Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2320619" data-attributes="member: 4937">That is rather odd.  Are you certain that you have accurately recorded the table that all three GM's use?   Again, the pattern you describe is not found in the rules that I have.   Where did that pattern (1,8,12,20) come from?   Does anyone know if a there is a book out there with an alternative take on diplomacy from which all three GM's - who don't know each other - could have arrived at the same unusual house rule?The rules I have state that for an indifferent character, a roll 30 will make them helpful, a roll of 15 will make them friendly, a roll of at least 1 will result in no change, and only a roll of less than 1 will result in them becoming unfriendly.  It's virtually impossible to roll less than one with normal characters.   You'd have to have an 8 Charisma, and then roll a 1 on a d20.  The bigger problem most people have with the diplomacy RAW is that its virtually impossible to not obtain a good result from a diplomacy check.  What you may be seeing is an over compensation for this problem, but its absolutely bizarre that three DM's who don't know each other would have arrived at the same (if you don't mind me saying so ill thought out) method of handling this more usual problem.Yes.That is a rules interpretation, not a rule and in my opinion it is a rather odd interpretation.  I do not find in the rules where it says that in general, skills are only invoked by player choice.  Yes, a player can request a Diplomacy check, in the same say that a player can request a Sense Motive check.   But in many cases, Diplomacy checks are alot like Balance checks.   They are sometimes used to deliberately walk balance beams, but they are also sometimes demanded by the situation that the character finds himself in, and IMO virtually any social interaction can qualify.  The main reason that I find it exceptionally odd that Diplomacy is something that never occurs unless the player demands it, is that under a strict interpretation of that rule a player could make a character with 3 CHR and never suffer any penalties for doing so.  The character can be grotesquely socially inept, but as long as you've forbidden the DM from requesting a Diplomacy check of the player on the grounds that Diplomacy is always a deliberate choice, the character never takes a penalty from his charisma.   In short, all the charisma's in the world could be classified into two sorts - those with bonuses to social skills and those that never come into play.That to me is a bizarre, and I don't think its nearly as well founded in the rules as you believe.  That is an opinion.Errr... hrrmmm...  you do realize that an attitude check is just an untrained Diplomacy check right?  At the very least, even if this isn't explicit, there is nothing which suggests that the DM should not let Diplomacy checks substitute for attitude checks at any time.As I pointed out, this is a house rule.  Unless the other party already holds a negative attitude to you, generally only results under 1 make the other party more negative toward you.Well, yes, I agree.  But my point is that the RAW do not have as unreasonable of a standard.   What's unreasonable is the table that you provided which suggested that all things being equal 8 or less is negative result.   Where did that table come from?I did.   See above responce.</blockquote>

Verification