Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Aldrick Tanith]

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.

I agree with that assessment. At a certain point, if you raise your skills high enough, you effectively have supernatural powers. Whenever I think of insanely high skills, I always think of epic skill checks and "Swimming Up A Waterfall". Mentally, the very thought of doing this is impossible, silly, and ludicrous in the extreme. The only plausible way to have it make any sense at all is that it's supernatural.

This makes me think of the essay "D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations" by Justin Alexander. I think it pretty much covers how super high skills should be viewed from the (real world) perspective - they are beyond the ability of anything we could ever hope to achieve.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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.

Interesting, in my group, between the six PCs, they can throw a maxed-out skill at almost every type of skill problem out there (not just the social skills, but things like History, Dungeoneering, Nature, etc, as well) However, unless my level 7 party is fighting bad guys that are below their level, they're all missing if they roll below a 7,8 or 9 in combat.

 

[Redbadge]

Interesting, in my group, between the six PCs, they can throw a maxed-out skill at almost every type of skill problem out there (not just the social skills, but things like History, Dungeoneering, Nature, etc, as well) However, unless my level 7 party is fighting bad guys that are below their level, they're all missing if they roll below a 7,8 or 9 in combat.

We may have different definitions of what constitutes a "maxed-out" skill here. Of course it's easy to get a very high skill, but to max it out, I would have to include the proper background, race, items, maxed stat, and of course, Skill Focus. A party that all took Skill Focus in different skills is certainly possible, and would even be interesting and effective to an extent.

Similarly, to "max-out" an attack, you need a maxed out stat, +3 proficiency, various feats such as Nimble Blade, Deft Blade, an always up-to-date enhancement bonus, constant Combat Advantage, and of course, Expertise.

I guess I just meant that I've seen many more players take Expertise than I have Skill Focus. In fact, that one bard I mentioned is the only one I've ever seen to pick up that feat (Skill Focus - Diplomacy), and man did she ever make it her own.

 

[NewJeffCT]

We may have different definitions of what constitutes a "maxed-out" skill here. Of course it's easy to get a very high skill, but to max it out, I would have to include the proper background, race, items, maxed stat, and of course, Skill Focus. A party that all took Skill Focus in different skills is certainly possible, and would even be interesting and effective to an extent.

Similarly, to "max-out" an attack, you need a maxed out stat, +3 proficiency, various feats such as Nimble Blade, Deft Blade, an always up-to-date enhancement bonus, constant Combat Advantage, and of course, Expertise.

I guess I just meant that I've seen many more players take Expertise than I have Skill Focus. In fact, that one bard I mentioned is the only one I've ever seen to pick up that feat (Skill Focus - Diplomacy), and man did she ever make it her own.

I had not included Skill focus or anything like Deft Blade/Nimble Blade when calculating being "maxed out"

 

[Redbadge]

Just for fun (I hope I'm not derailing the thread):

Max Skill vs. Max Attack (at level 2 in order to get in an interesting item and an extra feat):

Level 2 Half-elf Bard Diplomacy: +5 (Trained) +5 (Charisma) +1 (Level) +2 (Half-elf) +2 (Background) +2 (Mark of Scribing) +3 (Skill Focus) +2 Skald's Armor = +22 Diplomacy versus Level 2 Hard DC 20 not including encounter power bonuses from Words of Friendship/Knack for Success. Chance to fail level 12 hard DC with + power bonus = 0%; Chance to fail level 18 moderate solo Diplomacy skill challenge = 0%!!!

Level 2 Elf Rogue Piercing Strike: +5 (Dexterity) +4 (Dagger Proficiency) +1 (Level) +1 (Luckblade Dagger) +2 (Combat Advantage) +1 (Nimble Blade) +1 (Light Blade Expertise) = +15 vs average level 2 Reflex 14 (level + 12) not including enounter reroll and daily reroll. Chance to miss in an average level 2 encounter with two rerolls = <1%. Chance to hit an average level 11 soldier with 2 rerolls = 95.7%.

 

[Hussar]

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...

But, then we get to the problems with math. What constitutes a "High DC"? Since the player only gets one shot at this, unlike combat where a miss doesn't really matter that much - you just try again next round - a missed check means that you fail outright. What is a "difficult" chance of failure? 80%? Why bother rolling? 50%? Well, at least it's even odds, it might be worth trying. 30%? Well, now I only fail 1/3 of the time, now talking seems like a fairly good idea to try.

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.

I don't think this is necessarily player entitlement. The player did everything right - he engaged the NPC, he played the game and he, by all expectations, gained the best possible result.

If he had no chance of success, why did you have him roll in the first place?

Since you play with critical successes for skills, it is unreasonable for the player to expect best results for rolling a critical success?

While you might dislike the player entitlement issues, personally, I loathe pixel-bitching. If there's a reason why my expectations are unreasonable, tell me. Don't leave me flailing around wondering what I did wrong when, from my perspective, I did everything right.

Don't expect that your players will care as much about your setting as you do.

 

[Hussar]

Interesting, in my group, between the six PCs, they can throw a maxed-out skill at almost every type of skill problem out there (not just the social skills, but things like History, Dungeoneering, Nature, etc, as well) However, unless my level 7 party is fighting bad guys that are below their level, they're all missing if they roll below a 7,8 or 9 in combat.

So, you have a group that has spent a large amount of their character resources on skills to ensure that their skills are going to be successful most of the time, thus making them weaker in combat (and with what you say here, MUCH weaker in combat) and you think that this is a problem with the system?

 

[Kzach]

I think too many people see the skill system as being binary; either you succeed or fail. I see it as allowing for degrees of success and failure. And ultimately, the DM decides what limits to place on those degrees. If he decides that, no matter what you roll or roleplay, the guards simply aren't going to let you inside, then guess what?

Now, that doesn't mean skill checks have to be automatic failures. You could still get useful information out of the guards. Heck, even those guards in London that are famous for not interacting with anyone give you information. They're loyalty, training and dedication are informative, although I'd say that's probably an extreme situation in any fantasy milieu.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think this is necessarily player entitlement. The player did everything right - he engaged the NPC, he played the game and he, by all expectations, gained the best possible result.

If he had no chance of success, why did you have him roll in the first place?

Since you play with critical successes for skills, it is unreasonable for the player to expect best results for rolling a critical success?

While you might dislike the player entitlement issues, personally, I loathe pixel-bitching. If there's a reason why my expectations are unreasonable, tell me. Don't leave me flailing around wondering what I did wrong when, from my perspective, I did everything right.

Don't expect that your players will care as much about your setting as you do.

He did have a chance at stopping the bloodshed which was his goal. And which he succeeded in. The cleric of Pelor reacted very positively to the bard and became very friendly. The cleric of St Cuthbert while listening to the bard and stopping his attack did not become friendly.

He was being a pissy baby because he felt that he didn't get to shine enough. The player is a good friend but I am glad he moved to far away to play with us anymore because he often had issues like this. He had fit in my roommate game because she made him take the penalty for fighting prone without having the feat. Because it made him less cool.

As I said before there was a good ingame reason which the player when he found out what it was thought it was cool and apologized for being so untrusting.

I don't leave my players hanging I don't make them flail around. All the other players at the table knew something was up but because they were not there they didn't feel right acting on knowledge their characters would not have had.

I expect players at my table to be willing to role play and be engaged in the world. They signed up to play in a role playing heavy game. If this is not the style they want then they are at the wrong table. No one is forcing them to be at it. As the DM I am not their slave and I need to have fun at the table as well.

 

[NewJeffCT]

So, you have a group that has spent a large amount of their character resources on skills to ensure that their skills are going to be successful most of the time, thus making them weaker in combat (and with what you say here, MUCH weaker in combat) and you think that this is a problem with the system?

Well, I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've seen a lot of power gamers over the years, but I've never seen anybody in game that regularly hits in combat on a 2 or better when faced with creatures of around the same level in any edition. Sure, a high level fighter against goblins is going to mow through them and only miss on a "1", but a level 15 fighter against the Big Bad Evil Guy, no, never seen it.

and, as I mentioned above, with just having a skill trained in 4E, plus having the max score in that ability makes it tough to fail even a "hard" DC, especially considering you have the rest of the party do "Aid Another" when the situation allows (which it does with skills far more than in combat) It's not a matter of spending a precious feat on Skill Focus to get +3 or something else that gives +1 bonuses to a skill. (A level 1 Wizard with a 20 Intelligence and trained in Arcana gets +12 right out of the box, meaning he only fails a Hard DC on a roll of 1-6. Two party members do Aid Another and his failure is only on a 1-2)