Feeling argumentative?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the Hit Die idea is okay.
The more Hit Dies a character his, the more experienced he is. A character with many hit dies has earned them by surviving several threats...
A wizard capable of throwing a fireball is not so easy to be intimidated. But a Barbarian of the same level already encountered some wizards throwing fireballs - AT HIM... No reason to become shaken by someone a wizard doesn`t fear...

A Will Save is a save against mental influence due to magical (or supernatural) means. A Barbarians mind is quite easy (getting hit, hit, becoming angry, hitting harder), so it is easy to influence him by magic. A Wizard on the other hand, thinks in complex magic formulas...
A Fortitude Save is a save against a influence at your body that harms you.

Intimidating isn`t something that influences your mind (magically) or your body (at least not to directly harm it.).
So I think 10+Hit Dies is the best DC for it.

--------

To the Diplomacy thing: It might sound interesting, at the first glance, to make some kind of "combat" around Diplomacy.
(Bard: I throw a new Argument at him.
D20+Diplomacy = 31.
Opponent: 21.
Bard: Great, that hit. I inflict 1d6+CHA = 9 points of argumental damage...)
Rogue: Okay, know I try to use his argument, and try to make him contradict himself. I roll Bluff 23.
Opponent rolls 21.
Rogue: Great, I did it. 1d6 + 3d6 (sneak) contradictary damage + INT. Haha. Now that will hurt is position!)
But on the other hand, Roleplaying is more than just rolling some dies. If you really want to have fun with "diplomacy", it might be better to roleplay it. That`s not easy, and especially if someone is not very eleborate, it might become hard. The best way might be to throw some arguments, and using their "quality" as a modifier to combat.
(The other way - first rolling and then roleplaying the result, is especially useful if both, player and DM find good - and bad - arguments fast enough...)

 

[taotad]

wolfpunk is champ

But on the other hand, Roleplaying is more than just rolling some dies. If you really want to have fun with "diplomacy", it might be better to roleplay it. That`s not easy, and especially if someone is not very eleborate, it might become hard. The best way might be to throw some arguments, and using their "quality" as a modifier to combat.
(The other way - first rolling and then roleplaying the result, is especially useful if both, player and DM find good - and bad - arguments fast enough...)

Good point.

But. I wish that every player could role-play an encounter with a diplomat, and I wish I (as the DM) had the creativity to debate every single thing the player wants to. I don't.
Sure I might catch myself in a creative spark sometimes and have great fun role-playing a diplomatic encounter realistically, but that isn't really fair to the player wanting to develope his character in that direction. If he has to relate to my stupid mood-swings!
With a system like this it would mean players could get more out of following a career in this venue.


wolfpunk came ut with a better version of arguments than mine:

When a character begins a verbal encounter with a NPC the situation is resolved in the following fashion.
First, the DM decides which skill is the primary factor in the verbal encounter. This could be any skill such as Appraise, Diplomacy, or Knowledge.
Second, the DM and player then roll 1d20 and add their appropriate number of ranks to the result. The DM and player then add synergy bonuses from perform, bluff, and sense motive if applicable. Having at least two ranks in one of these skills allows you to add a +2 bonus to your dice roll, if you have two or more ranks in more then one of those skills you gain a +2 for each of them. The DM may rule that you may apply your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier if applicable.
Third, after adding all modifiers to the dice roll compare the results. Whoever has the higher roll has made the first “hit” in the verbal encounter. The difference of the rolls is subtracted from the ranks of the losing opponent. So if the player ends up with a total score of 27, and the npc has a total score of 22, then the npc would lose 5 ranks in the appropriate skill. Treat this as a temporary loss of skill ranks that applies only while invovled in the current verbal encounter.
Whoever loses all their ranks in the appropriate skill first loses the verbal encounter.

Haggling using the appraise skill could also be conducted in this way. The difference in skill ranks after ended "Argument" could represent the characters percentage discount to the item in charge.

A nice way to reflect a public debate could be to pool all the co-debatants ranks in the relevant skill and let the one with most ranks make the rolls, "damaging" the other parties pool. This would make the encounter last longer, and more intense in the end.

It should be noted that winning an argument such as this shouldn't force the other side to change opinion. It just means that one side came through as the winning side to the neutral bystanders.

How should CR's be handled in this case I wonder?

 

[wolfpunk]

Doing the whole "arguement combat" like I proposed, is an easy way to avoid having to actually roleplay out a situation. It is advisable when neither person wants to go through the actual routine.

I would say something like this. If a player wants to haggle or debate or argue, they have to actually come up with and roleplay their introductary arguement. If they do well the DM can rule they can roll it out and see. If they do poorly then he can say they have to roleplay it out, or rule the arguement is not good enough to even begin an "arguement combat"

I don't have an exact idea of when this is appropriate or when it isn't appropriate, but it is a way to do it.