What is the general opinion of Burlews diplomacy rules?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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).

I don't like the idea of using Sense Motive there; a problem with opposed skill checks is that your opponent might not have the skill in question. (Compare this to casting an attack spell; targetting a mage's Fort save, which is likely their weakest save, still gives them a reasonable chance to succeed, because all saves gradually increase over level.)

Diplomacy is a powerful skill, too; I think it's more powerful than a lot of other skills (like Hide or Forgery) where there are other ways of counteracting them.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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.

No, that is a problem with the house rule because the house rule has rules for 'extremely favourable'. Pick something else extremely favourable and pick the borderline of when you think a roll is required, and when you hit it, the Wizard autofails. The line must be drawn where the roll is required eventually, right? How about: "Honey, we just found 100,000 GP. I know you want to donate to your temple, so let's donate 99,000 GP and I'll keep the other 1,000 for my research."

Or how about this one (which might not even be extremely favourable but is certainly reasonable): "I know that you want to destroy the evil artifact we found right away, but if I examine the energies, I might be able to reverse-engineer it to create a positive-energy effects that will instantly destroy the undead it created."

 

[darthkilmor]

No, that is a problem with the house rule because the house rule has rules for 'extremely favourable'. Pick something else extremely favourable and pick the borderline of when you think a roll is required, and when you hit it, the Wizard autofails. The line must be drawn where the roll is required eventually, right? How about: "Honey, we just found 100,000 GP. I know you want to donate to your temple, so let's donate 99,000 GP and I'll keep the other 1,000 for my research."

Or how about this one (which might not even be extremely favourable but is certainly reasonable): "I know that you want to destroy the evil artifact we found right away, but if I examine the energies, I might be able to reverse-engineer it to create a positive-energy effects that will instantly destroy the undead it created."

So is the breakdown that someone with no ranks in diplomacy can't convince a 20th lvl cleric to do anything,regardless of their relationship with that character? So conversely, a king's wife couldnt convince him to do something, just because she's his wife.

"What? you havent even been able to make a stupid golum that doesnt eat dirt and run into walls. I'm not letting you touch this thing."

 

[Slife]

"What? you havent even been able to make a stupid golum that doesnt eat dirt and run into walls. I'm not letting you touch this thing."

"And what is it with that ring obsession of his, anyway?"

 

[argo]

I Like: changing the diplomacy mechanic to represent "propose a trade" as opposed to "make the other guy like me".

I Dislike: attempting to scale the challenge with HD

Hahaha!
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.

You have soooo missed the point. It isn't about the salt. Last time this debate went around the example used was asking your 20th level girlfriend what time it was. Everybody starts up on "you don't need a diplomacy check to ask the time"

Not... The... Point

You can substitute any simple request for the "salt". Maybe you are asking to borrow 5 bucks. Whatever. The point is that it automatically becomes more difficult to convince higher level characters to do anything. Automatically.

Try this for a counter-example: I'm a first level comoner who, somehow, came into a lot of cash. I walk up to a 20th level fighter with a 10 Wis and say "mister, I have 2,315 GP. Will you sell me that +1 Longsword you've been keeping in your bag of holding since 6th level?"

So what is the DC for that? Well we "just met" so that is a +0, and 2,315 GP is an "even" trade for a +1 Longsword so that is a +0 which makes the DC = 15 + level + Wis mod = 35.

No deal.

And the related issue: Rich's metadesign decision to make the mechanic work only "for those who put max ranks in the skill and have a decent Charisma bonus". Saying that that is how combat works doesn't make me feel better about that. The skill system is not combat, we don't scale Climb or Jump checks with level. Skills are supposed to be something anybody can attempt. My first level comoner ought to be able to buy that +1 Longsword.

Still, Rich has some good ideas there. I think developing it further could result in something really worth while.

Later.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I Like: changing the diplomacy mechanic to represent "propose a trade" as opposed to "make the other guy like me".

I Dislike: attempting to scale the challenge with HD

So how would you scale it?

Try this for a counter-example: I'm a first level comoner who, somehow, came into a lot of cash. I walk up to a 20th level fighter with a 10 Wis and say "mister, I have 2,315 GP. Will you sell me that +1 Longsword you've been keeping in your bag of holding since 6th level?"

So what is the DC for that? Well we "just met" so that is a +0, and 2,315 GP is an "even" trade for a +1 Longsword so that is a +0 which makes the DC = 15 + level + Wis mod = 35.

No deal.

Once again, you're using Diplomacy inappropriately. There's no need to make a deal here. You don't have to make a Diplomacy check to buy something at the store. This isn't even an eqaul trade, it's a good trade. The PC fighter could use the money for part of something better than a +1 sword. An equal trade should be more like "I'll lend you these troops to do this for you, if you perform this service for me" or "let me in; you might get fired, but I'll give you enough money to float you until you find a new job". (Of course, a threat of punishment by the evil boss, or a bad economy, can make the deal bad again.)

If a Diplomacy check would be made in such an example, it's only for haggling. Since neither the peasant nor the fighter seem interested in haggling, he can hand over the sword. (Assuming he's not suspicious of omniscient peasants who could be an assassin in disguise who will stab the fighter while he's going through his bag. But that's covered by Sense Motive.)

If the way Burlew wrote it bothers you (making it sound like you have to use it all the time, which isn't the impression I got), maybe you should think of it this way: Diplomacy checks should be made when adventure-relevant. Selling a sword is not adventure-relevant, and also there's no downside to it. Maybe the fighter would be suspicious, but that's covered under Sense Motive.

(And on the same note, there really doesn't need to be a DC/skill modifier for something ridiculous like trading a castle for a piece of string. So yeah, the house rule set isn't perfect.)

And the related issue: Rich's metadesign decision to make the mechanic work only "for those who put max ranks in the skill and have a decent Charisma bonus". Saying that that is how combat works doesn't make me feel better about that. The skill system is not combat, we don't scale Climb or Jump checks with level.

You scale a lot of skill checks with level. It's just not always direct. For instance, in the PH they have examples of "scaling" skill checks - tracking orcs that went by last week, and it snowed yesterday. The GM is supposed to present a greater challenge to higher level PCs. If the orcs passed by last week, and it snowed yesterday, in a 1st-level campaign, it seems to me the PCs have to use something other than Survival/Track to find the orcs, because passing the check is next to impossible. If, on the other hand, that happened in a high level campaign, using Survival/Track to find the orcs becomes a lot more reasonable.

Similarly, jumping from building onto a flying carpet going by is probably not easy for a 1st-level character (while jumping a ditch is so easy it won't necessarily challenge to a high level PC), and swimming an hour through storm-tossed water is probably going to be a serious challenge to a low-level PC ... even if those skill checks don't have a CR.

On the same hand, you don't talk a 20th-level warlord into not going to war at 1st-level ... or at least it's going to be really hard.

Skills are supposed to be something anybody can attempt. My first level comoner ought to be able to buy that +1 Longsword.

And he could. Assuming, of course, he somehow knew the longsword was there

 

[Gez]

You have soooo missed the point. It isn't about the salt. Last time this debate went around the example used was asking your 20th level girlfriend what time it was. Everybody starts up on "you don't need a diplomacy check to ask the time"

Not... The... Point

Yup. If common sense says the request should be automatically a success, then the rules needs for the character to succeed a check by taking 10.

Some possible ways to fix the rules to that effect:

1. Instead of using HD as a baseline, use HD difference, min 0. So, a 10th level character has the mathematical equivalent of a -10 penalty when attempting to "diplomacy" a 20-HD somebody into doing something, but no penalty if the target is 10th level or lower.
2. As an alternative to 1, it's possible to use only half the target's HD. It won't remove the problem entirely, but it'll help slow it.
3. Only add the target's Wisdom bonus to the DC is the deal is unfavorable. If it's favorable or even, then wisdom will help see the deal is acceptable, not help reject it.

 

[genshou]

3. Only add the target's Wisdom bonus to the DC is the deal is unfavorable. If it's favorable or even, then wisdom will help see the deal is acceptable, not help reject it.

That sounds pretty good to me.

 

[argo]

So how would you scale it?

I would maybe work up a set of static DC's for how "favorable" the trade is. Like maybe an "even" trade is DC 10 or DC 15, a "favorable" trade is DC 5, etc. Then have a set of modifiers based on how well how good your relationship is, similar to what Rich already has worked up.

Once again, you're using Diplomacy inappropriately. There's no need to make a deal here. You don't have to make a Diplomacy check to buy something at the store. This isn't even an eqaul trade, it's a good trade. The PC fighter could use the money for part of something better than a +1 sword. An equal trade should be more like "I'll lend you these troops to do this for you, if you perform this service for me" or "let me in; you might get fired, but I'll give you enough money to float you until you find a new job". (Of course, a threat of punishment by the evil boss, or a bad economy, can make the deal bad again.)

Once again, Not The Point.

Of course no sane GM makes you roll diplomacy to pass the salt. Not the point. The specific example isn't the point. Use any example you want. Pass the salt, ask the time, buy a sword. Use one of your own examples; "borrow the troops" or "let me in". Doesn't matter.

Convincing a 20th level 10 Wis figher that you "just met" to make an "even" trade is a DC 35.

DC 35, that's the point.

Unless I'm a high level character who put max ranks into diplomacy it's basically impossible to get this guy to make an "even" trade. You either need to be his good buddy or else "pay" him several times what the deal is worth.

Because, you know, all 20th level characters are automatically rock stars...

 

[argo]

Yup. If common sense says the request should be automatically a success, then the rules needs for the character to succeed a check by taking 10.

And this would be the point.

Should have maybe said that myself