jgbrowning
Hero
I like opposed diplomacy checks only. It's harder to modify an experienced creature's behavior.
joe b.
joe b.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What can you do with Diplomacy?
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
Norfleet
First Post
I personally see BAB as a form of diplomacy check. Talking is fine and good, but I prefer to convince my opponents of my correctness through reason and logic, not random numbers, unless those numbers pertain to killing something. Actually, I'm not a really huge fan of random numbers, period, since I don't really believe in randomness. Except d6ses, and d4s. I like d6ses, but those aren't really random when I wield them.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Diplomacy
I'm hearing three problems here, the same two I heard on the Monte Cook board in fact.
1. It depends on how well or poorly you role play the situation.
2. You cannot use Diplomacy in a hostile encounter.
3. Some creatures are not suseptible to Diplomacy.
ONE: "It depends on how well or poorly you role play the situation."
The first is the easiest to refute. If you make a skill check depend on a player's role playing ability, you might as well remove the Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate skills from the game. In fact, I don't see much reason to even have a Charisma score. Skills, and all character abilities with rules for that matter, never rely on the role playing ability of a player for them, to function. Skills are as much a function of a character (rather than a player) as the ability to cast a spell or swing a sword. I, a player, cannot effectively fight with a sword, nor can I cast a spell. My character, however, can do those things. Similarly, I do not have a high Charisma, nor do I have high ranks and bonuses and magic giving me a very high Diplomacy score. My character, however, does. My character knows what to say in that situation, whereas I do not.
You shoudln't penalize your players for using a skill they themselves are not good at (unless you make your Rogue player tumble around the room for you before allowing his character to do the same).
Now, before people choke all over this point, I am NOT saying that the player should not role play the situation. I fully agree that a good DM will play things out, because it is fun, adds color, and overall works well and is part of the game (and I often do so with swinging a sword and casting a spell as well). Nor am I saying role playing has NO impact, since the role playing does influence what goals the character is seeking, how they generally want to achieve those goals, and what goals and methods the opponant is using.
However, the RESULT of this role playing situation should come from the die roll modified by the skill ranks and bonuses. If the player says his character is seeking the cessation of hostilities, even if his method of saying it is "Dude, I tell that thing to lay off.", and he gets a 51 on his Diplomacy check (a truly incredible score), the opponant WILL cease hostilities. You can assume that the character said something eloquent, engaging, and compelling. Something you as a DM and your Player cannot possibly fully imagine, because neither of you have approached the realm of being around someone who could speak so well, use body language to such great effect, and overall make the worst people feel good about themselves and you.
Of course, you are always free to house rule and Rule 0 diplomacy. But, for what it is worth, the Diplomacy rules (with the DCs presented specifically) are there for a reason, and I know for a fact Monte Cook uses them in his game as I have described (with a minor DC house rule which I am happy to discuss later in the thread if people are interested).
TWO: "You cannot use Diplomacy in a hostile encounter."
I can see where this is coming from. The 3.5 rules state that Diplomacy takes 10 full rounds (which makes doing it during combat difficult), or one full round action with a -10 modifier. I wrote this chart under the Arcana Unearthed rules, which do not have such a notation (and the chart remains accurate for those rules, and I believe the 3.0 rules as well).
However, the section specifically says Diplimacy can be used to head off combat, as a full round action, at -10. That is the modifier for combat....not -20 (though I can see a slightly worse penalty if combat has already begun). The attitude is called HOSTILE. It assumes the thing will attack you, if it can. I think the rule was specifically written with combat in mind. It's a creative way for a player to get through an encounter without hack and slash. If your game isn't about alternatives to combat, then you are of course free to house rule it. But I don't think the skill was written for use ONLY in non-combat situations. It was meant to be more flexible (and as I said earlier, is being used that way by the author of 3.0 DMG, Monte Cook, in his games).
THREE: Some creatures are not suseptible to Diplomacy.
This simply isn't accurate, at least within the rules. You get an opposed Diplomacy check during a negotiation, so your modifiers from a high charisma do come into play there. But there are no rules for a Wisdom modifier or a will save. It isn't magic, or a mind-influencing supernatural effect. You can modify the target DC based on circumstance modifiers (as mentioned earlier). However, if the DC is hit, the target genuinely changes its mind based on things actually said that would change its mind. All creatures, if they have a mind and can understand you, have desires, and the character has played to those desires (whatever they are).
Again, you are always free to house rule the Diplomacy skill. But I don't see why you would punish your players for taking this skill based on some notion that it doesn't work like all other skills.
I'm hearing three problems here, the same two I heard on the Monte Cook board in fact.
1. It depends on how well or poorly you role play the situation.
2. You cannot use Diplomacy in a hostile encounter.
3. Some creatures are not suseptible to Diplomacy.
ONE: "It depends on how well or poorly you role play the situation."
The first is the easiest to refute. If you make a skill check depend on a player's role playing ability, you might as well remove the Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate skills from the game. In fact, I don't see much reason to even have a Charisma score. Skills, and all character abilities with rules for that matter, never rely on the role playing ability of a player for them, to function. Skills are as much a function of a character (rather than a player) as the ability to cast a spell or swing a sword. I, a player, cannot effectively fight with a sword, nor can I cast a spell. My character, however, can do those things. Similarly, I do not have a high Charisma, nor do I have high ranks and bonuses and magic giving me a very high Diplomacy score. My character, however, does. My character knows what to say in that situation, whereas I do not.
You shoudln't penalize your players for using a skill they themselves are not good at (unless you make your Rogue player tumble around the room for you before allowing his character to do the same).
Now, before people choke all over this point, I am NOT saying that the player should not role play the situation. I fully agree that a good DM will play things out, because it is fun, adds color, and overall works well and is part of the game (and I often do so with swinging a sword and casting a spell as well). Nor am I saying role playing has NO impact, since the role playing does influence what goals the character is seeking, how they generally want to achieve those goals, and what goals and methods the opponant is using.
However, the RESULT of this role playing situation should come from the die roll modified by the skill ranks and bonuses. If the player says his character is seeking the cessation of hostilities, even if his method of saying it is "Dude, I tell that thing to lay off.", and he gets a 51 on his Diplomacy check (a truly incredible score), the opponant WILL cease hostilities. You can assume that the character said something eloquent, engaging, and compelling. Something you as a DM and your Player cannot possibly fully imagine, because neither of you have approached the realm of being around someone who could speak so well, use body language to such great effect, and overall make the worst people feel good about themselves and you.
Of course, you are always free to house rule and Rule 0 diplomacy. But, for what it is worth, the Diplomacy rules (with the DCs presented specifically) are there for a reason, and I know for a fact Monte Cook uses them in his game as I have described (with a minor DC house rule which I am happy to discuss later in the thread if people are interested).
TWO: "You cannot use Diplomacy in a hostile encounter."
I can see where this is coming from. The 3.5 rules state that Diplomacy takes 10 full rounds (which makes doing it during combat difficult), or one full round action with a -10 modifier. I wrote this chart under the Arcana Unearthed rules, which do not have such a notation (and the chart remains accurate for those rules, and I believe the 3.0 rules as well).
However, the section specifically says Diplimacy can be used to head off combat, as a full round action, at -10. That is the modifier for combat....not -20 (though I can see a slightly worse penalty if combat has already begun). The attitude is called HOSTILE. It assumes the thing will attack you, if it can. I think the rule was specifically written with combat in mind. It's a creative way for a player to get through an encounter without hack and slash. If your game isn't about alternatives to combat, then you are of course free to house rule it. But I don't think the skill was written for use ONLY in non-combat situations. It was meant to be more flexible (and as I said earlier, is being used that way by the author of 3.0 DMG, Monte Cook, in his games).
THREE: Some creatures are not suseptible to Diplomacy.
This simply isn't accurate, at least within the rules. You get an opposed Diplomacy check during a negotiation, so your modifiers from a high charisma do come into play there. But there are no rules for a Wisdom modifier or a will save. It isn't magic, or a mind-influencing supernatural effect. You can modify the target DC based on circumstance modifiers (as mentioned earlier). However, if the DC is hit, the target genuinely changes its mind based on things actually said that would change its mind. All creatures, if they have a mind and can understand you, have desires, and the character has played to those desires (whatever they are).
Again, you are always free to house rule the Diplomacy skill. But I don't see why you would punish your players for taking this skill based on some notion that it doesn't work like all other skills.
Last edited:
Norfleet
First Post
The underlying ability of diplomacy to reach an agreement tends to depend on a few things:
1. That it wants something: An item, a task to be performed, etc.
2. That you can give it something it wants, if not necessarily the specific thing it wants.
3. That whatever you want it to give up in exchange is of equal or lesser value than whatever you're giving it, or at least, you can convince it that this is true.
If the only things that the whoever or whatever you're negotiating with are things that you can't possibly reasonably give it, then that's going to rather negate the possibility of conventional diplomacy. If you're pitted against a critter who's sole purpose is to gruesomely kill you, rather than something else(and killing you gruesomely being only a side effect) you're going to find it rather hard to convince it to do otherwise, although you might try convincing it to gruesomely kill you, and only you, rather than your entire group, after convincing it that something more expendable is you. But this falls more into "trickery and deceit" rather than purely "diplomacy".
Pure diplomacy isn't likely to get you as far you might hope, even with a +52 modifier. Throw in some deceit and treachery, and you'll get further. However, the skill for deceit and treachery is "Bluff", not "Diplomacy".
1. That it wants something: An item, a task to be performed, etc.
2. That you can give it something it wants, if not necessarily the specific thing it wants.
3. That whatever you want it to give up in exchange is of equal or lesser value than whatever you're giving it, or at least, you can convince it that this is true.
If the only things that the whoever or whatever you're negotiating with are things that you can't possibly reasonably give it, then that's going to rather negate the possibility of conventional diplomacy. If you're pitted against a critter who's sole purpose is to gruesomely kill you, rather than something else(and killing you gruesomely being only a side effect) you're going to find it rather hard to convince it to do otherwise, although you might try convincing it to gruesomely kill you, and only you, rather than your entire group, after convincing it that something more expendable is you. But this falls more into "trickery and deceit" rather than purely "diplomacy".
Pure diplomacy isn't likely to get you as far you might hope, even with a +52 modifier. Throw in some deceit and treachery, and you'll get further. However, the skill for deceit and treachery is "Bluff", not "Diplomacy".
Last edited:
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
A player in my game got frustrated at my interpretation of diplomacy. Using twinked-out multimagical effects, he achieved a diplomacy roll of something like 37 in an encounter with a guard.
The guard had specific orders to prevent anyone from approaching a certain monastery (at which a massacre had occurred recently; his bosses wanted the massacre kept secret). He was told to blow people off who asked to approach. He knew that disobedience was often punished by torture and execution.
Did the 37 on a diplomacy check convince this initially unhelpful guard to let the PCs explore the monastery? Heck no! It persuaded him to treat the diplomat with bowing and scraping humility, to offer up all kinds of excuses and apologies for the inconvenience; once he found out they'd explored the monastery anyway, it persuaded him to pretend they hadn't told him anything and to caution them to get out of dodge before his superiors found out.
The diplomat player scowled and frowned afterward, telling me how disappointed he was at the miniscule effects of diplomacy. Too bad, says I: the skill, like all social skills, is limited by context. You cannot bluff a relatively sane person into believing the sky is green (although you can bluff them into thinking that you're hallucinating a green sky). You cannot intimidate an ancient red dragon into setting you free, after it's killed all your friends in one round(although you can intimidate it into killing you quickly rather than risking your wrath). And you cannot diplomize a guard into risking a death by torture (although you can diplomize the guard into giving you some information about the situation and helping you avoid his superiors to a small degree).
Playing otherwise just ruins my suspension of disbelief. It leads to characters acting in ways basically contrary to how folks think. And that's no good.
Daniel
The guard had specific orders to prevent anyone from approaching a certain monastery (at which a massacre had occurred recently; his bosses wanted the massacre kept secret). He was told to blow people off who asked to approach. He knew that disobedience was often punished by torture and execution.
Did the 37 on a diplomacy check convince this initially unhelpful guard to let the PCs explore the monastery? Heck no! It persuaded him to treat the diplomat with bowing and scraping humility, to offer up all kinds of excuses and apologies for the inconvenience; once he found out they'd explored the monastery anyway, it persuaded him to pretend they hadn't told him anything and to caution them to get out of dodge before his superiors found out.
The diplomat player scowled and frowned afterward, telling me how disappointed he was at the miniscule effects of diplomacy. Too bad, says I: the skill, like all social skills, is limited by context. You cannot bluff a relatively sane person into believing the sky is green (although you can bluff them into thinking that you're hallucinating a green sky). You cannot intimidate an ancient red dragon into setting you free, after it's killed all your friends in one round(although you can intimidate it into killing you quickly rather than risking your wrath). And you cannot diplomize a guard into risking a death by torture (although you can diplomize the guard into giving you some information about the situation and helping you avoid his superiors to a small degree).
Playing otherwise just ruins my suspension of disbelief. It leads to characters acting in ways basically contrary to how folks think. And that's no good.
Daniel
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I'd be frustrated as well in your game.
You made a house rule on the fly, to the disadvantage of your player's, without warning them of that rule before they devoted precious resources and unchangeable skill ranks to a skill that you clearly do not believe in.
You've created a game where killing people is always going to be a more logical route than talking to them, because the assumption will always be there in the back of each player's mind that you won't let them "get away with" the diplomatic approach no matter how well they roll. However, they know for sure if they roll a 20 and then another 20, they will critically hit the target.
It's your game...
You made a house rule on the fly, to the disadvantage of your player's, without warning them of that rule before they devoted precious resources and unchangeable skill ranks to a skill that you clearly do not believe in.
You've created a game where killing people is always going to be a more logical route than talking to them, because the assumption will always be there in the back of each player's mind that you won't let them "get away with" the diplomatic approach no matter how well they roll. However, they know for sure if they roll a 20 and then another 20, they will critically hit the target.
It's your game...
Liminal Syzygy
Community Supporter
First I wanted to say that this is a very interesting thread, I'm glad you've started it. This has been looked at before but it's always an issue that can use more examination.
As far as your first point, the importance of role-play... I had problems in the past as one of my players would get upset when an NPC wouldn't give him what he wanted, and start making veiled threats and insulting the NPC... and then he would ask to roll his impressive Diplomacy check. I gave him significant negative circumstance modifiers in that case. I think such modifiers are reasonable, and help maintain a certain level of realism.
I liked a solution I saw here recently in which the player's role-playing was the actual D20 result, so "I tell him 'Dude, lay off!'" would be a 5, and "I tell him 'We come in peace! There is no need for conflict!'" would be a 10.
I think there is a clear difference between asking players to use a certain amount of intelligence and common sense in their diplomatic approach--at a level which as DM you know they are perfectly capable (you can adjust your expectations downward if not) and expecting them to stand up and perform a spontaneous oration that brings tears to everyone's eyes at the table.
As far as the AU chart not having such a notation, as far as I can see there are no circumstance modifiers listed on that chart or under the skill at all in the AU book. I don't think that necessary signifies that there should never be any modifiers whatsoever to the DCs. (And my suggestion to work out the circumstance modifiers above is exactly related to that, to come up with a more comprehensive chart of circumstance modifiers that people can agree on.)
Finally, in the other thread you show how a 6th level character can achieve a result of 51 on diplomacy thus making the bad guy retire and leave town. You seem to be advocating an approach in which there is nothing such a character can't talk themselves out of or somehow convince someone to agree to, and at 6th level. Therefore you can wander the land, handling 90% of all challenges with your amazing diplomatic skills, and just call out your friends to deal with non-intelligent creatures, mechanical challenges and the like. While I definitely think diplomacy should be a worthwhile investment, and players should be able to impact the game with it, I don't see where the fun in such an approach is. Such a character could easily deal with any situation involving intelligent creatures.
As far as your first point, the importance of role-play... I had problems in the past as one of my players would get upset when an NPC wouldn't give him what he wanted, and start making veiled threats and insulting the NPC... and then he would ask to roll his impressive Diplomacy check. I gave him significant negative circumstance modifiers in that case. I think such modifiers are reasonable, and help maintain a certain level of realism.
I liked a solution I saw here recently in which the player's role-playing was the actual D20 result, so "I tell him 'Dude, lay off!'" would be a 5, and "I tell him 'We come in peace! There is no need for conflict!'" would be a 10.
I think there is a clear difference between asking players to use a certain amount of intelligence and common sense in their diplomatic approach--at a level which as DM you know they are perfectly capable (you can adjust your expectations downward if not) and expecting them to stand up and perform a spontaneous oration that brings tears to everyone's eyes at the table.
As far as the AU chart not having such a notation, as far as I can see there are no circumstance modifiers listed on that chart or under the skill at all in the AU book. I don't think that necessary signifies that there should never be any modifiers whatsoever to the DCs. (And my suggestion to work out the circumstance modifiers above is exactly related to that, to come up with a more comprehensive chart of circumstance modifiers that people can agree on.)
Finally, in the other thread you show how a 6th level character can achieve a result of 51 on diplomacy thus making the bad guy retire and leave town. You seem to be advocating an approach in which there is nothing such a character can't talk themselves out of or somehow convince someone to agree to, and at 6th level. Therefore you can wander the land, handling 90% of all challenges with your amazing diplomatic skills, and just call out your friends to deal with non-intelligent creatures, mechanical challenges and the like. While I definitely think diplomacy should be a worthwhile investment, and players should be able to impact the game with it, I don't see where the fun in such an approach is. Such a character could easily deal with any situation involving intelligent creatures.
Norfleet
First Post
Well, actually, this is the perfect opportunity to apply diplomacy. It's just that the player didn't properly target his diplomacy attempt, or persist: The guard became friendlier: This is a start. He could have pressed on, perhaps uncovering that the reason the guard was obfuscating was because of the high risk of impendingly gruesome death. Then perhaps an opposed roll vs. his employer's Itimidate score would be called for to convince the guard of the value in defecting. Clearly, working in an environment of potential torture and death is not something which promotes job satisfaction. The player could have picked up on this and used it. You mentioned that the guard became more friendly, yet still evasive.Pielorinho said:
The player clearly expected a single diplomacy check to serve as a magic bullet, and simply dropped the ball. Maybe he should stick with running things through with pointy objects, except that this doesn't always work in one shot, either.
The problem is, people expect diplomacy, even high levels of diplomacy, to operate like magic: That's not how diplomacy works. You don't simply wave your hand and tell them that these aren't the droids they're looking for.
Last edited:
A'koss
Explorer
Diplomacy has been a contentious issue with our group in the past.
As the DM, I've laid down the law and ruled that diplomacy has limits. I try to address it on a case by case basis... for example, if the PCs were trying to use diplomacy to end hostilities due to a genuine misunderstanding, that's fine. That's a good use of diplomacy infact. Trying to convince a great red wrym not to turn you into a greasy smear after you butchered your way into his lair? Well, he might pause long enough to have a good laugh before turning you into said smear.
I've also placed limits as to how much you can influence someone if they are truly set on a specific goal or those who are in positions of great responsibility. This will also depend on what you're using diplomacy for. You're not going to make one check and convince a king to send his troops to aid you in a war unless it was to his advantage as well (long term or short) no matter how well you rolled.
Sometimes the PCs will have to make some concessions, even on a successful roll... "Okay, I'll help. But in return I want..."
I think a little common sense in these cases goes a long ways...
A'koss.
As the DM, I've laid down the law and ruled that diplomacy has limits. I try to address it on a case by case basis... for example, if the PCs were trying to use diplomacy to end hostilities due to a genuine misunderstanding, that's fine. That's a good use of diplomacy infact. Trying to convince a great red wrym not to turn you into a greasy smear after you butchered your way into his lair? Well, he might pause long enough to have a good laugh before turning you into said smear.
I've also placed limits as to how much you can influence someone if they are truly set on a specific goal or those who are in positions of great responsibility. This will also depend on what you're using diplomacy for. You're not going to make one check and convince a king to send his troops to aid you in a war unless it was to his advantage as well (long term or short) no matter how well you rolled.
Sometimes the PCs will have to make some concessions, even on a successful roll... "Okay, I'll help. But in return I want..."
I think a little common sense in these cases goes a long ways...
A'koss.
jgbrowning
Hero
Once you get a 60 diplomacy you can make anyone be your friend in 6 seconds. *hrm*
Now we know why PC's are immune to this skill.....
joe b.
Now we know why PC's are immune to this skill.....
joe b.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Are you your own ally for the Help action in combat?
