, and B: If the problems are such that they are insurmountable, it'll be obvious at that point if the GM is experienced. If the GM is not experienced, then it is not that the PC build cannot be handled in the game; rather this GM cannot handle that PC build. Which is cool. Personally, I don't mind running a 10th level PC with a 1st level group, if the 10th level PC has earned it in my game.)

Raven Crowking

 

[scourger]

pushing the envelope

Sounds like the player is pushing more than the min/maxing envelope, but at least HE'S agreed to play another UNUSUAL FEMALE character. Since he's chosen another PC altogether when given the option of nerfing the original, perhaps he wasn't really too interested in those social skills after all--he just wanted the big bonuses.

But, I wouldn't complain if my players were interested in maximizing social skills. I usually have to give greater effect to any skill that doesn't have combat or stealth applications. For instance, I give maps and handouts to players whose characters have ranks in knowledge (local/geography). Players without just have to founder about the camapign world and trust that their hide/jump/whatever will be useful, too.

I'll second the idea of just using the core rules. I always do. I don't even allow the prestige classes from the DMG. All those options just get out of hand. A lesson learned from 2e. Keeps me from buying as many books, too (although I still buy too many).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Perhaps some retweaking the character generation rules are in order, but really I think you should thank your lucky stars. How many DMs on this board would give their eyeteeth for a player who would minmax for something other than combat?

I am playing a paladin of slightly higher level in one campaign with a "mere" +20 Diplomacy and a pretty good Sense Motive. I "win" all the social skill checks this character actually cares about. But in any complex situation, I still need to choose who my friends are, choose who my enemies are, and live with the consequences.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would not be worried too much by such a character. Even if she wins every Diplomacy check, it doesn't necessarily mean that she can have every one doing what she wants. It is still up to the DM to decide the final effect of a won Diplomacy, and the DM is of course entitled to apply circumstance modifiers to make a situation more difficult.

Consider a simple situation of a guard on his duty. Even if the party diplomat changes the attitude to "helpful", this does not necessarily mean the guard would always allow the party to pass the post. Even if the guidelines are "helpful = Will take risks to help you + Protect, back up, heal, aid", depending on the situation, the guard might be more strongly zealot to the duty, and would choose not to let you pass, but only help you in other ways. Only a magical compulsion can force someone to do something, everything else can help, but I don't think a player have the right to demand this kind of effect in every occasion.

However, also remember that the PCs are the protagonists of the story, they are supposed to be great heroes, and if one is a hero with his sword, the other may be with his tongue. It could actually be good that for once you are a party which progresses a lot without always resorting to battle.