Maximum skill results?

[Mort]

I think the fact that some people are perfectly happy to seperate magic and skills has been done to death, so can people stop proposing this particual red herring? if you want high level skills to be magic, good on you, but its not a compelling argument.

I never said high level skills = magic. I said if you can believe in magic why not incredible skill. It's an obvious distinction, but if you've been ignoring it this long, why stop now?
But tell me, why are you willing to believe in magic but not in mythical skill?

Pheh, Milgram is overrated, and quite possibly out of date. It also measured reactions to authority, not persuasion. The people were hired to do a job, and the job escalated. Bluff, diplomacy, persuasion were all irrelevant... And I didn't follow the link since I read the orriginal study. Of course, again, it was never a single 0 to 60 leap of convincing... The Milgram study started with very light "shocks", and worked people up to doing terrible things over a series of distinct decisions. Each decision they made caused the next to be harder to change their minds on. No single roll..


Kahuna burger

But it did it in one sitting, and what is Diplomacy and/or Bluff other than the appearance of authority to get what you want?
Is anyone arguing "one roll?" No, that was your own straw man. The argument is merely that it is possible to bluff someone that the sky is green or to use Diplomacy to convince a lich to give up his power - or some other "impossible" task. How many rolls it takes (or requires) is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I never said high level skills = magic. I said if you can believe in magic why not incredible skill. It's an obvious distinction, but if you've been ignoring it this long, why stop now?

nope, there is no rational distinction between "skill thats impossible" and "magic". The very proccess of asking how I can accept magic but not impossible levels of skill inherently compares the two, so why shirk the connection when its pointed out. anyway, boring...

Is anyone arguing "one roll?" No, that was your own straw man. The argument is merely that it is possible to bluff someone that the sky is green or to use Diplomacy to convince a lich to give up his power - or some other "impossible" task. How many rolls it takes (or requires) is entirely irrelevant.

hello, reality check, I started the thread, and continuing to keep it on track of what was being discussed (which was very explicitly the possible benifits of a skill CHECK) cannot be a strawman.

There is no diplomacy check high enough to have a arch lich hand over his power.

There is no bluff check high enough to convince a person looking at a blue sky that it is in fact green.

There is no hide check high enough to hide in a bare, featureless, round room with a central light source.

Calling a continued discussion of what a check can do a strawman puts you pretty damn close to troll standing. The whole discussion has been, from the begining, what the upper limits of a skill check are. A check, ie, a roll. "a" = one, just to make it a little more obvious...

That was a pretty ballsy move, I gotta admit, but you're still out of the realm of useful discussion.

Kahuna burger

 

[Trainz]

In the end, Kahuna and Mort, it's a campaign issue. It depends on how individual DM's view skills.

I, obviously, lean on Mort's POV, but I can understand a DM wanting skills to remain in the domain of the humanly possible.

But can you agree, Kahuna, that the D&D mindset encourages incredible feats of skill use ? On page 65 of the Players Handbook, under practically impossible tasks, it mentions "swimming up a waterfall could require a Swim check against DC 80"... no-one on planet Earth could ever achieve that, however the game considers it.

Thus, your POV is, basically, a house rule...


BTW, Sorry I called you Man... I am ashamed.



edit: typo...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Thus, you POV is, basically, a house rule...

I don't think it goes into the realm of houserules (nor do I think that labling it as such has anything to do with the conversation at hand), but I can understand how you would veiw it that way... Luckily, with the explicit reality check on the hide skill, the core rules are moving more towards a resolution of skill checks based on possibility as well as number crunching.

kahuna burger

 

[Trainz]

[...]Luckily, with the explicit reality check on the hide skill, the core rules are moving more towards a resolution of skill checks based on possibility as well as number crunching.

You were saying that skills shouldn't allow you to do feats that would normally only be available through magic. I don't understand how core rules are moving more towards a resolution of skill checks based on possibility as well as number crunching supports that theory... I gave you an example straight from the Player's Handbook.

I'm gonna quote myself:

On page 65 of the Players Handbook, under practically impossible tasks, it mentions "swimming up a waterfall could require a Swim check against DC 80"

The Player's Handbook is quite core, and the above example isn't under an "optional rules" heading, it's in the Skills chapter.

 

[Mort]

Guess I can't resist one last shot even if it won't do any good.

nope, there is no rational distinction between "skill thats impossible" and "magic". The very proccess of asking how I can accept magic but not impossible levels of skill inherently compares the two, so why shirk the connection when its pointed out. anyway, boring...

The problem here is the word "impossible," I maintain that the word in the context of fantasy and roleplaying should not be used. In other words, nothing is "impossible" in the context of fantasy and roleplaying. So instead of saying "impossible level of skill" say "absuredly high level of skill." Characters in a game can, if the game (DM, whatever) allowes it, atain levels of skill not possible in the real world. Now is it a good idea to set these levels (skill checks etc.) at an easily atainable level? Probably not but that's not the point.

hello, reality check, I started the thread, and continuing to keep it on track of what was being discussed (which was very explicitly the possible benifits of a skill CHECK) cannot be a strawman.



Calling a continued discussion of what a check can do a strawman puts you pretty damn close to troll standing. The whole discussion has been, from the begining, what the upper limits of a skill check are. A check, ie, a roll. "a" = one, just to make it a little more obvious...

That was a pretty ballsy move, I gotta admit, but you're still out of the realm of useful discussion

Maybe strawman wasn't the right word, so I'll forgive your troll comment.

That said,
You consider many checks different from one? Why?
Let's say, Mr. Magnifico, the absuredly high level bard, tells Thyranx the litch a huge whopper in an attempt to get Thyranx to surrender his power. The whopper is long and involved and has many steps each more convincing than the last. Does Mr. Magnifico's player have to roll several Bluff checks (The first one way up there, but each successive one a little easier because the build on each other) or one bluff check with several positive modifiers, because as a whole the bluff is more convincing? The difference seems cosmetic and more a DM choice than a set mechanic. The same can be set for a Diplomacy situation or a tracking roll or most other skills.

 

[Voadam]

Guess I can't resist one last shot even if it won't do any good.



The problem here is the word "impossible," I maintain that the word in the context of fantasy and roleplaying should not be used. In other words, nothing is "impossible" in the context of fantasy and roleplaying. So instead of saying "impossible level of skill" say "absuredly high level of skill." Characters in a game can, if the game (DM, whatever) allowes it, atain levels of skill not possible in the real world. Now is it a good idea to set these levels (skill checks etc.) at an easily atainable level? Probably not but that's not the point.





Maybe strawman wasn't the right word, so I'll forgive your troll comment.

That said,
You consider many checks different from one? Why?
Let's say, Mr. Magnifico, the absuredly high level bard, tells Thyranx the litch a huge whopper in an attempt to get Thyranx to surrender his power. The whopper is long and involved and has many steps each more convincing than the last. Does Mr. Magnifico's player have to roll several Bluff checks (The first one way up there, but each successive one a little easier because the build on each other) or one bluff check with several positive modifiers, because as a whole the bluff is more convincing? The difference seems cosmetic and more a DM choice than a set mechanic. The same can be set for a Diplomacy situation or a tracking roll or most other skills.

Perhaps I can answer this one, under the rules, diplomacy can be done as a full round action for a -20 penalty to the roll.

"Mr. lich I can release your soul from its undead state if you give me your phylactery. Come on, it is what you really want, I'm here trying to help you."

DC 50 with a -20 on the check I believe if the lich is hostile to start. If you just encounter him and he is not yet hostile it is much easier.

 

[Plane Sailing]

About diplomacy and bluff checks...

There has been, in our recent history (past 50 years), in REAL LIFE, guys who convinced groups of people (americans in some cases), to commit mass suicide.

I think that the big, big problem is that diplomacy and bluff are used as single checks to accomplish something.

What D&D is really missing in the core rules is a mechanism to allow skills to be used in an opposed, combatative manner. In melee you rely upon rolls to hit, damage against hp, manouvers to escape combat or engage more cautiously etc.

Interpersonal skills need this kind of setting too, in order to handle the very circumstances being discussed here. There are DM/adventure benefits to it too... a DM wouldn't feel that the PC's have "cheated the encounter with a lucky bluff roll" if it had actually been a series of bluff and counter-bluff until the foe was convinced.

The one thing that is needed is the mental equivalent of hit points - whether it was called "inertia" or "bloodymindedness" or whatever Then you could have bluff/sensemotive or diplomacy/diplomacy checks made back and forth, each attempting to wear away the others bloodymindedness first!

Cheers

 

[Pelenor]

While this is a fantasy game skills themselves are not magical and there should be a certain limitation, a "ceiling" if you will to what you can do. This really illustrates the problem with a system that has no maximum limit to your skill ranks or the bonuses that can be stacked on top of them. Now of course there are other things to consider. The epic rules and magical bonuses change things. I would probably allow some "impossible" things if some of the bonuses involved have a magical source because magic itself allows things that cannot be done non-magically. However, there are some things I will not allow a skill to do no matter how many ranks the character has or how many bonuses because it would destroy what I see as game balance. I really don't think the designers envision some of the extreme examples that can be had when they originally designed the system. I am of the opinion that even if they did come up with these examples they believed that no one would reasonably try/allow and example that extreme, yet here we are dealing with it.

Anyway that's my input to the discussion without a completely concrete opinion on the subject. Like everything else it depends on the gm/players and the in-game situation at hand.

 

[Wrahn]

“Father, while I love you dearly, I can not stand by and watch you kill more innocent people. If you do not hand over your power now, we will come to blows and you will most likely be forced to kill me. Is your power worth that?”

Man walks up to another man looking at the sky, “Hard to believe it is green isn’t it?”
“Huh? The sky is blue.”
“Well, yeah, you and I see it as blue, but it is really green?”
“What are you talking about?”
“Haven’t you heard the story of the questing knight and the elf queen, the story of the first Half-Elf?”
“Um, no.”
“Well it is a pretty long story, but the long and the short of it is, the Questing Knight and the Elf Queen fell in love a long time ago. Eventually the Knight died and the Queen was left heart broken. She beseeched the elven gods to aid her and with great remorse they told her that humans and elves walk under a different sky.”
“So what?”
“Well the elven gods left a reminder to humanity, changed the sky blue for us, to remind us that we walk under a different sky, live in a different world than elves and that our union will only lead to heart break.”
“So you’re telling me the sky is really green?”
“Well yes in actuality, though we see it as blue, for the Elven Queen’s sorrow. Next time you see an elf, or any other race, ask them…”
Of course that works best in the situation where there is little likelihood of running into another race.

As far as hiding in a barren room, that is a pretty common magicians trick. Camouflage, from the right angles is all that is required.

Saying that any of the above are impossible is to overstate the case. To say that to make the lich turn over his power with diplomacy or hide in a barren room requires significant preparation and/or the right circumstances is more accurate. As far as the bluff goes though, you greatly under estimate the gullibility of people. All you need is the right lie and people will doubt even their own senses. Finding that lie (which of course is the hard part) is why there is the bluff skill.