D&D 3E/3.5 Eliminating Class and Cross-Class Skills (3.5)

[Greg K]

In any given group, about 1/3rd of my players will have some points invested in cross class skills. Balance, spot, and listen are all particularly attractive choices because no one else can do them for you, and just a few ranks can have large dividends.

Those skills along with hide, move silent, and swim. As DM, I encourage my players to diversify skills and use some of their x4 at first level. I also encourage them to diversify after play begins.

Then again, if they do, I will take the DMG advice and take into account their skill ranks when assigning many of the DCs (however, the world still exists and some things will be harder or easier).

On the flipside, if they don't diversify, I will assume they want their characters to be weak in specific areas and hit them in those areas- to encourage some diversification (just like happens in some movies and books in which the character encounters such a situation and then develops some skill).

Not everyone that disagrees with you considers themselves a beginner.

Agreed.

 

[ValhallaGH]

These two spells are not I win D&D skills. Such abuse, like infinite wishes, only takes place if the DM allows it to take place.

Right. IF the DM uses the interaction skills as written, and IF the DM allows time for solutions other than slaughter to be attempted, THEN Bluff and Diplomacy are "I WIN D&D".

"Make hostile creature helpful. DC 50 Diplomacy. At least 1 minute of interaction."
If they Players choose a reasonable opening phrase, in the mind of their foes, it behooves the INTELLIGENT DM to let them continue to speak until they really muck it up. If they don't muck it up (and some of them won't) then they will have had enough interaction time to justify a Diplomacy check. If they have a +20 and roll well (15+) then they will make their foe FRIENDLY.
Friendly creatures don't fight you, as they wish you well and will offer limited advice and help (from their perspective); yes, being friendly may mean the lich offers to turn you into a vampire or other powerful undead, trying to persuade you, his friends, that it is the wise and right choice, but he's no longer actively trying to kill the party.

Bluff is equally potent, especially used as a set-up for Diplomacy. A successful bluff can provide time for a non-slaughter solution.


Which means that the INTELLIGENT DM only has three options.
1) Change the interaction skill rules, so that these options work differently.
2) Disallow all non-slaughter solutions, forcing the campaign to pure hack & slash.
3) Use mindless foes (or fanatics) that cannot be talked to; which is just a variant of #2.

Prove me wrong. Please.

 

[Alexander123]

No intelligent monster would do something against his own interest, therefore if a monster is being played intelligently the players should have to explain why the NPC should have such and such a view of them. (helpful etc. etc.)

You cannot simply walk up to a random stranger make some roles and and expect him to suddenly be willing to do anything for you. You have to explain why he should view you as friendly or helpful at least for any important encounter.

Now diplomacy rolls may be okay when it does not verge on abuse just as casting the wish spell is okay but infinite wishing is not and I would note that infinite wishing RAW is allowed, so is pun-pun.

And an intelligent NPC will not necessarily care how diplomatic you are, if he sees you as a threat he will try to eliminate you, if he is being played intelligently that is.

 

[Celebrim]

No intelligent monster would do something against his own interest...

Ostencibily intelligent people in the real world do things which are against their own interests all the time, so that's not really a strong argument.

The point being that the RAW don't modify the DC on the basis of whether or not changing attitudes or aiding the character would be against the creatures own interests, nor do they take into account factors like how the NPC in question percieves his relationship to the PC, or anything else. They just say, meet this DC, and now the creature is helpful.

, therefore if a monster is being played intelligently the players should have to explain why the NPC should have such and such a view of them. (helpful etc. etc.)

Sure. But the point is that if you use the rules as written, all the player needs to do is make some reasonable sounding flattery and small talk, make a reasonable suggestion as to why helping him would be a good idea, and roll the dice, and the monster/foe whatever now likes you and is willing to help you. Now, personally, I have no problem with that except to the extent that the RAW makes it far too easy. This is actually a pretty difficult problem. If the DC's are too static, then you risk nonsense results. But if the DC's are too much based on fiat, or if diplomacy only works when the DM thinks it is reasonable for it to work, then there is no point in investing points in diplomacy at all. There is a very fine line here between 'too powerful' and 'completely nerfed'.

And an intelligent NPC will not necessarily care how diplomatic you are, if he sees you as a threat he will try to eliminate you, if he is being played intelligently that is.

So, by that argument, isn't all that is necessary is for a PC with a high diplomatic skill to say, "I'm not really a threat to you.", give some reasonable explanation and roll the dice to have all intelligent NPC's turn friendly or helpful?

This isn't a trivial issue.

 

[ValhallaGH]

All you've done, Alexander, is advocate solution #2.

I'm waiting for you (or anyone) to construct an arguement, a position, an idea that in any way invalidates my previous post.

 

[Alexander123]

I have not disallowed non-slaughter solutions, but the diplomacy check has to be reasonable. It should not become an I win button which you are saying it is. Such things only become I win buttons if the DM allows them to become.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I have not disallowed non-slaughter solutions, but the diplomacy check has to be reasonable.

Define your terms, please. This game under discussion is wildly finicky and requires precise language. "Reasonable" means what?

And for clarity, non-lethal damage and magic spells that directly affect the creatures are considered "slaughter solutions".

It should not become an I win button which you are saying it is.

You're confusing should and is.
The diplomacy skill (or any single spell) should not be an "I Win button". By the rules of the game under discussion, the game 'we have all agreed to play', it is.
Until you can provide some evidence to the contrary, it will continue to be an "I Win Button".

 

[Celebrim]

I have not disallowed non-slaughter solutions, but the diplomacy check has to be reasonable. It should not become an I win button which you are saying it is. Such things only become I win buttons if the DM allows them to become.

Saying that diplomacy only works when you the DM thinks it is reasonable for it to work is the same as saying, "Your ranks in dipomacy don't matter." At best, you are treating diplomacy like searching for traps - there are certain preplaced encounters where you can use the skill to bypass the hazard. But chances are it means you've decided that, "This hazard, indeed this whole story line, can only be overcome by combat."

The problem with the rules as written is that they don't treat bargining with a group of goblin bandits you've happened upon as being any different than bargaining with your personal sworn enemy or with an offended deity - all are simply 'hostile'. But the position you've adopted, which is basically, "NPC's don't change their attitude except when it is in their logical interests to do so.", is in essence not only treating all these situations the same as well but also effectively means that ranks in a diplomacy skill mean little since what matters isn't how persuasive someone is, but whether something is rational self-interest. If that is the case though, all three groups modify their attitude (or don't) entirely without consideration of PC input but rather based on consideration of self-interest, and what really matters as far as 'diplomacy' goes is whether the player can come up with an idea you consider reasonable.

Now, I'm not saying that that is entirely bad. The reasonableness of suggested course of action ought to be a quantifiable factor in diplomacy just as it is with say the bluff skill, but as written, it's just not.

 

[TanisFrey]

If you want to use the flat DC that are in RAW, conciser modifying them based on the NPC ranks in diplomacy. This is the I see through your sliver tongue BS because I know how to do it too. Or modify the DC the Will save, if you are strong willed its harder to modify your mind about something.



I play in another game system Hackmaster Basic, it has a skill call Resist Persuasion. It is used in resisted skill checks. Resist Persuasion can be used oppose the following skills Acting, Diplomacy, Fast Talking, Glean Information, Interrogation, Intimidation, Recruiting, Salesmanship, Seduction, Torture.

How does this factoid relate to a 3.5 game? Create a new skill to resist the Bluff and Diplomacy skills. Lets call it Resist Persuasion, it wisdom based and has synergies similar to diplomacy.

 

[Celebrim]

If you want to use the flat DC that are in RAW, conciser modifying them based on the NPC ranks in diplomacy.

Shouldn't that be sense motive?

How does this factoid relate to a 3.5 game? Create a new skill to resist the Bluff and Diplomacy skills. Lets call it Resist Persuasion, it wisdom based and has synergies similar to diplomacy.

Ditto?

Making it a resisted skill has a certain logic to it, but in practice doesn't work that well because you can't gaurantee a target in 3.X has a given rank in a skill. You could do this in 4e much easier, but of course that means importing much of the rest of 4e's skill baggage.

Alot of people house rule diplomacy DC to be directly impacted by HD, so that influencing something with 20 HD is much harder than influencing something with 1 HD. That works pretty well as a gamist solution, but it ends up with typical gamist logic problems when you try to extend the rule to interactions between NPC's or between PC's and non-foil, non-rival NPC's. I prefer situational modifiers based on the past relationship between the parties (you are more likely to forgive a past friend and less likely to forgive a past enemy), the cost that the party incurs by helping or befriending the party (does it go against their own interests and bring them considerable risk?), and the percieved difference in status between the two parties (are you a king trying to persuade a peasant, or a peasant trying to persuade a king?). Total modifiers can vary from between -30 and +30. Typically, in a hostile situation DC's are 10to 20 higher than in RAW, and its actually quite hard to go up to some BBEG who knows you've been thwarting his plans, has a lot to lose by cooperating with you, and who views you as a social and mental inferior and convince him to change his plans. Hard, but not impossible. Your most likely result is that you'll distract him enough that he'll start monologuing and/or debating with you, which can be handy at times.

Because magical enhancements to skills are by necessity treated the same as magical enhancements to combat skills in my high skill game, finding the means to gain more than +5 or so magical bonus to a skill check is very rare. So you are pretty much stuck with charisma (enhanced), skill ranks, synergies, and feats.