What is the general opinion of Burlews diplomacy rules?

[Cthulhudrew]

As for the example a few post above regarding passing the salt, why would you need to make a diplomacy check for that?

It is only when there is some sort of potential conflict that such roles should even matter.

Have you ever watched Dr. Phil? Or Jerry Springer? Or Maury Povich?

(I kid, of course.)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Heh. I think we've finally figured out why high-level Clerics are always assumed to be celibate. It's because you can't talk them into anything.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Havent really seen them in action much and was wondering what ppl's general opinion about them was?

Don't need 'em, personally, but they're fine for those who do.

 

[Justin Bacon]

And why would someone need a diplomacy check to ask someone that is already helpful to do a simple task? Not everything needs a roll.

Rules should make sense even when you don't need to make the roll. That's one of the great strengths of 3rd Edition's design and is the modus operandi behind the take 10 mechanic.

What I like about the direction Burlew takes the Diplomacy skill is that he shifts the entire purpose of the Diplomacy check. Rather than changing what people think about you in a vague (yet seemingly permanent) fashion, Burlew chooses to make Diplomacy a goal-oriented skill. Under Burlew's variation, a Diplomacy check is focused on accomplishing a single task, just like every other skill in the game.

The only problem is that Burlew has some mathematical/statistical glitches.

I posted this response to Rich's Diplomacy house rules on his forums:

-----
I have a more specific problem with these rules: Let's say I walk up to someone and offer to trade them my very nice castle for the piece of strings they're carrying. And there's absolutely no strings attached here (ho ho) -- the castle isn't haunted, I don't secretly know that the string is a magical artifact of incredible power, etc.

For some reason, the wiser and more powerful the character I'm talking to is, the less likely I am to convince them to take this stellar deal I'm offering.

Or, as another way of putting it: If Zeus were a pauper, he'd refuse all offers of charity.

Now, clearly these are extreme examples and the argument can be made that you wouldn't even bother making a check for this type of thing. But, IMO, the problem remains: The rules seem to assume that you're trying to screw the other person over.

I've tried to address this by adding an opposing roll. Not a Diplomacy check, but a Sense Motive check:

Target's Check: The character you're trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 20). If the check succeeds, double the bonus or penalty provided by the risk vs. reward factor. A failure on this check has no effect. You can choose to oppose the target's Sense Motive check with a Bluff check, in which case the bonus or penalty is only doubled if their check result both succeeds (against DC 20) and exceeds your Bluff check. (Obviously, you would only want to make a Bluff check if you're proposing a bad deal.)

And then I changed the modifier scales to a -15/+15 range to compensate for this.

The disadvantage is that this does eventually top out. For example, even if you're dealing with your Nemesis (+15), offering them a horrible deal (+15), that they recognize as a horrible deal (+15), and you're rushed while you do it (+10) you only need to succeed on a DC 70 check.

But, on the flip-side, you can climb a perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surface with a DC 70 Climb check. So is that really so unreasonable?

At non-epic levels, even with magical-boosting, you're probably topping out at a +30 Diplomacy modifier, giving you an average check of 40 and a maximum check of 50. At those levels, you can sweet talk your nemesis into horrible deals when you're at your best and glibly talk people you've never met before into buying flood-damaged cars without thinking about it.

However, I am pondering the possibility of adding a later check of some sort to realize that you've taken a bad deal (which would affect your relationship with the character who's taken advantage of you). But I'm not sure what would be appropriate, or if this is something that should be left as an ad hoc decision for the DM. (Anybody have an idea?)

And, ultimately, I think the DM should still have the discretion to say, "This character is not even going to listen to the deal you're proposing." (Although, being the open-ended guy I am, I'd probably model that as a separate modifier to the check so that truly powerful characters can overcome even the intransigent. Hmm... Maybe this is where the HD+Wis modifier could come into play? So that the more powerful a character is, the more intransigent they can be if they simply refuse to listen to any form of negotiation or deal-making? Yeah, I like that. Make a Diplomacy check of DC 15 + subject's HD + subject's Wisdom modifier + relationship modifier to make them listen, allowing you to make an additional Diplomacy check normally.)

Then I adapted one of Monte Cook's attempted fixes of the Diplomacy skill:

[snip]

Then I hard-coded some haggling rules:

[snip]

I'm definitely using Rich's suggestion of using the skill for Charm Person effects. (Brilliant!) If you're trying to con someone, you simply make a Bluff check (opposed by Sense Motive as always) to convince them that a deal is better than it actually is.

And I'm trying to hammer out some guidelines for using the skill for more complex negotiations. I may dig out my copy of DYNASTIES & DEMAGOGUES from Atlas Games and adapt some of the material in there using Rich's more enlightened, far more powerful, and extraordinarily versatile foundation.
-----

And these are my Diplomacy rules as they currently stand (hopefully the formatting isn't too messed up for comprehension):

Persuasion: You can propose a trade or agreement to another creature with your words; a Diplomacy check can then persuade them that accepting it is a good idea. Either side of the deal may involve physical goods, money, services, promises, or abstract concepts like "satisfaction." The DC for the Diplomacy check is based on three factors: who the target is, the relationship between the target and the character making the check, and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal proposed.

Check: The base DC for a persuasion check is 15, modified by your relationship with the character you're trying to convince and the risk vs. reward factor of the deal being proposed.

Target's Check: The character you're trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 20). If the check succeeds, double the bonus or penalty provided by the risk vs. reward factor. A failure on this check has no effect. You can choose to oppose the target's Sense Motive check with a Bluff check, in which case the bonus or penalty is only doubled if their check result both succeeds (against DC 20) and exceeds your Bluff check. (Obviously, you would only want to make a Bluff check if you're proposing a bad deal.)

Success or Failure: If the Diplomacy check beats the DC, the subject accepts the proposal, with no changes or with minor (mostly idiosyncratic) changes. If the check fails by 5 or less, the subject does not accept the deal but may, at the DM's option, present a counter-offer that would push the deal up one place on the risk-vs.-reward list. For example, a counter-offer might make an Even deal Favorable for the subject. The character who made the Diplomacy check can simply accept the counter-offer, if they choose; no further check will be required. If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation.

It should be noted that, just because a deal has been accepted, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other character is happy about it. If you use your relationship to take advantage of someone, it may affect their future relationship with you (at the DM's discretion).

Action: Making a request or proposing a deal generally requires at least 1 full minute. In many situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.

Try Again: If you alter the parameters of the deal you are proposing, you may try to convince the subject that this new deal is even better than the last one. This is essentially how people haggle. As long as you never roll 10 or less than the DC on your Diplomacy check, you can continue to offer deals.

DC Relationship (Example)
-15 Intimate (someone who with whom you have an implicit trust; a
lover or spouse)
-10 Friend (someone with whom you have a regularly positive personal
relationship; a long-time buddy or sibling)
-5 Ally (someone on the same team, but with whom you have no personal
relationship; a cleric of the same religion or a knight serving the
same king)
-2 Acquaintance - Positive (someone you've met several times with
no particularly negative experiences; the blacksmith that buys your
looted equipment regularly)
+0 Just met (no relationship whatsoever)
+2 Acquaintance - Negative (someone you've met several times with
no particularly positive experiences; the town guard that has arrested
you for drunkenness once or twice)
+5 Enemy (someone on an opposed team with whom you have no personal
relationship; a cleric of an opposed religion or the orc bandit robbing
you)
+10 Personal Foe (someone with whom you have a regularly antagonistic
personal relationship; an evil overlord you're trying to thwart or a
bounty hunter sworn to track you down)
+15 Nemesis (someone who has sworn to do you, personally, harm; the
brother of a man you murdered in cold blood)

DC Risk vs. Reward Judgment (Example)
-15 Fantastic (The reward for accepting the deal is very worthwhile;
the risk is either acceptable or extremely unlikely. The best-case
scenario is a virtual guarantee. Example: An offer to pay a lot of gold
for information that isn't important to the character.)
-10 Good (The reward is good and the risk is minimal. The subject is
very likely to profit from the deal. Example: An offer to pay someone
twice their normal daily wage to spend their evening in a seedy tavern
with a reputation for vicious brawls and later report on everyone they
saw there.)
-5 Favorable (The reward is appealing, but there's risk involved. If
all goes according to plan, though, the deal will end up benefiting the
subject. Example: A request for a mercenary to aid the party in battle
against a weak goblin tribe in return for a cut of the money and first
pick of the magic items.)
+0 Even (The reward and risk more or less even out; or the deal
involves neither reward nor risk. Example: A request for directions to
someplace that isn't a secret.)
+5 Unfavorable (The reward is not enough compared to the risk
involved. Even if all goes according to plan, chances are it will end
badly for the subject. Example: A request to free a prisoner the target
is guarding in return for a small amount of money.)
+10 Bad (The reward is poor and the risk is high. The subject is very
likely to get the raw end of the deal. Example: A request for a
mercenary to aid the party in battle against an ancient red dragon for
a small cut of any non-magical treasure.)
+15 Horrible (There is no conceivable way the proposed plan could end
up with the subject ahead or the worst-case scenario is guaranteed to
occur. Example: An offer to trade a rusty kitchen knife for a shiny new
longsword.)

Convince: You make a Diplomacy check (DC 15) if you want to convince someone of something that you believe. (If you're trying to convince them of a lie, it's a Bluff check.) This DC is adjusted by the relationship between you and the person you're trying to convince, just like a persuasion check.

Target's Check: The character you're trying to convince makes a Sense Motive check (DC 10). If the check succeeds, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your Diplomacy check (they sense your honesty). This works just like the Aid Another action, so you gain an additional +1 bonus for every 10 points that their check exceeds DC 10.

Success or Failure: If your check succeeds, the other character believes what you're telling them. (Or at least believes that you believe it to be true.) Of course, what they choose to do with that information depends on the character.

Haggling: If you're haggling, you can make an opposed Diplomacy check to get a better price.

Merchant's Check: The character selling the item makes a Diplomacy check to set the DC of the buyer's check.

Relationship: As with a persuasion check, the DC of the buyer's check is adjusted by the relationship they have with the merchant.

Buyer's Check: The buyer's check is compared to the DC set by the
merchant's check, with the result determining whether the haggling
was favorable or unfavorable to the buyer. (It should be noted that
these results match the Risk vs. Reward scale used for persuasion
checks.)

Check Result Price Adjustment (Risk vs. Reward for Merchant)
DC - 15 +30% (Fantastic)
DC - 12 +25%
DC - 10 +20% (Good)
DC - 7 +15%
DC - 5 +10% (Favorable)
DC - 2 +5%
+0% (Even)
DC + 2 -5%
DC + 5 -10% (Unfavorable)
DC + 7 -15%
DC + 10 -20% (Bad)
DC + 12 -25%
DC + 15 -30% (Horrible)

In general, merchants won't haggle more than 30% above or 30% below
the normal price of an item.

As with any Diplomacy check, the actions of a PC should not be
dictated by the check result - if they're unhappy with the result,
they should be allowed to walk away from the sale. NPCs, on the other
hand, should generally follow-through on a check result.

Retry: No, although the PCs could haggle over the price of a different
item or haggle with a different character for a similar item. A
haggling check represents the entire negotiating process between buyer
and seller; the result is the best price the PCs are going to get from
that buyer or seller.

Overcome Intransigence: Some characters simply won't listen to any attempts at negotiation or deal-making. To overcome their intransigence, you can make a Diplomacy check with a DC of 15 + the subject's HD + the subject's Wisdom modifier + the subject's relationship modifier. If the check succeeds, you can then make a Diplomacy check as normal.

Charm Spells: A charmed creature is treated as having a Friendly relationship to the caster (-10 to Diplomacy DC), which replaces any previous relationship modifier. Thus, by charming an enemy, the DC drops from +5 to -10, a decrease of 15. The caster can now talk the creature into anything this improved relationship allows.

Because the effect is based on the spell, the caster can make a Spellcraft check in place of a Diplomacy check when dealing with charmed creatures.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I like them. I use them. I don't think the PH Diplomacy rules work well at all, and I had to use big modifiers to control the skill. However, to the players it felt like I was cheating. Burlew's rules are great because it presents the rules to the players using (mostly) well-designed examples.

The general opinion of them seems to be good. Personally, I think that they are a big mistake, as they lead to absurd situations like the level 20 Wizard who can't convince his true love to pass him the salt, even on a 20. That said, the current version in the PH is not much better unless you have a GM who you trust to have the skill to moderate the results well and fairly, in which case the PH rules are significantly superior.

This is absurd... making die rolls to pass the salt? That's not a problem with the house rule. That's a problem with the GM.

I also like the concept in Sharn wherein what you would do for a friend depends on who you are. That solved about half of the abuses of diplomacy pretty squarely.

What page? I'd better go dig that up.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I was looking at the rules and I dunno if they work that well at higher levels. A 15-HD creature with a +0 Wis modifier has a DC of 30. So for your average negotiation, it takes a 30 to succeed. Sounds like not too many deals will be taking place. Ironically, at higher levels creatures become more stubborn and, as a result, less effective at negotiating. Two fire giants haggling over an orange would be doing so for a very long time indeed.

Although I guess I'm not looking at it from the point of view of a tweaked out Diplomacy character. But it appears that those are the only people who can negotiate effectively at higher levels.

IMC, I use the simple golden rule that you can't convince someone of doing something they don't want to do, regardless of the check result. However unlikely, its still gotta be possible for the target to accept the deal. If not, no amount of Diplomacy is going to work. I also ignore Diplomacy for creatures that refuse to negotiate. It's kinda hard to convince someone when they're not willing to listen to you. And I also use the "no-cheese/no-dice" rule: "So you wanna trade me your ball of wax for my castle? Sorry, no dice." I wouldn't even dignify that with a roll.

I think a lot of the problems with Diplomacy can be readily and easily solved by having a DM who knows what he's doing. A DM's job isn't to just sit there and administer die rolls; a DM's job is to oversee the game and make sure the rules aren't manipulated to create broken results. And if that means ignoring the Diplomacy check of a character with a +57 check result, so be it.

 

[arscott]

This is absurd... making die rolls to pass the salt? That's not a problem with the house rule. That's a problem with the GM.

It's an extreme example. But it's one that points out the flaws in the system (i.e., that Burlew's rules assume that you've got max ranks in diplomacy and are trying to screw over the other party)

I agree with Justin Bacon's comment that the rules should make sense if a roll is called for, even if it's an obvious situation. In this case, they very much do not.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was looking at the rules and I dunno if they work that well at higher levels. A 15-HD creature with a +0 Wis modifier has a DC of 30.

A 15th-level dwarven cleric social PC with Charisma mod of +0 can have 18 ranks. That's a +18 bonus right there. They need to roll a 12, which isn't that hard, and that assumes the negotiating PC didn't come up with a good offer (one good enough to give a bonus). A bard would probably have a much higher Charisma - assuming no items, no skill-boosting feats and human or elven (rather than half-elven) they could easily have a Charisma of 18 by that level, giving a modifier of +22 (they pass more than half the time).

So for your average negotiation, it takes a 30 to succeed. Sounds like not too many deals will be taking place.

They will if the GM isn't making NPCs much higher level than PCs.

Ironically, at higher levels creatures become more stubborn and, as a result, less effective at negotiating. Two fire giants haggling over an orange would be doing so for a very long time indeed.

What are you giving up for the orange? It's an orange. It's not important.

Although I guess I'm not looking at it from the point of view of a tweaked out Diplomacy character. But it appears that those are the only people who can negotiate effectively at higher levels.

It's a bit like spellcasting. At higher levels, only high level spellcasters can cast offensive spells (with saves) effectively against high level opponents. A 2nd-level bard/10th-level fighter shouldn't expect his 1st-level spells to work against high level opponents, nor should a 2nd-level bard/10th-level fighter with a Diplomacy modifier of +10 expect to sway important high level NPCs all that often. And even then, they can try to get a deal from a lower level minion - they won't get as much good stuff, but it'll be easier.

Furthermore, there's a reason the examples are so important. A high level NPC can give you something good - passage, information, or resources. You need to find out what they want and offer it to them; you can get as much as a +10 bonus doing that, and a +5 bonus reasonably. You can even Bluff to make a bad deal sound better (which is almost like getting a bonus to your Diplomacy check).

I think a lot of the problems with Diplomacy can be readily and easily solved by having a DM who knows what he's doing. A DM's job isn't to just sit there and administer die rolls; a DM's job is to oversee the game and make sure the rules aren't manipulated to create broken results. And if that means ignoring the Diplomacy check of a character with a +57 check result, so be it.

But the problem isn't necessarily PCs treating Diplomacy like mind control (it isn't always bad players, or even min-maxed PCs). Diplomacy DCs don't scale in core rules, which means after some levels the PC will never fail a Diplomacy check for something not too unreasonable. If they can't fail, then where's the challenge?

 

[darthkilmor]

I guess what some ppl dont like is that there's no opposed roll.

Changing the rule the least amount, would an opposed ?Sense Motive?Diplomacy? roll set to the DC of the players success roll be sufficient?
Like say, player rolls a 27 on his diplomacy check, a success. Now the opposing npc makes a sense motive check, DC 27. Failure indicates the PC succeeds, success indicated he doesnt buy it. Maybe add +4 to another diplomacy check(so you cant sit there and take 20 on a guy).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Justin Bacon..any chance you could toss those HR changes (with snips returned) in a word doc and send em my way? I too am interesting in a mechanic that combines Rich's and DYNASTIES & DEMAGOGUES and would like to see where you are going with that.


linte_draug
comcast
net

Thanks in advance!