Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[NewJeffCT]

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.

Agreed on that. My last campaign featured a guy playing a charismatic sorcerer. While he's a decent enough guy IRL, he certainly does not have the magnetic presence of somebody with an 18+ charisma. However, that was his character concept and he ended up doing pretty well with the spells and everything. And, he did try some role-playing towards the end of the campaign even...

 

[Jeffrey]

Whats funny is that I understand the "why" of it, and how something like this was needed for the game to penetrate into new audiences and grow. I generally approved of many of the related decisions from 3e.

But that one was a philosophical deal-breaker for me. I just stuck with my house-ruled 1.795e.

It was fun following the 3e explosion from the sidelines, however.

While it was not the game I played, it was still D&D.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

The charm spell explicitly says that it makes the target your friend. It's not a compulsion to do a specific thing and it's not general purpose mind control. It makes the target consider you a friend. A good friend, but a friend. That same guard that is invincible to diplomacy and intimidate should still be saying "look, you're a good buddy but I still can't let you it".

In 3rd, it does have an extra "you can get people to do things against their nature with a roll" clause, but you still have to ask them to do it, and it never says that they're happy doing it.

Again - it's part of the "magic gets away with anything" effect. DMs look at the spell and just assume that the target does whatever you want, while someone aceing that diplomacy or intimidate will get all kinds of funny looks.

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

I agree that the social interaction mechanics are fairly poor. However once again - cast a spell and it just works.

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.

Yup, the BBEG likes the bard and wants to help him. That doesn't mean he'll spare his friends. It doesn't mean that he'll just give up and become a good guy unconditionally. It doesn't even mean that he won't kill the bard - it just means he'll see to it that he gets resurrected afterwards - death is just a speedbump after all. It does mean that he'll feel conflicted about it. It does mean that he'll most likely accept the bard's surrender. He might change aspects of how he goes about his plan. He might believe the bard if the bard can convince him that his plan is flawed.

Just take a look at the interaction between Professor X and Magneto (as the first thing to spring to mind). The guys are friends, really good friends. That doesn't stop magneto knocking Prof. X out of action, and doesn't stop him from continuing his plans for eradicating the human race. It doesn't stop professor X from seeing that magneto is imprisoned for his crimes. In fact pretty much the only thing that it changes is that Magneto seems to make at least some effort not to kill Prof X. and vice versa.

I'd also like to point out that it's pretty anticlimactic if the wizard just does something like cast imprisonment.

Talk about anticlimactic and unrealistic.

An anticlimax is just an excuse to have a bigger climax later.

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

You don't need to change the rules and assign arbitrarily large penalties if you just read the rules. The rules aren't the unrealistic and unbelievable thing here - the adjudication of those rules is. Friends don't unconditionally obey each other. Friends disagree. Friends fall out. Friends become the bitterest enemies.

 

[Elf Witch]

The charm spell explicitly says that it makes the target your friend. It's not a compulsion to do a specific thing and it's not general purpose mind control. It makes the target consider you a friend. A good friend, but a friend. That same guard that is invincible to diplomacy and intimidate should still be saying "look, you're a good buddy but I still can't let you it".

In 3rd, it does have an extra "you can get people to do things against their nature with a roll" clause, but you still have to ask them to do it, and it never says that they're happy doing it.

Again - it's part of the "magic gets away with anything" effect. DMs look at the spell and just assume that the target does whatever you want, while someone aceing that diplomacy or intimidate will get all kinds of funny looks.

I agree that the social interaction mechanics are fairly poor. However once again - cast a spell and it just works.

Yup, the BBEG likes the bard and wants to help him. That doesn't mean he'll spare his friends. It doesn't mean that he'll just give up and become a good guy unconditionally. It doesn't even mean that he won't kill the bard - it just means he'll see to it that he gets resurrected afterwards - death is just a speedbump after all. It does mean that he'll feel conflicted about it. It does mean that he'll most likely accept the bard's surrender. He might change aspects of how he goes about his plan. He might believe the bard if the bard can convince him that his plan is flawed.

Just take a look at the interaction between Professor X and Magneto (as the first thing to spring to mind). The guys are friends, really good friends. That doesn't stop magneto knocking Prof. X out of action, and doesn't stop him from continuing his plans for eradicating the human race. It doesn't stop professor X from seeing that magneto is imprisoned for his crimes. In fact pretty much the only thing that it changes is that Magneto seems to make at least some effort not to kill Prof X. and vice versa.

I'd also like to point out that it's pretty anticlimactic if the wizard just does something like cast imprisonment.

An anticlimax is just an excuse to have a bigger climax later.


You don't need to change the rules and assign arbitrarily large penalties if you just read the rules. The rules aren't the unrealistic and unbelievable thing here - the adjudication of those rules is. Friends don't unconditionally obey each other. Friends disagree. Friends fall out. Friends become the bitterest enemies.

I am one of these people who believe that magic is powerful should be powerful and trumps non magic because that is its nature. So yes a magical spell like charm person is more powerful than a nonmagical skill.

And if you read the charm person spell if letting the PCs it will cause harm to the guard he is not going to do it.

You can not make a charmed person put himself in deadly danger if you try he gets another saving throw to break the hold.

In my example the bard has killed many of the BBEG minions and his family he has ruined so many of his plans that BBEG just wants him dead well not just dead but hurting then dead. With that kind of mindset there is no way a diplomacy skill no matter how high should ever work.

Now if the two used to be friends like Professor X and Magneto then yes I can see using diplomacy to try and resolve the issue.

To me its not just the roll that should matter the attitudes of the NPCs should also play a part.

Its like say jump I don't care how many ranks you have in it without magical aid you are not jumping safely across the Grand Canyon. I don't care how well you roll.

Once my suspicion of disbelief has been ruined the game loses the fun for me. Both as a player and as a DM.

You are right friends don't just blindly obey but in the skill description they can become friendly and helpful. That last part is what I had an issue with in my game. Which was the bard expected the cleric to become friendly towards him and not to stay hostile and suspicious. The player was upset because under the rules the cleric should not have been that way.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I just thought of an example for Tyrion:

Tyrion doesn't convince just anybody, like Catelyn Stark.

On the way to the Eyrie, he charmed several guards (into losing bets and giving him clothing so he didn't freeze to death), and he charmed a dumb guard. He did not, however, manage to charm any important characters, except possibly Bronn. (And I think that was Bronn making an Int check.)

Of course, GRRM isn't a DM. He's the ultimate authority in his universe, so Tyrion can be super-charming and the story still works.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Ahh, I've played with him too. Yeah, that sucks.

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.

See, that's where the problem lies. If you have a 60% chance of failure on a check, that means that other solutions are almost universally better. I mean, in 3e, most spells have a WAY better chance of success than that. Simply beating the guard to death is probably much more effective as well.

By making the checks that much harder, you push your players into choosing other options because they are just as capable of calculating the odds as you are. If I have two courses of action - letting the rogue sneak attack and knock the guard unconscious or trying to talk my way past - whichever option has the best chance of success is the most logical choice to make.

If you want to make the difficulty higher, I would suggest you also allow lots of retries as well - just like it works in combat. Otherwise, why would a player ever actually use any skills?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I am one of these people who believe that magic is powerful should be powerful and trumps non magic because that is its nature. So yes a magical spell like charm person is more powerful than a nonmagical skill.

"If you want to be a hero, play a spellcaster. Everyone else gets to be a henchman".

That's fine as long as you're up front with your players about it.

In my example the bard has killed many of the BBEG minions and his family he has ruined so many of his plans that BBEG just wants him dead well not just dead but hurting then dead.

... and then meets him and he seems kind of nice. Or seems like he'd be worth more as an ally than an enemy (obviously he's powerful and ruthless...).

Like I said - the guy isn't going to just roll over and give up, but he might offer that traditional "Join me, and we rule the world as equals, or stand against me and be the target of my regretful wrath" speech.

With that kind of mindset there is no way a diplomacy skill no matter how high should ever work.

Why, just because you say so?

Now if the two used to be friends like Professor X and Magneto then yes I can see using diplomacy to try and resolve the issue.

To me its not just the roll that should matter the attitudes of the NPCs should also play a part.

I totally agree. And so do the rules. Helpful creatures don't just hand over their loot and retire from evil. They just help you while remaining true to their nature.

Its like say jump I don't care how many ranks you have in it without magical aid you are not jumping safely across the Grand Canyon. I don't care how well you roll.

If they actually had the ranks to do that, they'd be at the sort of level where colossal dragons are gnats they crush with their bare hands on a whim. And that's just the wizards.

Now, I seriously doubt that you're playing at that sort of level, and if you were, I'd be highly surprised to find that it was the moment when barry the fighter jumped across the grand canyon that was when your sense of verisimilitude broke.

So lets just put this one down to a strawman.

Once my suspicion of disbelief has been ruined the game loses the fun for me. Both as a player and as a DM.

You are right friends don't just blindly obey but in the skill description they can become friendly and helpful. That last part is what I had an issue with in my game. Which was the bard expected the cleric to become friendly towards him and not to stay hostile and suspicious. The player was upset because under the rules the cleric should not have been that way.

I think you did the right thing in that scenario. Not being a supremely gifted negotiator, it's hard for me to imagine how the conversation that leads up to someone befriending the target of their hatred goes (however apply the same thing to, say, casting magic missile), but I don't see an issue with the result of that friendship being a grudging tolerance rather than skipping down the street holding hands.

 

[Elf Witch]

"If you want to be a hero, play a spellcaster. Everyone else gets to be a henchman".

That's fine as long as you're up front with your players about it.

... and then meets him and he seems kind of nice. Or seems like he'd be worth more as an ally than an enemy (obviously he's powerful and ruthless...).

Like I said - the guy isn't going to just roll over and give up, but he might offer that traditional "Join me, and we rule the world as equals, or stand against me and be the target of my regretful wrath" speech.

Why, just because you say so?

I totally agree. And so do the rules. Helpful creatures don't just hand over their loot and retire from evil. They just help you while remaining true to their nature.

If they actually had the ranks to do that, they'd be at the sort of level where colossal dragons are gnats they crush with their bare hands on a whim. And that's just the wizards.

Now, I seriously doubt that you're playing at that sort of level, and if you were, I'd be highly surprised to find that it was the moment when barry the fighter jumped across the grand canyon that was when your sense of verisimilitude broke.

So lets just put this one down to a strawman.


I think you did the right thing in that scenario. Not being a supremely gifted negotiator, it's hard for me to imagine how the conversation that leads up to someone befriending the target of their hatred goes (however apply the same thing to, say, casting magic missile), but I don't see an issue with the result of that friendship being a grudging tolerance rather than skipping down the street holding hands.

Well first you have to buy the argument that spellcasters are the greatest and everyone else is just a henchmen. Which I don't and funny enough I have never encounter this idea any place but on boards. One of my son's gaming buddies is a powergamer to the max. He is the one I go to for advice on how to build something or ask his opinion on if something is to powerful. And he doesn't buy this old argument.

Plenty of my gaming buddies choose to play non spellcasters have have a blast and never feel that they don't have narrative control or that they are anyone's henchmen.


But I have found that there is really no point in beating this dead horse. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mind.

Yes you have murdered my wife but you seem nice so I will try and make an ally out of you. Why because you have such a golden tongue.

Damn skippy because I said so I am the DM and I have no problem accepting that has a player but then I only play with DMs I trust so I don't feel as if I am being screwed.

Sorry no I don't care if you can crush a dragon like a bug. You are crushing the dragon because of your fighting skill, your weapons training and most likely with the aide of a magical weapon. None of that means your thighs are strong enough to give you the power to jump the Grand Canyon without magical aid. Just like I don't care what your saving throw is if you fall into lava you die pretty much instantly even if you have resistance to fire.

Grudging tolerance is still not friendly or helpful in a lot of players eyes. Which is my point that there are times no matter how well you roll a social skill it may not give you all the benefits you would have hoped for.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Sorry no I don't care if you can crush a dragon like a bug. You are crushing the dragon because of your fighting skill, your weapons training and most likely with the aide of a magical weapon. None of that means your thighs are strong enough to give you the power to jump the Grand Canyon without magical aid. Just like I don't care what your saving throw is if you fall into lava you die pretty much instantly even if you have resistance to fire.

*quote from Wikipedia*
The fifth Labour of Heracles was to clean the Augean stables. This assignment was intended to be both humiliating (rather than impressive, as had the previous labours) and impossible, since the livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung. These stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there.
*end quote from Wikipedia*

If you are going for a totally realistic campaign then DnD really isn't the system for it. At high levels the skills can let the heros do things nobody in the "real world" can do without the aid of magic weapons or spells.

Such as...

1. Convincing a naked emperor he is wearing new clothes.
2. Convincing a dark lord of the sith to turn against his evil ways and regain his humanity (instead of just getting rid of him by slicing off his head).
3. Climbing a beanstalk all the way into the clouds without it breaking or you falling to your death.
4. Noticing a pea under multiples mattresses by feel alone.
5. Planting a forest of trees across the continental United States.
6. Becoming best buddies with a supremely powerful beast because you did him a minor favor he could have done himself (like say removing a thorn from his paw)

DS

 

[Saeviomagy]

Sorry no I don't care if you can crush a dragon like a bug. You are crushing the dragon because of your fighting skill, your weapons training and most likely with the aide of a magical weapon. None of that means your thighs are strong enough to give you the power to jump the Grand Canyon without magical aid. Just like I don't care what your saving throw is if you fall into lava you die pretty much instantly even if you have resistance to fire.

No. At the level where you can jump across the grand canyon without magic aid, you are also beating fire-breathing blue-whale sized lizards to death with your bare hands and no magical assistance, when your chosen profession is to read books and generally avoid physical combat.

Also

Viewing Hawai`i's lava safely - a reminder

Guy falls in lava. Sure he sustains some seriously bad burns, but survives. And he's nowhere near punching out an elephant.