What can you do with Diplomacy?

[Utrecht]

One complaint that I have about the Diplomacy skill is that DMs seem to have expect very high results of the Diplomacy check to do anything - and that they feel the DC in the DMG are to low - thereby minimizing the effectiveness of the skill.

While I realize this is a DM specific issue - I have encountered it with more than one DM.

and I have to admit that I see it a little bit above - While I agree that Diplomacy is not magical coercion - a 30+ result is damn impressive and should count for something - and more DMs should use Piratecat's model of the PC can succeed unless something prohibs them - as opposed to the PCs fail unless they succeed.

 

[Utrecht]

I think this 'equivalent value' is impossible even if it were desirable (IMO it's neither). I think the possibility of sub-optimal choices in character creation is inevitable. The Diplomacy skill should have _some use_ in-game, it doesn't need to be exactly equivalent in 'value' to points spent on Tumble (or whatever).

Why is it not desireable???? (I agree under the current system it is inevitable) As Merova states - skill points and Feats are in effect currency that we build our characters from - thereby setting the relative costs of all abilities of characters.

Thus, if Diplomacy is ony 25% as usefull as Tumble - then it should cost 25% less. And it is the "soft" skills that suffer for it - thinks like sense motive, bluff, intimidate - all are watered down compared to the rather hard results of listen, tumble, etc.

The desire of equal cost just makes sense to me - and from your examble - why would I EVER spend points in Diplomacy if I know that Tumble is a much better use of my currency - in the chance that Diplomacy will do me good - well it won't if I am splattered on the floor because I did not invest in the "smart" skill of tumbling.

 

[S'mon]

Imagine for a second if there were a skill called "Hit somebody". It had static DCs, maxing out around 35. It was about the same DC to hit a kobold as to hit a great wyrm red dragon. Magic items to increase the skill were fairly available, such that a 10th-level character could rely on making that DC 35 check about half the time.

More accurately it would be a skill called 'win fight', the skill roll determing whether you won, lost or drew.

 

[Pielorinho]

Utrecht, I hope you're not misunderstanding me. A 30+ check DEFINITELY succeeds in my game. It just doesn't necessarily do everytihng the player wants ti to do.

Just as you don't slay a red dragon with a single attack roll of 37, you don't completely change someone's attitude, to the point that they'll endanger their life for no appreciable benefit, with such a roll.

However, you do accomplish a lot: you can avoid being reported for a crime, you can gain information, you can get folks to run your errands or put in a good word with their allies on your behalf. People will be willing to go out of their way based on such a roll in order to help you.

And the less powerful they are, the farther out of their way they'll go. DC 37 with a shopkeeper? Welcome to discount city, baby. DC 37 with the King? Pshaw! The king deals with magically-enhanced, professionally-trained diplomats all the time, and is pretty jaded. You're lucky if the king pays attention to such a paltry diplomcacy skill.

Again, it's a useful skill IMC. But my game relies heavily on diplomacy; I'm not going to short-circuit the game by making a die roll overpower plausible motivations.

(On the hijack of the "Default PC success" model: I agree with that entirely, and regularly bend the rules to allow a character to achieve partial successes. Recent example? A PC cast enervate on a creature with SR, and spent a Hero Point to bump up her caster level check. Even with the Hero Point, she wasn't able to overcome the SR; since she'd spent the point, however, I squidged the rules, such that the enervate took effect for one round. I'm all about allowing PCs to succeed.)

Daniel

 

[Utrecht]

Pielorinho - no, not you in specific (although I can understand why you would think that) - but more to the general attitude of the thread.

And - as far as doing everything the PC thinks it does - that is more than fair - especially since they want everything for nothing.

I will say, that I am surprised about your statement about the King - IMO - it does not matter if it is the king, a blacksmith or the bandit prince - a 37 should do something - the corrective action for power level would be the opposed diplomacy check coupled with +/- modifiers (or better yet the rules from Dynasties and Demagogues) - the King would have a much higher diplomacy skill than a Blacksmith - so the relative differences would be much smaller - in effect makeing that 37 a 17 - a much different result. But a 37 result should do what is stated in the rules - whethere they are jaded, nieve - or what. Changing them just does not seem fair to the players (unless it was Rule 0ed going in)

 

[Voadam]

Why is it not desireable???? (I agree under the current system it is inevitable) As Merova states - skill points and Feats are in effect currency that we build our characters from - thereby setting the relative costs of all abilities of characters.

Thus, if Diplomacy is ony 25% as usefull as Tumble - then it should cost 25% less. And it is the "soft" skills that suffer for it - thinks like sense motive, bluff, intimidate - all are watered down compared to the rather hard results of listen, tumble, etc.

The desire of equal cost just makes sense to me - and from your examble - why would I EVER spend points in Diplomacy if I know that Tumble is a much better use of my currency - in the chance that Diplomacy will do me good - well it won't if I am splattered on the floor because I did not invest in the "smart" skill of tumbling.

No. Equal cost does not correlate to equal usefulness.

A skill's usefulness depends upon context, in a pure hack and slash dungeon crawl, perform woodwind instrument is not as useful as it would be in an adventure requiring posing as a minstrel. tumble is not useful in a political campaign. It makes sense for skills to be equal cost regardless of the relative usefulness of the skill.

In my example where diplomacy rolls are not used in face to face in character talking but are a downtime activity and a modifier to interaction the character who spends his points on tumbling will still not be as effective as the high diplomacy character if the adventure is dealing with court politics with downtime periods.

 

[Quasqueton]

If you are a player in my Exploring Novus Terrarum campaign, please do not read this post.
.
.
.
.
.
spoiler space for my players to move on to the next post
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

My players are entering an adventure where they need to get into a castle ruins surrounded by a tribe of lizardfolk. They intend to approach the tribe peacefully and diplomatically instead of the standard immediately violent method for most adventurers. [I applaud this idea.]

I have already considered options and possible outcomes for the use of the diplomacy skill. The PCs are 2nd level, and the sorcerer and cleric have +6 or +7 in diplomacy. (Not phenomenal, but good for low level characters.) I'm considering the lizardfolk as unfriendly to begin with (strangers entering their home territory). If the PCs can get the outer-ring of guards to friendly, they can get a meeting with the tribal chief.

From unfriendly, the PCs need a diplomacy check of 25. I will allow a new check after a day passes. So, if the PCs don't get a check of 25, they can try again the next day. If the PCs get a 15, the lizardfolk guards will become indifferent. Then the PCs can try again the next day to get another 15 to raise the guards from indifferent to friendly.

If they don't get any increase of friendliness from a diplomacy check, then the next day's attempt is against a DC 2 higher (27 for friendly, 17 for indifferent). Eventually, enough failed diplomacy attempts will simply annoy the guards and make them easier to lower in friendliness.

But I also will give circumstance bonuses to the diplomacy check for gifts, the right words, proof they've killed a dangerous predator in the neighborhood, etc. So, the players should play out what they are saying to and asking of the guards, but the die roll adjusted by the PC's skill, ability, and circumstances will determine the result.

Once in an audience with the chief, the PCs need to get him from his initial unfriendly to helpful. This can also happen with several diplomacy checks slowly increasing the chief's friendliness over a number of days. Performing some deed for the chief, or offering gifts, or thinking of the right words (what the players actually say in their role playing) will have bearing on the diplomacy check and DC.

If the PCs can get access to the castle ruins through diplomacy, I will award them xp equal to overcoming half the lizardfolk tribe. If they approached the adventure from a combat angle, they'd have to kill about half the tribe to break it up and get access to the castle. So either way, they'd get about the same xp. [They could also attempt a stealthy solution to overcoming the tribe, and I'd give xp for that too.]

Quasqueton

 

[Utrecht]

No. Equal cost does not correlate to equal usefulness.

A skill's usefulness depends upon context, in a pure hack and slash dungeon crawl, perform woodwind instrument is not as useful as it would be in an adventure requiring posing as a minstrel. tumble is not useful in a political campaign. It makes sense for skills to be equal cost regardless of the relative usefulness of the skill.

Oh, I absolutely agree that skill value is highly dependent on context - but all things being equal - skills should have similar value.

That being said, I beleive that a DM should inform PCs if a skill is not going to have value - or at a minimum saying that this is a Politically heavy campaign, so Balance will have minimal value - or this is a kick in the door style - so Diplomacy brings nothing to the table.

This way, both the PC and the DM are understand how important a skill will be - and what is a realistic expectaion for that skill.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Context is very important, which is why I left that in another thread. That character is specialized just to be able to do that, in a class not available in normal 3.0, and he can only do it one time a day, using a spell. I don't think it is a normal thing, or appropriate for this discussion.

 

[Mistwell]

House Rules

This discussion is becoming less and less about what you can achieve with Diplomacy in a hostile situation, and more and more about various house rules DMs use in their game to vary from the Diplomacy rules.

That's great that you guys have found house rules that satisfy you in your games. It's difficult to come up with good house rules sometimes, and I am genuinely happy you guys have found a way to do it with this skill.

This thread isn't about that. In fact, this forum isn't even about house rules. I'm asking for advice UNDER THE RULES AS WRITTEN for what you can do with a Diplomacy check in a hostile encounter (and perhaps that means this thread should be moved to the Rules thread).

The rules currently state that a DC 25 is sufficient to persuade the dragon that has captured you that it is a good idea to let you go.

PERIOD.

Now perhaps that is errata, and should now read DC 35 (since the DC to change something from Hostile to Friendly used to be DC 25, but was changed in the PHB to be DC 35). But regardless, the rule says a good roll on your Diplomacy check (25 or 35) is sufficient to persuade a hostile, superior target like a dragon to release you from captivity. Not save you for last. Not eat you quickly. But release you.

If you disagree with that rule, feel free to change it in your game. But I am really interested in how DMs who use that rule, as it is written, to handle Diplomacy checks in a hostile situation.

I'll admit that I wrote this chart under the AU rules, rather than the new 3.5 PHB rules. However, I think the new rules make Diplomacy MORE powerful, not less, given the new definition of Helpful (see end of this message).

If you hit a DC 60 with a single full round action (which includes the 3.5 -10 modifier to a rushed Diplomacy check), that changes your opponant from Hostile to Helpful, barring unusual circumstace modifiers.

What does it mean to have someone who was Hostile now Helpful? Granted, it doesn't mean they are charmed. But it should mean something. Heck, it should mean A LOT, since DC 60 is incredibly high.

I never said they will give you all their treasure, strip naked, and walk out of the dungeon singing your praises and doing good deeds for all their live long days. I never said they were a slave, or an automoton, or charmed.

All I said was they are now helpful towards you. In my opinion, that means they won't attack you or your friends, unless you attack them. It means they might help you with a task (depending on an opposed Diplomacy role for that negotiation). Is that unreasonable? Should you be able to do more, or less, with a Helpful target? How about for the other attitudes?

BTW, the new 3.5 PHB says "Helpful" means "Protect, Backup, Heal, Aid".