Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[NewJeffCT]

To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".

In 3e terms, a +20 to the DC was for the "Practically Impossible".

Thing is, its actually quite easy to make character builds that can get intimidate and diplomacy checks so high that a -20 is not even an issue.

When a player can roll an 80 diplomacy check...there's a certain social inertia there. It can feel wrong to tell the player no, even though the rules might allow for it.


You also get to the problem of superspecialization. In other words, in order to prevent Mr. Diplomancer from making literally everyone his buddy, you need very high DCs. But that shuts down other players from using diplomacy.

I'd XP you for your post, but I need to spread it around more first. Well said!

 

[JamesonCourage]

Besides agreeing with you, I also meant (and maybe failed) to bring out what it is about 3E social skills that makes me agree with you - namely, not that they can/cannot affect an NPC's actions (in my view, insofar as a social skill affects attitudes, it will affect actions, given that - crudely but not too inaccurately - attitude + belief yields action). Rather, it is the failure of the maths.

Okay, I see where you're coming from more clearly now. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Not so much in the context of a skill challenge. As I said in the post you replied to, multiple rolls are required - which reduces the odds of success - and the other PCs are also going to be involved (at least in typical party play), which means that a single diplomancer isn't going to resolve the scene.

Which is still odd to me. I mean, yes, sometimes the entire party needs to help out, because the guy they're talking to makes it his business to talk to everyone. Other times, though, the diplomat says "stay close, shut up, and follow my lead" before seeing the king. In those situations, I dislike the skill challenge requirement (if there is one... as I said, my 4e knowledge is lacking) of having everyone be forced to contribute. As a game mechanic, it would help with balance, though.

What have you got in mind?

In the abstract, turning a major villain into a friend who will expend resources to help you shouldn't be an more or less abusive than killing the same villain and stealing all his/her resources. Although it many be less exciting.

But I have a feeling this isn't what you're talking about.

It's definitely a much bigger swing than killing him and looting him.

Let's say there are five Bad Guys. I kill one, and now there are four Bad Guys.

If we compare that to convincing him to help me, there are now four Bad Guys, and one Good Guy. That's a dramatically different situation, in my mind. My players would deal with that variable completely differently than just "four Bad Guys left."

And, the more it happens, the bigger the swing. Having "three Bad Guys left" is very different from having "three Bad Guys left, and two Good Guys on our side."

But, as far as what I'd suggest, like I implied, is getting rid of anything that affects long term disposition. The GitP link I provided is a good start, in my mind, as it completely changes the nature of Diplomacy from long term outlook on a member of the party to whether or not somebody agrees to a very specific deal. Diplomacy checks no longer affect any NPC's long term feelings about the party, and that prevents a lot of abuse.

This means that you can convince a Bad Guy not to come after you, but you'll have to overcome the higher DC. It's 15 base, plus 5, 7, or 10 higher, for his relationship with you, plus his hit die or level, plus the risk vs. reward.

So, a level 5 Bad Guy that's a basic enemy (no personal relationship with you) has a base DC of 25 to affect. That's still easy to accomplish by level 3 (as I pointed out earlier), but if the deal isn't good, then the DC goes up by 5 or 10. This at least makes it more difficult. However, if you make him a very good offer, then he'll agree to it, as it's very favorable to him.

In this scenario, if you want to get him for sure, you might have to give something up (just to make the Risk vs. Reward break even). So, if you succeed on your negotiation, you lose something, and you have four Bad Guys left (and no Good Guys on your side). If you kill him, you get his stuff, and only have four Bad Guys left, but now you're taking a risk (with combat). If you make him a good enough deal, he'll switch sides (but the Risk vs. Reward will be hard), but it's not a long term thing, inherently. If something comes up, there's nothing stopping him from changing his mind again.

This sort of short term attitude changing is what I think makes for a much better balanced set of skills. Of course, in my opinion, you still need to bring skill checks lower (I don't use skill synergies, magic items as D&D knows them, and my max ranks are 3 lower than normal, amongst other changes) to work with this change, so that things don't always become "let me make a short term deal that has no chance of failure (unless you're really high level)" past a certain point.

And, of course, I changed Intimidate to work with the new "Diplomacy" (I call it by a different name, and modified the GitP skill). It now affects how they see you on the Risk vs. Reward section, and scales the more you beat the DC by.

At any rate, I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing you're asking for. Hope it gives you some idea of my preferences. Again, though, it's not for everyone, and I'm not advocating anyone change their style or anything.

As always, play what you like

 

[NewJeffCT]

I had no idea when I started this thread it would still be going strong after now 333 posts. Thanks to everybody for the good discussion so far. It's given me a lot to think about.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Can't XP you, NewJeffCT, but thanks for starting it. It's been very interesting.

 

[Janx]

To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".

..snip...

When a player can roll an 80 diplomacy check...there's a certain social inertia there. It can feel wrong to tell the player no, even though the rules might allow for it.


You also get to the problem of superspecialization. In other words, in order to prevent Mr. Diplomancer from making literally everyone his buddy, you need very high DCs. But that shuts down other players from using diplomacy.

I'm not as up on the exact specifics of how to get an 80 Diplomacy check (i have not had Diplomancer issues, but find the problem interesting).

Most basic skills are capped for an 18 attribute PC to level + 7 (the 3 max ranks and the +4 attr. bonus). At 20th level, a PC like that would only be swinging +27 on their skill checks, and would be lucky to roll a 20 to hit a 47DC.

So when you say somebody can hit an 80 DC, that smells like a broken PC. Like something is out of whack with the rest of the skills.

If a GM had a more generous interpretation of what the social skills can achieve, and the rules let you get bigger numbers out of those skills than other skills, then that's a big design issue because certain skills get to be higher than any other skill in the game AND they have a big game impact.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Most basic skills are capped for an 18 attribute PC to level + 7 (the 3 max ranks and the +4 attr. bonus). At 20th level, a PC like that would only be swinging +27 on their skill checks, and would be lucky to roll a 20 to hit a 47DC.

I'm not sure how to get up to a +80, but assuming you're a "diplomancer" type in game, you start off with an 18 CHA and max ranks in Diplomacy for a +7

Then, you take three other skills that give you another +6 from skill synergies and you're at a +13 (Bluff, Sense Motive & Knowledge: Nobility). If you're a Diplomancer, you also take the Skill Focus: Diplomacy feat for a +16 at first level. Add in being a half-elf, and you're up to +18 at first level.

Over the course of those 20 levels, you put in another 5 points to Charisma, giving you a 23 Charisma. However, you also have a Cloak of Charisma +4, giving you an effective CHA of 27, which is now a +8.

So, you have the original +18, plus 19 more ranks accumulated while leveling, plus another +4 for improving your CHA. So, you're at +41. Plus, there are probably other magic items and feats (Negotiator) you can take that can improve your Diplomacy even more than that. So, something like a +45 is easily achievable if you focus on it.

The DC to change somebody from Hostile to Helpful is like a 45 or 50.

Similarly, you can pump up Bluff even more than Diplomacy if you use skill synergies and Skill Focus: Bluff, plus you add in a snake familiar, giving you another +3 to Bluff.

PC Bluff-master: "Hello Emperor, I would like to trade what is in my wagon for your entire empire."
DM as Emperor, looking in wagon: "It looks like a pile of dung to me"
PC: "It is your grace, but, it is magic dung. If a ruler willingly gives up his throne and eats this magic dung, he will be transformed into a god"
DM... "well, the emperor's sense motive is pretty good, +16 in my notes. I roll a natural 20... woo-hoo! 36 to Sense Motive."
PC: rolls dice, "I roll a 2, with my bonuses, it's still a 47. I beat you by 11. You believe me hook, line & sinker."
DM as emperor, sighing: "ok, the emperor hands you the keys to the empire, then proceeds to eat dung... and die"

***EDITED TO ADD - MY EXAMPLE IS FLAWED - SEE MY POST BELOW***

 

[Janx]

..snip math...
PC Bluff-master: "Hello Emperor, I would like to trade what is in my wagon for your entire empire."
DM as Emperor, looking in wagon: "It looks like a pile of dung to me"
PC: "It is your grace, but, it is magic dung. If a ruler willingly gives up his throne and eats this magic dung, he will be transformed into a god"
DM... "well, the emperor's sense motive is pretty good, +16 in my notes. I roll a natural 20... woo-hoo! 36 to Sense Motive."
PC: rolls dice, "I roll a 2, with my bonuses, it's still a 47. I beat you by 11. You believe me hook, line & sinker."
DM as emperor, sighing: "ok, the emperor hands you the keys to the empire, then proceeds to eat dung... and die"

Holy fecal mastication! That was the rules borken example I was looking for. If it is fair to say that most of the other skils are not as abusable as the social ones (in getting major + to it), then to answer the OT, YES, they are too easy.

I vaguely recall JC mentioning he doesn't do synergy bonuses. I see a good reason why...

A side though occurred to me while reading the "you rolled a 3" thread. Back in the pre-3e days, i recall rules for Encounter Reactions. Basically the GM rolled to see how the NPCs would react to the party. That's kind of what the diplomacy roll in 3e could be used for, but I suspect isn't used by most folks.

Conceptually, the idea went, that instead of the GM deciding how the NPCs approach the party, the dice do. In 3e, that could mean always making a diplomacy check for that initial NPC attitude. Thus, a low social party gets a more hostile response (thus penalizing parties who dump stat CHA).

Right now, we only make a diplomacy role if the player is trying to actively manipulate the NPC. In many ways, thats what any of the social skills get used for. I'd never actively consider a PC doing a bluff, diplomacy or intimidate against another PC. Basically, I see the social skills being used to abjudicate whether the PCs can manipulate the game world (NPCs).

anyway, just some thoughts this the topic of social skills has me pondering.

 

[NewJeffCT]

actually, that shouldn't be entirely possible - my example above is flawed. The emperor should get an additional +20 because the lie/bluff is so far out there as to be unbelievable. So, the DC to beat would be a 56 instead of a 36, if the emperor rolled a natural 20... meaning, the lying PC would need to roll a 9 or higher to bluff the emperor into giving up his empire to eat a pile of poo... and, if the emperor rolls averagely and gets a 10 or 11, he has no chance.

 

[Janx]

I'm not sure how to get up to a +80, but assuming you're a "diplomancer" type in game, you start off with an 18 CHA and max ranks in Diplomacy for a +7

Then, you take three other skills that give you another +6 from skill synergies and you're at a +13 (Bluff, Sense Motive & Knowledge: Nobility). If you're a Diplomancer, you also take the Skill Focus: Diplomacy feat for a +16 at first level. Add in being a half-elf, and you're up to +18 at first level.

Over the course of those 20 levels, you put in another 5 points to Charisma, giving you a 23 Charisma. However, you also have a Cloak of Charisma +4, giving you an effective CHA of 27, which is now a +8.

So, you have the original +18, plus 19 more ranks accumulated while leveling, plus another +4 for improving your CHA. So, you're at +41. Plus, there are probably other magic items and feats (Negotiator) you can take that can improve your Diplomacy even more than that. So, something like a +45 is easily achievable if you focus on it.

The DC to change somebody from Hostile to Helpful is like a 45 or 50.

On the bluff example, how come there's not a modifier for the plausibility of the lie? You're the turnip delivery guy? Fairly believable since you are dressed like one, and have a cart full of turnips. Your cart is full of magical dung that if I trade my empire I'll be rewarded? Sounds too good to be true, u get -20 to your bluff roll. (note, I applied it to the bluffer, because the outrageousness of the lie applies to what he's doing, rather than any particular skill of the listener)

On the math of those skill bonuses, as a designer, like they did with the concept of max ranks, I would ensure that internally, no skill through any additive rules can go past a certain point, and to make sure that all skills (and their enhancers like items, buffs, feats, synergies) can't outpace another skill.

From there, once I know the true range of variation (from 0 to the real max), I would set the DCs and their math accordingly.

Instead, 3e said DC 20 is a good hard number. And never looked back to see that certain skills (social) were getting out of scale with that basic metric.

I suppose one could also house rule that Diplomacy can only shift 1 rank at a time, and that time must pass between objective attempts. Thus, it will take months or years of diplomatic efforts to turn your dread enemy into an ally (just like real life). I would still make the DC higher, the farther away an NPC is from being a friend.

 

[NewJeffCT]

On the bluff example, how come there's not a modifier for the plausibility of the lie? You're the turnip delivery guy? Fairly believable since you are dressed like one, and have a cart full of turnips. Your cart is full of magical dung that if I trade my empire I'll be rewarded? Sounds too good to be true, u get -20 to your bluff roll. (note, I applied it to the bluffer, because the outrageousness of the lie applies to what he's doing, rather than any particular skill of the listener)

You're correct - I noted that in my post a few above (see the big yellow text on the bottom), and then provided an update in another post below that one.