D&D 3E/3.5 the 3e skill system

[Sepulchrave II]

Even if it can pump up to +18 its not an accurate statement. Hostile isnt restricted to a specific range. Furthermore, some npcs can have personality differences that increase or decrease benchmarks fir such things. ALSO hostile verses non hostile is not the only difference between success and failure.

The DC to change a target's attitude from Hostile to Indifferent is 25. That's 6 or higher on d20 for our +19 Bard friend, or automatically if she's taking 10.

Sure, you can add lots of extenuating factors, but that sort of renders the Diplomacy DC table rather pointless, doesn't it?

As a baseline, it is not desirable that a 2nd-level character can automatically make DC25 skill checks, or a 3rd level character automatically make DC30 checks.

 

[Maxperson]

The DC to change a target's attitude from Hostile to Indifferent is 25. That's 6 or higher on d20 for our +19 Bard friend, or automatically if she's taking 10.

You can only take 10 when you have time and conditions to make multiple attempts, taking 10 as the average. You are not going to be able to try 20 times to talk the guy into something. You get one attempt and then you live or die by the result, making it also a threatening situation since they are hostile, another qualifier for denying the take 10.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Sure, you can add lots of extenuating factors, but that sort of renders the Diplomacy DC table rather pointless, doesn't it?

As a baseline, it is not desirable that a 2nd-level character can automatically make DC25 skill checks, or a 3rd level character automatically make DC30 checks.

No it doesnt.

While it ought to be rare i dont find it undesirable. Especially if the character seems to have a serious lean toward it.

By hostile verses indifferent (or even amicable) not being the only difference between success and failure i mean that literally. There are a lot of things that simply not being hostile isnt going to affect. Not even slightly.

Further, you are listing typical dcs. Nocs arent clones. You dont even NEED extenuating factors for differibg dcs. And shouldnt.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

You can only take 10 when you have time and conditions to make multiple attempts, taking 10 as the average. You are not going to be able to try 20 times to talk the guy into something. You get one attempt and then you live or die by the result, making it also a threatening situation since they are hostile, another qualifier for denying the take 10.

Taking 10 has nothing to do with the length of time allotted to a task. It's about being able to concentrate whilst not threatened or distracted - and by threatened, I mean within reach of a hostile opponent who's trying to land one on you.

There is nothing to exclude Diplomacy from the Taking 10 rule, assuming someone isn't actually trying to hit you while you're making the check.

Taking 20 is different.

 

[Maxperson]

Taking 10 has nothing to do with the length of time allotted to a task. It's about being able to concentrate whilst not threatened or distracted - and by threatened, I mean within reach of a hostile opponent who's trying to land one on you.

Someone that is hostile is both threatening and distracting.

You can choose to limit threatening to someone actively swinging at you, but I doubt that if you asked the average person, they would set the bar nearly so high.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Someone that is hostile is both threatening and distracting.

You can choose to limit threatening to someone actively swinging at you, but I doubt that if you asked the average person, they would set the bar nearly so high.

Threatened is a mechanical/positional description:

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Whether the DM adjudicates if a specific situation is distracting or not is circumstantial, but none of this reflects on the innate wonkiness of a 2nd-level Diplomacy-focused bard.

 

[tetrasodium]

While there were a lot of rough edges in the skill system that 5e avoided while going too far & creating new problems in areas that weren't problem areas before... Diplomancy focused builds were unquestionably one of the more egregious failings of the skill system & often used multiple edge cases combined to generate punpun levels of absurdity.

It's downright bizarre seeing people argue that diplomancy wasn't that powerful when optimzed for it

 

[Maxperson]

Threatened is a mechanical/positional description:

Threatened square is a mechanical/positional description. The game explicitly has other threats other than threatened squares. Look at the Calm Animals spell. It has this to say...

"Any threat (such as fire, a hungry predator, or an imminent attack) breaks the spell on the threatened creatures."

A threat doesn't have to be right next to you, nor does it have to be an imminent attack. A person who is hostile is plenty capable within the rules of being a threat to the PC.

From page 312 of the PHB: " take 10: To reduce the chances of failure on certain skill checks by assuming an average die roll result (10 on a d20 roll). You can’t take 10 if distracted or threatened, such as during combat"

Such as during combat, which clearly means that you can be threatened outside of combat.

Page 51 of the DMG states that during a negotiation, threats can happen during wordplay.

It's crystal clear that there are threats and things that are threatening that do not involve threatened squres. It's also clear that there can be threats and threatening individuals in the midst of diplomacy, which would negate taking 10. Take 10 doesn't say when a PC is in a threatened square he can't take 10. Only that he be threatened.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

It's crystal clear that there are threats and things that are threatening that do not involve threatened squres. It's also clear that there can be threats and threatening individuals in the midst of diplomacy, which would negate taking 10. Take 10 doesn't say when a PC is in a threatened square he can't take 10. Only that he be threatened.

We can agree to disagree about what constitutes threatened or distracted; it doesn't really matter: there are umpteen situations where a character can take 10 and automatically make Heroic Diplomacy skill checks at an unreasonably low level.

None of it matters by 7th-level, of course; by then the Bard is making Bluff skill checks at +44 and is automatically succeeding at nearly impossible skill checks.

 

[GMMichael]

Look gang, I have the Rules Compendium. Or, Mike Mearls in a Bookbag.* Can I look something up for you?

Try this:

DMs are expected to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, real-world knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with (a situation that the rules don't cover adequately).

That's on the Introduction page. So even if you can roll a 44 Diplomacy, the DM can roll higher.

I just looked at the 5e sheet I'm using in my game & it has 18 skills... the 25-30 3.5 skill list was too much & there absolutely should have been a lot of skills rolled in as class features rather than getting squashed together. but 12-15 skills is wayy too few. There's not much meaningful spotlight from knowing a skill 2-3 other players at the table also probably know & will say "I want to roll that too"

I don't know. 12 is a good number of skills. Too few are the four skills in Microlite20, which effectively become alternate abilities (attributes) due to the small selection. You have too many skills in your list when characters become inept at certain things, at which they should have -some- skill, because the game didn't provide enough skill points to PCs to cover such things. Or when analysis paralysis sets in...

I doubt that having more skills would prevent "I want to roll that too." After all, there's always a chance to roll a 20, and the misconception that the critical hit rule applies to everything rolled with a d20.

*I don't actually see Mike Mearls credited on the Rules Compendium. Chris Sims, though.