Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[JiffyPopTart]

My problem is that the listed "hard" DCs for 4E are generally pretty easy to make.

So do you tell your players "don't bother taking feats or items that make you really good at skill checks because i'm just going to make them harder so you fail as often as I think you should"?

Do you do the same with combat feats and items?

DS

 

[Eric Tolle]

I agree that allowing players to talk their way past obstacles is anathema to D&D the way it is played. Trying to persuade NPCs leads to amateur thespianism, which leads to men wearing mascara and wearing black trenchcoats in summer.

Fortunately, this is an easy problem to solve; just have NPCs attack on sight. Not just guards and minions, but watchmen, merchants, farmers, nursing mothers, doxies, small children, etc.. Once the players get used to having to kill, bespell or sneak by everyone they meet you can slack off a bit, but until then you need to drill in the idea that talking to NPCs is Not How It's Done.

Remember- only YOU can prevent amateur thespianism!

 

[Stormonu]

Okay, first of all... this should never, ever happen. Imagine that you're approaching a guard post in real life (have you ever entered a military base?). You approach the check point. Normally, you flash your ID and you're let inside. Well, ID Cards and stuff don't typically exist during medieval times, but the premise is very much the same. So, things go something like this...

The Players approach the castle gates. There is a guard posted outside, and several posted on the wall looking down with crossbows.

PC's (to guard at gate): "Ho there! We've strict orders for you to allow us into the castle, straight from the Overlord himself!"

PC (to DM): "Can I roll a bluff check?"

DM (to Player): "No, not yet."

DM (to PC who asked to enter the castle, as the guard): "Huh? I donno what your talking about! We've been given strict orders by the Overlord to hold this castle and not let anyone in who don't come with his personal seal and writ."

PC (to DM): "What... we need the Overlords personal writ and seal to get inside?"

DM (to Player): "Yes. That's what the guard told you."

PC (to guard): "Uh... erm... the Overlord was too busy! He's given us strict orders to enter the castle immediately, and if you don't do it there will be trouble!"

DM (to Player): "Roll an intimidate check."

The intimidate check is successful.

DM (as the guard): "The guard suddenly takes on a look of concern, shifting uneasily. Then says, 'We can't let nobody in without his seal 'tis his own orders, I swear on the Evil God of Tyranny that it is true. I'll get the Captain.'

The guard then taps his sword on the castles stone wall making a loud clanging sound. The head of one of the guards with a crossbow peers down at him, and you hear him muttering, 'Eh? What? What do they want?!'

The guard from down below goes, 'Oi! Grish go get the captain! Some folk here claim the Overlord told 'em to come inside, but they don't have his seal and writ.'

There are murmurs coming from up above that you can't make out, and it appears as if one of the guards - not Grish - leaves to get the Captain."

The players shift uneasily in their seats, the DM grins.

DM (to Players): "Alright, one of the guards has gone off to get the captain. Are you guys going to sit around and wait for him to show up, or are you going to do something else?"

Players discuss it, and then decide they're going to wait.

DM (to all the PC's): "About twenty minutes pass in a long silence. The guard you've intimidated looks uncertain of all of this, mostly confused, but also perhaps fearful of what the Overlord will do to him for disobeying.

Finally, at last you hear commotion behind the gate. You hear the sounds of wood scraping against wood. Six armed guardsmen, swords drawn and ready with menacing glares all focused upon you appear as the door swings open.

You hear commotion from above. Looking up, you see a tall and imposing figure, a man with a well kept black beard streaked with gray and a long scar running down the length of his face. He is better dressed than the other guards, and you make the obvious assumption that this must be the captain.

Next to the captain are four more guards with crossbows drawn - all of them pointed in the direction of you guys."

This is where the DM grins broadly and chuckles, and the players begin to worry about the potential death of their characters.

DM (as the Guard Captain): "You lot had best have a very good reason for attempting to enter this castle. The Overlord has given me strict orders to not allow entry to anyone without his seal and writ. I am told you lack these things. Have I been told false?"

Players (to DM): "When do we get a chance to bluff?!"

DM (to Players): "You can begin bluffing now. You're going to have to convince the Guard Captain that you really were sent by the Overlord without the things he's requesting."

Player (to Guard Captain): "How dare you question us? We've been sent by the Overlord. He was too busy to give us these things that you want, and we have been given strict orders to be allowed entry!"

From this point forward, bluff checks are allowed. Most likely they will fail, and if so, the Guard Captain will order his men to attack. However, diplomacy could also be used in an attempt to seek a middle ground. Perhaps the players rethink their strategy. They attempt to persuade the Guard Captain to give them entry and to send a rider to the Overlord with a message to PROVE their claims. This buys them time.

However, no matter if or how they're successful, they'd be under heavy guard... but it gets them inside the Castle.

Other methods to increase their chances could have been used. For example, had they spent some time spying on the castle rather than riding up to it, they might have seen some of the Evil Overlords men displaying his writ and seal. They could have captured one such group and obtain that seal and writ for themselves, getting past the initial guard without too much trouble.

It's the job of the DM to create obstacles for the players. Anything that is considered an auto-win - regardless of what the rules state - is something that you have the ability to change and SHOULD change.

When it comes to things such as diplomacy, NPC's always have the opportunity to avoid engaging in such matters with the PC's. They can avoid it by choosing to fight, refusing to engage the PC's, or remove themselves from the encounter. Sometimes the NPC simply can't give the PC's what they want, as is the case of the guard above. He didn't have the authority to allow the PC's in without a writ and seal, even after he was intimidated. So he did what anyone in that situation would do: they turned to someone else with the authority, in this case it was the guard captain.

If you desire a more robust social resolution system, I've found someone's blog which has converted the AsoIaF Intrigue System to D&D. I haven't used it, but it could be something you might find useful / helpful to you.

You can view that blog entry here. If you are interested here is the link to the AsoIaF Quick Start Rules (which includes the Intrigue System).

I hope this post has been helpful to you.

Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.

For me the issue isn't the players getting around my cool series of encounters by talking (I love it when players think outside the box, and am happy to consider alternative solutions and shortcuts in my adventures). Heck I've let PCs skip to the end with a single clever idea. The issue is realism. I can see a charmed guard handing the PCs the keys the gate. But I think it is going to be very hard in most circumstances to smooth talk your way through the gate without a real prepared plan (false papers, etc).

 

[Jimlock]

.But I think it is going to be very hard in most circumstances to smooth talk your way through the gate without a real prepared plan (false papers, etc).

EXACTLY!

whenever the DM feels its necessary, he should increase the DCs considerably.

If the idea is "out there" its +20... or even more if the DM sees it should.

A proposition that is "out there" does not necessarily mean that you try to convince the other,

that the whole "world" is carried on the back of a Donkey-God. It might as well be a simple thing that

is very hard to achieve.

If the Guard is NOT supposed to let ANYONE IN, trying to convince him without a plan

should have a VERY VERY high DC...

 

[NewJeffCT]

So do you tell your players "don't bother taking feats or items that make you really good at skill checks because i'm just going to make them harder so you fail as often as I think you should"?

Do you do the same with combat feats and items?

DS

My point above was that even the melee warriors are still going to miss a decent amount of the time in combat. Maybe the warrior will still miss less than half the time, but it's not an automatic success like a PC that is maxed out in a skill making a skill check.

Plus, in combat, a "1" is an automatic miss, but not so with skills.

 

[Redbadge]

My point above was that even the melee warriors are still going to miss a decent amount of the time in combat. Maybe the warrior will still miss less than half the time, but it's not an automatic success like a PC that is maxed out in a skill making a skill check.

Plus, in combat, a "1" is an automatic miss, but not so with skills.

It's not hard at all to create a character that can hit on a 2 every time. With a few re-roll abilities, it's possible for such characters to go several encounters without missing with an attack. Honestly, I think it is more likely for someone to build this type of character than they are to build one with a max skill in anything.

However, I have encountered a player that put everything possible into diplomacy such that hard DCs were unfailable. We always just treated as if her diplomacy was magical compulsion. (The character's Words of Friendship power, which gave her an additional +5 diplomacy once per encounter, even had the charm keyword). When the bard convinced a guard to let us through so easily, we just assumed it was because every word that came out of her mouth was dripping with arcane power (also why Vicious Mockery could literally kill people or knock them unconscious). It was a really cool and flavorful way of explaining why she could easily beat a DC 40. Your mileage may vary with martial characters, of course.

 

[Elf Witch]

Being up front works best with some players, not so well with others. When you change the rules behind the screen and refuse to explain why, instead relying on the player to be able to step back and re-examine the situation, it often won't work.

You have to remember that while you may have had fantastic, wonderful reasons why the roll didn't succeed, the three DM's he had before you didn't and used the whole "You don't know why" schtick to simply throw up road blocks to stop the player from doing whatever it was the DM didn't want him doing.

That is of course assuming you didn't try and explain things without giving it all a way. I said things like "you are surprised at his hostility because you have never faced this open kind of hostility from a cleric of St Cuthbert before."

I went on to say it is not normal but the player could not get past his I rolled a 20 this guy should be eating out of my hand.

He did accomplish what he set out to do with the diplomacy roll which was prevent a huge fight with weapons drawn between the cleric of St Cuthbert and a cleric of Pelor. I didn't totally make his roll worthless. His objective was to stop the fight and he accomplished that.What I didn't do was make this well informed cleric of St Cuthbert become this PCs best bud because it didn't make sense.


The player in question had never played a 3E game with any other DM then me. So there was no past of being screwed over by other DMs.

I can't stand whiny player entitlement issues if you can't trust your DM not to screw you then don't play. I have gotten really tired of this attitude that I am seeing a lot lately that players expect only positive outstanding outcomes. That if somehow the DM changes things like monster stats or decides that there is no way you can use diplomacy to make an NPC friendly then somehow the DM is cheating.

 

[Elf Witch]

Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.

That is one way to look at it or another way is the DM is giving the players a challenge not a walk in the park so maybe they have to come up with a convincing plan.

Having the wizard cast charm is one around the situation another way is maybe using forgery to get the papers you need or you can try sneaking in , disguise , polymorph spells.

My mantra is if you don't trust your DM to be fair then why are you playing with them? Sheesh some players acts as if the rules are the only thing protecting them from a DM screwing them over. Which I find a sad state of affairs.

 

[Aldrick Tanith]

Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.

Sure, those spells are useful, but there are downsides. Just some examples:

1. Charm Person has both a verbal and somatic component. The guards on the wall above the gate should receive a check to see if they catch the wizard using his magic on the other guard. Not entirely likely, as I'd rule that casting this particular spell is not readily obvious, but they should receive a chance to catch the wizard all the same. Some feats could help avoid this...

2. Charm Person wears off. When it does, the guard is going to remember what he's done, and may have second thoughts. You could have him make a check to see if he goes and spills the beans to someone else, such as a buddy, who then might go and inform the guard captain. The charm person might get you in the door, but you're on a timer...

3. Charm Person might not even work in this situation, depending on what would happen to the guard if he allows them in... according to the description: "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing." You could easily argue that allowing them in counts as obviously harmful (he could, at a minimum, lose his status as guard - at worst, be executed). However, with an opposed charisma check (as per the spell description), and perhaps a diplomacy (not intimidate because you can't threaten) check to convince the guard that allowing them in is worth doing.

So, just to recap: Charm Person could get you inside but you must... First, avoid getting spotted by the guards on the wall above when casting the spell. Second, overcome the guards will save. Third, make a successful opposed charisma check. Fourth, make a successful diplomacy check. And even after doing all this, you STILL might be on a timer of one hour per level.

Additionally, let's not forget that once you bypass the first guard he isn't the only guard you're going to encounter once you're inside. So, really, I wouldn't think this is a very good course of action, unless you have a really generous DM.

Charm Person is more useful in isolated social situations, such as convincing a merchant to lower his prices on an item, or a guard that it isn't worth arresting another member of the group for a minor offense - that a warning is sufficient, convincing a wealthy nobleman to become the groups patron, etc. These are all very useful, subtle, and isolated social situations.