Knight's Challenges

[kigmatzomat]

Agreed. In many cases IMO Diplomacy will only result in an end to combat if it involves the PCs paying a toll. "We can either fight it out and see who is the better or you can take this purse of coins. Is it worth facing our swords to take our swords?"

Alternately, diplomacy can prevent killing by encouraging the opponents to take the party hostage. "We are far more valuable alive than dead. Send a letter to Duke Ferdinand and he will pay for our release. Kill us and the Duke will have the Archbishop of the God of Justice find the perpetrators. And then nowhere in the Five Realms will be safe. If you promise to treat us well I give you my word we will not try to escape. Well, maybe not the halfling. He's a bit wrong in the head. You may have to throw him in a hole."

 

[Hussar]

True, but, then again, there is no saving throw for Diplomacy. It's not even level dependent. If I manage to get a +25 diplomacy (certainly not impossible), I can get people from hostile to indifferent 50% of the time. Indifferent people stop attacking. Sure, they might start attacking again, but, that's besides the point. For no saving throw, in the middle of combat, I can end a fight half the time. Add in a Tongues item and now language is no longer an issue.

Here, we have a similar mechanic used to cause ONE opponent to target the challenger. This isn't exactly overpowering.

Or, put it another way, exactly how often does the party have a showdown with The Shadow? Or the dex monkey, rapier wielding rogue? If your campaign features these sorts of opponents most of the time, don't use the Knight. Pretty simple. For 99% of campaigns out there where the BBEG is a scaled tank with claws, it works fine.

 

[Mad Mac]

Or you could just give the Big Baddie a good Will Save. I mean, if he's blowing moderate Will save DC's left and right, he's just the party mage's pet anyways, which is a lot more devastating than anything the Knight is going to make him do.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Nope, just the PHB II. Games are usually gamey, but systems for pulling aggro and relearning skill trees do seem to originate in video games or at least highly mimic them when D&D could use so much more stuff in better directions.

It's just the Circle of Life. Video games pulled it from RPGs first, now RPGs are pulling it back. Same with DoTs, pets, mez, and every other mechanic.

 

[Odhanan]

These would be the same DMs who don't let their players use Intimidate or Diplomacy? The mechanic is different, but game-wise the effects are similar.

Absolutely. Excellent point and parallel. The same DMs who would also look at the result of the Intimidate or Diplomacy check the player just rolled and then decide on the DC of the check, effectively using DM fiat to do whatever they want with the result.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

These would be the same DMs who don't let their players use Intimidate or Diplomacy? The mechanic is different, but game-wise the effects are similar.

So, there does seem in the core rules no less, a similar mechanic to the Knights challenge. A non-magical skill check to force NPC's to act in a particular manner. Sounds about the same.

Not a good thing IMO.

I use Rich Burlew's Diplomacy house rule, link in my sig. It makes a lot more sense. It's useful but not mind control. It gives clear guidelines so players can know what they're up again. It even explains how, if the hero thinks they're making a good deal, how it might not turn out so (and so reduces arguments, etc). I know there are people who think the DCs are too high, but it works great for my group.

I have yet to see a decent Intimidate rule. It seems like Iron Heroes has some decent (and some mind control) stuff in its version of Intimidate. However it then has feats that turn it into mind control.

 

[Razz]

I use Rich Burlew's Diplomacy house rule, link in my sig. It makes a lot more sense. It's useful but not mind control. It gives clear guidelines so players can know what they're up again. It even explains how, if the hero thinks they're making a good deal, how it might not turn out so (and so reduces arguments, etc). I know there are people who think the DCs are too high, but it works great for my group.

There needs to be more higher DCs for skill checks in D&D. They're too easy to pass, to the point where players at times don't even need to make the skill checks at all (since roll of 1s are not auto-failures). I've got a player with a 20th-level character that has CHA 25, maxed Diplomacy, and a magic item that increases that bonus by +10 competence, along with his 5 ranks in Knowledge (nobility&royalty) and Sense Motive...he can convince kingdoms under his command.

I noticed that as a problem with D&D. Spell Save DCs are too low and Skill Check DCs are too easy. If anything, it should be the other way around. It's gotten so bad with Spell Save DCs that most of my players don't bother with spellcasters. When your highest DC is between 15-20 and monsters have like +15 or more saving throw modifiers in nearly most of their saves, spellcasting becomes weak. Sucky thing is the only way to increase the DC is to increase the main stat. I came with a house rule using the option in the DMG that you can either keep the base save DC, or take a chance and roll 1d20, adding in spell/power level and ability modifiers. That way, a player can have his spell increase between +1 to +10 points of DC higher than the base...with the chance of -1 to -9 as well.

With skills checks, it's so darn easy, whether it's a class skill or not. A magic item (the skill boosters are cheap, 10k for +10), max ranks, synergy and there're tons of spells that boost skill checks. I don't think they play-tested the skills as well as they should've.

 

[Hussar]

I've got a player with a 20th-level character that has CHA 25, maxed Diplomacy, and a magic item that increases that bonus by +10 competence, along with his 5 ranks in Knowledge (nobility&royalty) and Sense Motive...he can convince kingdoms under his command.

Well, in all honesty, GOOD. This is one of the most powerful individuals around. This guy ranks up there with Balors, Pit Fiends and Dragons on the power scale. Sure, he can sing the birds from the trees onto his barbeque. Well, ok.

To me, complaining about power scales and then using the absolute strongest character as an example is a tad on the bad side. Better to compare it to a fairly standard character that is far more likely to see play IMO.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I have no problem with them pulling stuff from video games *if* it fills a gap in the system (even a gap I didn't know was there ahead of time).

The Knight's Challange does this in my opinion. Sure, when I read it the first thing I thought of was Aggro from Final Fantasy 11 and Everquest. But the ability to force a monster or NPC to concentrate on the tank as opposed to the beanpole-like wizard wasn't really there before. Sure, there were "battlefield tactics" and the like but nothing really to stop the greatsword wielding fighter from hacking the magic-user after the fighter made his way to the wizard.

I really think that another big part of the problem is that some DMs don't like to have abilities forcing the actions of NPCs one way or another.

Then there goes the entire Enchantment school of magic.

Yeah, but that is MAGIC. This isn't.

As others have pointed out this isn't actually very far from Diplomacy or Intimidate. Or even Bluff. It is making the enemy do what you want mearly by talking* to them.

The 'challenge' could easily be "calling out" the enemy for a one-on-one while their respective armies watch (inciting the attack for reasons of honor and/or glory). Or maybe the 'challenge' could be insulting the opponent's honor or manhood (thus inciting the attack from rage or ego) or maybe it could be as easy as the Big Dumb Thug saying "Me big and strong. You big and strong. Let's fight!!" (thus inciting the attack from the desire to have fun or maybe even from boredom from the cr 1/4 adversaries).

*'talking' as in "communicating in some way, shape or form". You can easily Bluff by shrugging your sholders or Intimidate by unleashing a primal yell.

 

[Stalker0]

There needs to be more higher DCs for skill checks in D&D. They're too easy to pass, to the point where players at times don't even need to make the skill checks at all (since roll of 1s are not auto-failures).

I feel completely opposite about skill checks. To me, part of the joy of running a mid to high level character is being able to just do things with no risk. I want to jump a 10 foot wall with no problem, run across a tightrope without blinking, be able to dechiper complex scripts in seconds, etc.

In addition, I think adventurers are more interesting and exciting when they have a breadth of skills. Once players have enough points in a skill to do the basic things easily, they can start putting points in other skills, making them better in a wider range of things. But if I have to put points in the same skills my entire career just to be competent at anything then I'll just be a specialist in a few skills, with no breadth at all.

Now, I do agree that it would be nice to see some more exciting things with higher DCs. The epic level book has some examples of those, so that a person with a +50 in a skill can truly do some amazing things.