Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Krensky]

I agree with the argument that it social skills require appropriate use of modifiers, but also that static DCs are usually the wrong basis.

All of these should really be opposed rolls, and need appropriate modifiers and GM adjudication along with appropriately limited scope.

To make use of the example so far, using the social char in one of my current games and a generic Mercenary NPC from the Rogue's galery to provide odds:

The PCs show up and tell the guards they have orders to be let in.
The claim is suspicious and the guard is Cold, so the PC is looking at a -16 to -20. Note that if the PC in question rolls a 1 (which is also a failure) or a negative result bad things happen. PC (at level 3) in question has a +11, so a final opposed roll is the PC at -5 to -9 vs the NPC at +1.

Now, if the PC makes the roll, the guard buys the lie. They still have no reason disobey their orders without more though.

So the PC tries to persuade the guard. Since he believes the lie regarding their orders, I'll give them a +2. So the PC is at -20 to -24 (Cold, dangerous, no incentive). So the PC is at -7 to -13 vs +1.

Now, the PC in question has a few more tricks to make pulling this off somewhat more likely, and actual forged papers would help a lot. So would some bribery. Those modifiers are straight out of my preferred game, and it works quite well.

Now, granted, they also let the PC in question twist those who like her around her little finger but of course they want to help her, she's their friend.

 

[Hussar]

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)

I take it you didn't play much higher level D&D then (in any edition). If you had, then you'd see that it wasn't all that uncommon for the fighter types at least to pretty much only miss on a 1 (at least with their primary attacks). I find it very difficult to believe that in 30 years of gaming you've never seen characters that only miss on a, say, 1-5 regularly.

You also presume that the allies can always Aid Another, which is not always true, ignore the fact that failing an Aid Another check imposes a -1 penalty to the check, and, you still haven't answered the question: what constitutes a "hard" check?

When the check is binary, what chance of failure makes it a "hard" check.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Ah, well, context is of course everything. A problem player is a problem player. I cannot comment on players that I've never seen. I simply pointed out that it isn't always the player who's at fault.

I've seen this go both ways, so, fair enough.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Then your players are significantly worse at building combat characters than they are at building skillful ones. This has been possible since 3rd edition.

I think this whole topic is yet another example of "martial characters don't get to do cool things".

Noone bats an eye when charm person (which makes someone your friend) gets the guard to let you past. But when the bard (or insert other skill user) does the exact same thing with diplomacy, it's somehow an issue.

I think part of the key is probably not to expect the player of the diplomizing character to be an expert in con games, any more than you expect the player of a warrior to be an expert in swinging a sword. If the idea of persuasion above and beyond mortal men is really that hard to swallow, you might consider reading some works on con games, giving the character in question a cheat sheet on them and then giving the characters enough time and the setup to pull them off.

Lets face it, most DMs will think hard about the location and layout of a fight with guards, but chances are they won't detail the guards on a complex enough to allow a con man a decent chance to do his thing.

 

[Hussar]

I remember an incident in my game were the bard/beguiler tried diplomacy on a cleric of ST Cuthbert.

/snip

Now when I DM upfront I tell players that good rolls on social skills don't always work and there will always be a reason behind it when they fail or don't get the exact response you want.

Going back to your first point on this sidebar Elf Witch.

Did the problem player know beforehand that you had house ruled how skills worked? That there was a chance that you might rule by fiat that a given skill will fail, based on how you feel the setting works?

I guess this is what my problem here is. If the player didn't know that you were changing the rules, his reaction is fairly understandable. And, since you now say that you are up front and inform the players that the rules are subject to change, I'd say that he didn't know beforehand.

OTOH, a problem player is a problem player regardless of the rules and no amount of rules and communication is likely going to help. :/

 

[S'mon]

Did the problem player know beforehand that you had house ruled how skills worked? That there was a chance that you might rule by fiat that a given skill will fail, based on how you feel the setting works?

In which edition is it a house rule to use judgement in the application of social skills? In which edition does it say that success in a social skill roll always gets the PC what he wants? Even 3e Diplomacy "Friendly, will take risks to help the PC" doesn't say that.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I take it you didn't play much higher level D&D then (in any edition). If you had, then you'd see that it wasn't all that uncommon for the fighter types at least to pretty much only miss on a 1 (at least with their primary attacks). I find it very difficult to believe that in 30 years of gaming you've never seen characters that only miss on a, say, 1-5 regularly.

You also presume that the allies can always Aid Another, which is not always true, ignore the fact that failing an Aid Another check imposes a -1 penalty to the check, and, you still haven't answered the question: what constitutes a "hard" check?

When the check is binary, what chance of failure makes it a "hard" check.

My last campaign was 3.5E and ran from level 1 to level 18. Even at the very end of the campaign nobody was hitting on a roll of 2 or better against anything. That includes me (the DM) with bad guys built with help from people on here and the WotC forums. And, the PCs included a level 18 dwarf fighter with max strength, a lot of combat-oriented feats, a belt of giant strength and an axe +4.

Of course, the final showdown was against the Big Bad Evil Guy, his pit fiend bodyguard and the general of the BBEG's armies, a specially built 'charging' paladin of tyranny. The worst AC of the main evil group was probably the paladin of tyranny, and I'm pretty sure the paladin's AC was good enough to not get hit by the dwarf on a roll of 2.

(Also, I did not use the "standard" pit fiend from the Monster Manual with its "average" stats and no magic items)

And, in 4E, a "hard" DC is 19 at level 1, 24 at level 8 and 28 at level 12, 30 at level 16 and 38 at level 25.

My longest campaigns in 2E and 3.0 were as a player in a different group, but I know nobody was regularly hitting bad guys when rolling a 2 or higher, even when the 3.0 campaign got into the mid 20s level-wise. And, not the 2E min-maxed elven bladesinger with great rolled stats.

 

[Elf Witch]

Then your players are significantly worse at building combat characters than they are at building skillful ones. This has been possible since 3rd edition.

I think this whole topic is yet another example of "martial characters don't get to do cool things".

Noone bats an eye when charm person (which makes someone your friend) gets the guard to let you past. But when the bard (or insert other skill user) does the exact same thing with diplomacy, it's somehow an issue.

I think part of the key is probably not to expect the player of the diplomizing character to be an expert in con games, any more than you expect the player of a warrior to be an expert in swinging a sword. If the idea of persuasion above and beyond mortal men is really that hard to swallow, you might consider reading some works on con games, giving the character in question a cheat sheet on them and then giving the characters enough time and the setup to pull them off.

Lets face it, most DMs will think hard about the location and layout of a fight with guards, but chances are they won't detail the guards on a complex enough to allow a con man a decent chance to do his thing.

I think the difference is that charm person is a magical compulsion and will usually get people to do things that diplomacy won't and even that has limitations.

When I DM and have players who have made a social type character then I make sure I put challenges into allow them to use their abilities. I have seen diplomacy, bluff, intimidate put to good use in my games. I had a bard/rogue in one game who had skills not just in bluff, but forgery and disguise. He often used all three to get the party into places that they shouldn't have been in.

My issue is with the idea that these social skills will always work on every NPC if you just roll high enough.

Look at it this way you have reached the climax of the campaign and you are facing the BBEG and his minions who have made your lives miserable. You are itching for payback. The fighter is buffed and ready , the mages have spells ready and the bard tries diplomacy to get the bad guys to just give up. And he rolls fantastically and basically under the rules he has succeeded in changing the BBEG mind to friendly and helpful.

Talk about anticlimactic and unrealistic.

IMO there are some situations where it just ruins believability especially in a role playing heavy game for that to happen.

 

[Elf Witch]

Going back to your first point on this sidebar Elf Witch.

Did the problem player know beforehand that you had house ruled how skills worked? That there was a chance that you might rule by fiat that a given skill will fail, based on how you feel the setting works?

I guess this is what my problem here is. If the player didn't know that you were changing the rules, his reaction is fairly understandable. And, since you now say that you are up front and inform the players that the rules are subject to change, I'd say that he didn't know beforehand.

OTOH, a problem player is a problem player regardless of the rules and no amount of rules and communication is likely going to help. :/

I had never considered it a problem. In the games I had played in under other DMs there were times when no matter how high you rolled you were not going to be able to use social skills to drastically change things.

I had told the players that there were some changes from normal games like sentient creatures having a choice on their alignment and that you were just as likely to meet a good red dragon as you were an evil one.

We all said that we wanted a heavy story type role playing game.

I didn't specially address the social skill issue. Because of what happened I do now.

One of the reasons I sound so irritated by it with this player is because he was the type who would moan and complain if you followed the RAW and it made it hard for him to do something. But he also complained if you didn't and it didn't work out good for him. Basically he never wanted anything other then total success for his actions.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think the difference is that charm person is a magical compulsion and will usually get people to do things that diplomacy won't and even that has limitations.

When I DM and have players who have made a social type character then I make sure I put challenges into allow them to use their abilities. I have seen diplomacy, bluff, intimidate put to good use in my games. I had a bard/rogue in one game who had skills not just in bluff, but forgery and disguise. He often used all three to get the party into places that they shouldn't have been in.

My issue is with the idea that these social skills will always work on every NPC if you just roll high enough.

Look at it this way you have reached the climax of the campaign and you are facing the BBEG and his minions who have made your lives miserable. You are itching for payback. The fighter is buffed and ready , the mages have spells ready and the bard tries diplomacy to get the bad guys to just give up. And he rolls fantastically and basically under the rules he has succeeded in changing the BBEG mind to friendly and helpful.

Talk about anticlimactic and unrealistic.

IMO there are some situations where it just ruins believability especially in a role playing heavy game for that to happen.

You said it a lot more eloquently than me, but this was what I was going for in terms of "social" skills. Also, with Charms, the potential victim gets a saving throw. With Diplomacy, there is no save.

I must spread XP around before giving to Elf Witch again, however.