I think a "hard" check would be one with a more than 60% chance of failure, if not more than 67%.
I think even an "easy" DC should still have a 33% chance of failure.
Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?
- Thread starter NewJeffCT
- Start date
I think a "hard" check would be one with a more than 60% chance of failure, if not more than 67%.
I think even an "easy" DC should still have a 33% chance of failure.
Redbadge
Explorer
What about the theoretical character I gave that had a +22 Diplomacy check at level 2 (+27 with powers). Surely you wouldn't set the level 2 "hard" DC at 40 (roll a 13 or higher).
Or were you thinking more about those characters that have +12 at level 2, so you would set the hard DC at 25 (rather than 20), so that my bard friend still has a chance to shine.
A good example of a literary character than would be hard-pressed to fail a "hard" check would be Tyrion Lannister, IMO (from A Song of Ice and Fire Series). I've seen him talk himself out of even the most dire and unfathomable of circumstances (with a little luck of course, which I guess would be the d20 roll). I'm sure you can think of many other examples.
No, a DC:40 would be too difficult for a level 2. However, I definitely could see adding 5 or so to the DC, like you suggested.
Tyrion is also very skilled with Diplomacy - as he says in the books, his weapon is his mind and he has spent years honing it, like his brother had spent years honing his skills with the sword (when he wasn't boffing his sister...)
Redbadge
Explorer
I just thought of an example for Tyrion:
Some people have complained that the d20 and 4e mechanics make it too easy for characters to make Diplomacy checks that seem unrealistic (that is the purpose of this thread, after all). In fact, logically it would seem impossible to move an NPC from hostile to friendly, no matter what a player's roll was.
However, isn't this similar what Tyrion does (who has no magical abilities what-so-ever) when he returns to Winterfell coming back from the wall and is greeted with much hostility from Rob Stark. I'm not sure he moves him all the way from hostile to friendly, but from what I remember it's pretty close.
Some of my other favorite examples from that same book of his Diplomacy skills is when he is in the Eyrie (both in sky cells with the guard and when he "confesses"), and also when he convinces the wild men not to kill him on his way out of the vale.
These examples are fresh on my mind because of the TV adaption, but I've read the entire series, and there are many, many more examples.
Some people have complained that the d20 and 4e mechanics make it too easy for characters to make Diplomacy checks that seem unrealistic (that is the purpose of this thread, after all). In fact, logically it would seem impossible to move an NPC from hostile to friendly, no matter what a player's roll was.
However, isn't this similar what Tyrion does (who has no magical abilities what-so-ever) when he returns to Winterfell coming back from the wall and is greeted with much hostility from Rob Stark. I'm not sure he moves him all the way from hostile to friendly, but from what I remember it's pretty close.
Some of my other favorite examples from that same book of his Diplomacy skills is when he is in the Eyrie (both in sky cells with the guard and when he "confesses"), and also when he convinces the wild men not to kill him on his way out of the vale.
These examples are fresh on my mind because of the TV adaption, but I've read the entire series, and there are many, many more examples.
I just re-read the book, but have barely watched the TV series, so I can't comment on that. In 3E/3.5E, Tyrion would obviously be a higher level Aristocrat with most of his feats & ranks in social skills.
I wouldn't say Robb was hostile in the book. However, I would say Tyrion managed to change his attitude from Unfriendly to Indifferent only after Robb got confirmation that the saddle diagram Tyrion drew up for Bran was something that could work.
The prison guard got a large sack full of gold, and that was only to tell Lyssa that he was going to confess. The guard also knew that a Lannister always pays their debts. Unfriendly to Friendly is DC:25, while Unfriendly to Helpful is DC: 40.
Convincing the wild men was impressive, but keep in mind that Tyrion is likely decently high in level In 3.5E, turning a Hostile party to Indifferent is a DC: 25.
If he is a level 10 aristocrat, he could have up to 13 ranks in Diplomacy, plus another 2-3 for Charisma of 14 or 16, plus another 3 for Skill Focus and another +2 or +4 for various skill synergies. So, possibly a +23 to his roll.
![[OMENRPG]Ben](/data/avatars/m/6677/6677983.jpg?1565264961){kind=avatar}
[OMENRPG]Ben
First Post
Certainly Tyrion is a highly skilled aristocrat, but the biggest reason he's able to persuade people is due to his family's reputation. He offers them gold if they help, or death if they harm him. To most folks that's a fairly daunting proposition, especially if the reputation of said proposer can actually follow through with his claims.
For instance, if the President is in a diplomatic meeting with some foreign sovereign, and he obliquely promises "aid" (whether it be money or weapons or troops) or the potential for war (occupation, regime changing, etc.) most would agree to the terms of the President's proposition, even if his diplomatic skills were terrible.
What I'm getting at here is that the conditional modifier of someone's reputation is potentially one of the largest applicable in any game system. A Jedi can convince people to stop doing what they're doing not just with the Force (which certainly helps them with the weak minded) but because they are backed and supported by their extreme combat abilities and the massive military/economic force of the Republic.
If the above mentioned level one diplomacy master with a potential for +27 could certainly be extremely convincing or persuasive, but if a guard at a gate is afraid that if he disobeys orders his family will be strung up from the battlements after he is executed, I doubt even the most convincing (yet otherwise unknown) character could convince him to leave his post.
Transversely, if a host of 5 extremely well-known and extremely powerful characters, renowned for their tendency to behead obstinate guards, arrives at the gate, that guard would more than likely weigh his options.
For instance, if the President is in a diplomatic meeting with some foreign sovereign, and he obliquely promises "aid" (whether it be money or weapons or troops) or the potential for war (occupation, regime changing, etc.) most would agree to the terms of the President's proposition, even if his diplomatic skills were terrible.
What I'm getting at here is that the conditional modifier of someone's reputation is potentially one of the largest applicable in any game system. A Jedi can convince people to stop doing what they're doing not just with the Force (which certainly helps them with the weak minded) but because they are backed and supported by their extreme combat abilities and the massive military/economic force of the Republic.
If the above mentioned level one diplomacy master with a potential for +27 could certainly be extremely convincing or persuasive, but if a guard at a gate is afraid that if he disobeys orders his family will be strung up from the battlements after he is executed, I doubt even the most convincing (yet otherwise unknown) character could convince him to leave his post.
Transversely, if a host of 5 extremely well-known and extremely powerful characters, renowned for their tendency to behead obstinate guards, arrives at the gate, that guard would more than likely weigh his options.
Last edited:
It was an attempt in 3e to substitute "rule-play" for "role-play". The problem being that role-playing such a situation involves a certain skill-set from the DM and players which not everyone has.
This deficiency was seen not as a player/DM problem, but as a problem with the game itself. So they "fixed" it, taking the role-play out of the equation completely.
It is one of the reasons I never played 3e.
This deficiency was seen not as a player/DM problem, but as a problem with the game itself. So they "fixed" it, taking the role-play out of the equation completely.
It is one of the reasons I never played 3e.
[OMENRPG]Ben
First Post
That is similar to saying that adding rules for spells, casting times, and other such descriptions are designed to remove the "role-play" for the game. What if a player wishes to play a spellcaster but has no real idea how to describe his spells or how they would manifest on the battlefield? Similarly, if a player wanted to play a charming and diplomatic character while lacking the eloquence to do him justice, wouldn't it be fair for a diplomacy system to be put in place? That's not a lack of willingness to role-play, that is punishing players for an inability that might not be evident in their character.
That is the whole element of the "game" in the Role-Playing Game. Otherwise you're just playing pretend.
I guess that is one way to look at. In my experience having the ability to roll skills like that give players who don't have the real life skills to be glib of tongue a chance to pay and succeed at being a character that does.
I don't think it is perfect by a long shot. As a role player myself I would like to see it role played out and I would hate to see a wonderful speech fail because of dice roll.
Which is why when I DM I let the player try and role play it out first. Sometimes I don't even ask for a role. But if the player feels that he really can't role play it out well then I let him make a roll.
I am not sure how to make it better. Not having a skill check for it can be problematic for some players and having one can also cause problems.
Similar Threads
