What is the general opinion of Burlews diplomacy rules?

[arscott]

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.)

Okay, but even if it's a good trade, it's just DC 30 and the commoner still can't make the check. And sure, you can certainly make a fiat ruling for certain situations where you think a check is unnecessary. But then you're back at square one, where the DM is just making stuff up because he doesn't like the results of the actual system. That arbitrary quality is exactly what Burlew's rules are intended to remove.

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.

But why not have diplomatic challenges scale in that matter. Why not, at first level, be convincing the a friendly prince to allow you safe passage across his lands, and then at 15th level convincing the evil warlord to rebel against his lich master?

I tend to detest systems that use arbitrary scaling. The idea that something gets harder just for the sake of keeping up with player advancement defeats the purpose of player advancement in the first place.

On a final note, basing the DC on hit dice really sinks wild empathy. At 9th level, the typical ranger or druid has a +10 to wild empathy checks. The average Base DC of CR9 animals (and low-int magical beasts) is 30. That means he needs to roll a nat 20 on the check, and that's for an even deal.

 

[arscott]

An Idea just came to me. What if the diplomacy check wasn't used to seal the deal, but instead just set the terms.

So the character uses a diplomacy check (opposed by another character's diplomacy or sense motive) to set the terms of the deal. If he does well, the opposing character might view the deal as being good or favorable, even when it isn't by objective standards.

Then once the terms are established, it's a charisma check (modified for your relationship with the target and how favorable the deal is). This requires a few more rolls, but it has the effect of letting a high-diplomacy character shine without completely shutting out all other characters.

 

[genshou]

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

Of course they are. How many 20th-level NPCs are running around in your typical kingdom of 4 million? Probably 6 or less. That's a pretty impressive statistic right there. And I can tell you right now that if I were 20th-level, I'd be pretty wary about making deals with someone I hadn't known and trusted back in my younger, adventuring days. It'd be a very impressive feat to convince me I wanted to make what appeared to be a fair trade, and I probably wouldn't have the time of day for anyone who couldn't say the right thing.

 

[Crothian]

Of course they are. How many 20th-level NPCs are running around in your typical kingdom of 4 million? Probably 6 or less.

There is one 20th level character per about 5.2 million people according to the only D&D book I've seen that lists such things.

 

[genshou]

There is one 20th level character per about 5.2 million people according to the only D&D book I've seen that lists such things.

I'm going by the town generation rules, but using a realistic ratio between the different types of communities. There should be one metropolis per 10,000 communities (at an average population of about 4 million for the lot), and a metropolis generally has a few 20th-level PC-classed NPCs. I'm ignoring the 20th-level Commoners because they're useless anyway.

 

[Stalker0]

One alteration that might be useful is only add in the targets level to the DC if the deal is unfavorable. If a deal is a good, people are going to take it. But.. convincing a high level person whose been around the block to accept an unfair deal is going to be a lot harder than a common shlub.