Diplomancing the party?

[PotatoNinja]

Has anybody ever needed to, done for ****s and giggles, used to make a point, a diplomancer against the party?

I ask because previously, I have had several problems with people wanting to play diplomancers (but not recently). I was wondering how, uhm, ethical this would be against stalwart defender of the diplomancer faith.

I had in mind something like...

<DM> Yeah, he's ritualistically killing babies to fuel some dark purpose
<LG Diplomancer> OMG THAT'S HORRIBLE I WILL CONVINCE HIM TO STOP /rolls
<DM> /rools, so, what did you get?
<Diplomancer> 45
<DM> He makes a good point, and you find yourself killing babies.

[Flickerdart]

PCs are explicitly immune to the effects of the Diplomacy skill. It's in the description.

[PotatoNinja]

PCs are explicitly immune to the effects of the Diplomacy skill. It's in the description.

Which is why the whole thing makes no sense, at all. Let's remove RAW for this instance, because RAW tends to lead to sillyness.

[Tenno Seremel]

So… he made a good point, and still got killed. Why? Well, maybe PCs think killing babies is wrong even if you are saving the world in the process (cannot make good with evil), or you have obligation to your superiors that know better or hold your life (I have no choice), or maybe they fall into the berserk rage as soon as they hear any diplomancer that is trying to persuade them (paranoid)… PCs will find a way to do it.

[Psyren]

Which is why the whole thing makes no sense, at all. Let's remove RAW for this instance, because RAW tends to lead to sillyness.

If you remove RAW, you remove everything that makes Diplomancy possible, therefore you still can't enslave the PCs.

Granted, deviating from RAW is not a bad thing where Diplomacy is concerned.

[NOhara24]

The whole problem here is that rolling a diplomacy check against PCs isn't something you can mark up as a will save. There's nothing magical about the diplomacy skill. The PCs always have a choice to say "I don't care how good of a point you're making. No, because no."

That being said, if your BBEG had some more magical powers and was trying to pass himself off as a diplomancer, that would be interesting.

[Tenno Seremel]

Oh, and being proved wrong does not necessary stop anyone as Internet can easily demonstrate :}

[Sith_Happens]

PCs are explicitly immune to the effects of the Diplomacy skill. It's in the description.

Well, shoot. Knowing that would have come in handy for me this one time.:smallannoyed:

[MukkTB]

You have to remove RAW and then it gets weird.

How does a successful diplomacy check work? Well if you went up to a paladin and said, 'Lets kill innocents.' and then made a skill check I'm pretty sure no matter what you rolled for diplomacy the DM would rule that the paladin wouldn't go off to kill innocents with you.

In order to change someones mind with diplomacy they need to be open to what you're discussing.

Also you probably can't make points that you didn't actually say when you make the diplomacy check. If you tell the NPC, "Why can't we be friends?" and then succeed at a diplomacy check you probably can't have your character tack on "Because our ancestors have always been allied." That would actually require you to make a knowledge history check where the DM tells you this information and then you say to the NPC, "Why can't we be friends because our ancestors have always been allied?" After which you make a diplomacy roll to see how well this is received.

So I would interpret that Diplomacy is about how you fluff the points you make and how you convince an character to consider the points you make. Therefore if you make a successful diplomacy check against the PCs you speak regally and you could probably force them to listen to you make a long speech before they get to act. Not entirely helpful.

[Ravens_cry]

It's probably for the best, no one likes their PC being bossed around without their concent. Opening up for a player with a particular build to be able to say "Hey, we're doing this and you all get no say on it." is a really fast way to end fun fast.
And that is Not a Good Thing.
Not to mention the railroading.
"Yeah, this quest sucks, and will get us killed, but the DM apparently rolled a 20. Can we see it?"
"No."

[lunar2]

ye~eah, no. no other player is going to tell my character what to do without some serious magic to back them up. no dominate person/monster = no control over me. same thing when I DM. Intimidate, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Charm can influence attitudes, but they CAN'T force decisions on anyone.

[Talentless]

ye~eah, no. no other player is going to tell my character what to do without some serious magic to back them up. no dominate person/monster = no control over me. same thing when I DM. Intimidate, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Charm can influence attitudes, but they CAN'T force decisions on anyone.

While I can agree with this. I still find the example quite fitting as to what I do if someone tries to break the game with a Diplomancer.

At the same time, I recognize that control is taken away in doing this, and allow the player to reassert control of their characters actions after a round of what they are doing, with appropriate consequences for said actions.

Mind, this only has a chance to occur in the case where the player doesn't even try to RP out the diplomacy and just rolls for the results. If they actually roleplay out the arguments, it can be quite entertaining, and I'm willing to let them win the debates if they make especially good points.


Essentially, if the player in the example used actually debated with me playing the baby killer in a diplomacy debate, I will not arbitrarily take control of their character, no matter how badly they do in such a debate.

[Coidzor]

This is generally considered the kind of faux pas that results in crumpled up character sheets being thrown at the DM and the group dissolving.

or at least the DM no longer being allowed to run.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Which is why the whole thing makes no sense, at all. Let's remove RAW for this instance, because RAW tends to lead to sillyness.

Alright we've now removed the diplomacy skill. The fact you can use diplomacy to simply roll a die to make someone do something completely out of character is ridiculous. (and not even covered by the skill to begin with).

The situation you described in the OP was ridiculous, be it used on PC or NPC.

At my table I don't allow rollplaying. We roleplay are disscussions. I'd want my players to at least come up with something that sounds plausable before making a skill check. A standard I hold my self to in RPG games when I'm the "Face"

So a diplomancer must roleplay his diplomacy. Or at least get another person at the table to give him an argument he could use. Diplomacy and bluff are not complusions they are not magical and treating them as such is silly.

[Ravens_cry]

Well . . .I think it is better to use the Diplomacy skill, at least with NPC, but in conjunction with a floating modifier system. Not all of us are good actors, not all of us are good at making a convincing argument that would convince someone to see things our way. With a floating system based on role play, a bad argument imposes a penalty, while a good argument can give none or even a bonus.
That way you encourage good role play, but still allow players who may not be so good with social skills in real life still be able to play characters who are. After all, a lot of the fun of a role playing game is playing someone you are not.
I may personally suck at social engineering, but it is something I admire in a perverse way and love to play as a character.

[Morph Bark]

Remember: PCs are immune to Diplomacy, but they aren't immune to Bluff.

*wiggles eyebrows*

[Lord Vukodlak]

Remember: PCs are immune to Diplomacy, but they aren't immune to Bluff.

*wiggles eyebrows*

One should keep in mind the effects of a bluff are usually short term.

[Fable Wright]

One should keep in mind the effects of a bluff are usually short term.
One should keep in mind that it can still be extremely effective (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html).

[Ravens_cry]

At least players and NPC have a potential out with Bluff, it's called Sense Motive.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Well . . .I think it is better to use the Diplomacy skill, at least with NPC, but in conjunction with a floating modifier system. Not all of us are good actors, not all of us are good at making a convincing argument that would convince someone to see things our way. With a floating system based on role play, a bad argument imposes a penalty, while a good argument can give none or even a bonus.
That way you encourage good role play, but still allow players who may not be so good with social skills in real life still be able to play characters who are. After all, a lot of the fun of a role playing game is playing someone you are not.

Thats exactly what I do, notice how I used the word plausable, instead of GOOD. They a least need something that sounds plausable if you don't think about it to have a shot. Not everyone is a fighter, not everyone is a spellcaster or a rogue. But everyone is a roleplayer. And treating diplomacy like a magical complusion takes the roleplaying out of the game.

The only other option is to limit diplomacy to influencing the attitude. Just because you make friends with a guy doesn't mean he'll act completely contray to his nature.

[LordBlades]

So a diplomancer must roleplay his diplomacy. Or at least get another person at the table to give him an argument he could use. Diplomacy and bluff are not complusions they are not magical and treating them as such is silly.

Do you also make your players roleplay their attack rolls?

The point of skills is to represent what your character knows/can do(As opposed to the player). If you as a player with little social skills don't know what you could say in a given situation, this doesn't mean that your bard with a +50 Diplomacy modifier wouldn't either.

I do agree that you shouldn't treat them as more than they are. you rolled a 500 Diplomacy check? Congrats. Your target is now helpful. He will take risks to help you, but will not dive into certain death just because you ask him nicely.

[Morph Bark]

I do agree that you shouldn't treat them as more than they are. you rolled a 500 Diplomacy check? Congrats. Your target is now helpful. He will take risks to help you, but will not dive into certain death just because you ask him nicely.

Under RAW Diplomacy you can get someone from Helpful to Fanatic with a DC 50 check (150 IIRC if they are hostile). Fanatics will have an effective semi-rage and will put down their lives for you if necessary.

[LordBlades]

Under RAW Diplomacy you can get someone from Helpful to Fanatic with a DC 50 check (150 IIRC if they are hostile). Fanatics will have an effective semi-rage and will put down their lives for you if necessary.

Forgot about Fanatic, sorry. Been a while since I've had a diplomancer in my group, so I checked the SRD, and Fanatic is listed under epic rules.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Do you also make your players roleplay their attack rolls?
Everyone always makes that stupid comparison the difference is no matter your class, no matter the race. No matter the RPG system your using everyone at the table is a roleplayer. Convincing the bandit horde to back down or the dragon not to attack you shouldn't just be a single die roll. Actual dialog and exchange should be used.


The point of skills is to represent what your character knows/can do(As opposed to the player). If you as a player with little social skills don't know what you could say in a given situation, this doesn't mean that your bard with a +50 Diplomacy modifier wouldn't either.

The bluff skill can require someone actually come up with real words to say in order to judge the circumstance bonus and penalties. The PHB gives several examples of how a halfling rogue lies to try and sell stolen gems, each lie more outrageous then the next. From desperte for cash to "I'm really a lammasu."

IF people choose to use diplomacy as a method of convincing people to do something in a manner similar to bluff. It is perfectly fair to apply the same standard the bluff skill uses. They have to actually say something so I can judge the circumstance penalty or bonus.

The limited to attitude adjustment has its own problems as the DC does not depend at all on the target. A great wyrm red dragon is as easy to influence as an Orc commoner. I have had fun with it though. PC uses diplomacy to make the vamprie friendly. Well the vampire's idea of being a good friend is to turn you into a vampire. And that's how the PC was killed by his own party.

[LordBlades]

the difference is no matter your class, no matter the race. No matter the RPG system your using everyone at the table is a roleplayer. Slaughtering the bandit horde or the dragon shouldn't just be a single die roll. Actual description of what you do should be used.

See what I did there?:smallbiggrin:




The bluff skill can require someone actually come up with real words to say in order to judge the circumstance bonus and penalties. The PHB gives several examples of how a halfling rogue lies to try and sell stolen gems, each lie more outrageous then the next. From desperte for cash to "I'm really a lammasu."

The difference according to RAW is that
A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.. In order to make somebody 'react as you wish' or 'believe something' you need to specify how you want them to react or what you want them to believe. Diplomacy used to improve attitude, needs no specifics by RAW.


IF people choose to use diplomacy as a method of convincing people to do something in a manner similar to bluff. It is perfectly fair to apply the same standard the bluff skill uses. They have to actually say something so I can judge the circumstance penalty or bonus

Of course, if you're using diplomacy to make somebody do something specific, you need specifics, but not for influencing attitude.


I have had fun with it though. PC uses diplomacy to make the vamprie friendly. Well the vampire's idea of being a good friend is to turn you into a vampire. And that's how the PC was killed by his own party.

D&D should be a game about having fun together not 'what funny (for me) way I can find to screw my players over'.


The point I'm trying to make is that one shouldn't penalize a socially inept player for wanting to play a PC with great social ability more than one should penalize the player of a strong warrior for not being strong himself in RL.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The difference according to RAW is that . In order to make somebody 'react as you wish' or 'believe something' you need to specify how you want them to react or what you want them to believe. Diplomacy used to improve attitude, needs no specifics by RAW.

Of course, if you're using diplomacy to make somebody do something specific, you need specifics, but not for influencing attitude.

A lot of people use diplomacy differently in this topic we're talking about using diplomacy as a persuade skill.


D&D should be a game about having fun together not 'what funny (for me) way I can find to screw my players over'. The PC's thought it was really funny, after all if a Vampire thinks being a vampire is the best thing ever. He'd want to share it with his friends. So the rogue became a vampire and got blown by the sun domain.

The Vampire's basic reaction was. "I like you, your fun, to bad your life-span is so short... I know I shall bless you with the dark gift"

Rogue: "No... thank you"

Vampie: "Oh they always say that at first, but thank me once the deed is done." So the rogue returned to the party from his solo sojourn a little different. He triggered the undead detecting sword the fighter had which caused the cleric to jump up and use the sun domain greater turning. The rogue then exploded.
*The rogue's player arrived an hour earliy and we handled his attempt to diplomant the vampire lord before the party arrived.

[LordBlades]

The PC's thought it was really funny, after all if a Vampire thinks being a vampire is the best thing ever. He'd want to share it with his friends. So the rogue became a vampire and got blown by the sun domain.

The Vampire's basic reaction was. "I like you, your fun, to bad your life-span is so short... I know I shall bless you with the dark gift"

Rogue: "No... thank you"

Vampie: "Oh they always say that at first, but thank me once the deed is done." So the rogue returned to the party from his solo sojourn a little different. He triggered the undead detecting sword the fighter had which caused the cleric to jump up and use the sun domain greater turning. The rogue then exploded.
*The rogue's player arrived an hour earliy and we handled his attempt to diplomant the vampire lord before the party arrived.

Well, if your players liked it then it's all right. I misinterpreted it, sorry about that.

[Coidzor]

Well . . .I think it is better to use the Diplomacy skill, at least with NPC, but in conjunction with a floating modifier system. Not all of us are good actors, not all of us are good at making a convincing argument that would convince someone to see things our way.

Nor are all of us good at guessing what the DM's whims will deem a "good argument" that day or find too hostile and so he'll force you to roll a bluff instead or an intimidate when that's not what you want to do at all and not actually conveyed by the content of the message.

[lunar2]

bluff requires a bit of a nerf, as well. bluff can be used to disguise your intentions and actions, but it can't influence your target's beliefs. if someone firmly believes you are lying, no amount of successful bluff checks will convince them you are not. you would need to influence their attitude (diplomacy) to get them to accept the possibility that you aren't a pathological liar (even though you are). as such, you can't bluff your way past a hostile or unfriendly guard, no matter what. you might be able to bluff your way past a neutral or friendly guard, depending on their personality. you CAN bluff your way past a helpful guard.

diplomacy is used to influence attitudes only. you use the PHB DCs, but you add the target's HD + Wis modifier to the relevant DC. only a diplomancer is going to be influencing a great wyrm dragon, while nearly anyone can influence a goblin.

also, you can only influence attitudes by 1 step at a time. once you've made the hostile dragon unfriendly, you have to prove that you've earned that new attitude before you can influence him further.

[Psyren]

also, you can only influence attitudes by 1 step at a time. once you've made the hostile dragon unfriendly, you have to prove that you've earned that new attitude before you can influence him further.

This is false; you can make one Diplomacy check and go from e.g. Hostile to Friendly without having to stop at any of the spots in between. There are even listed DCs for jumps of this nature.

[lunar2]

no, i was saying how it should be, not how it is. diplomacy and bluff are broken as is. i was merely suggesting fixes.

[Flickerdart]

Bluff is perfectly fine. If anything, it's what other skills should aspire to be - situationally useful and requiring thinking on the player's part to apply effectively, but powerful when handled properly and after a considerable investment.

[Psyren]

no, i was saying how it should be, not how it is. diplomacy and bluff are broken as is. i was merely suggesting fixes.

Oh I see, my mistake.

How about Intimidate? Does fear immunity shut all of it off?

[lunar2]

of course. intimidate scares people. you can't scare fearless people.

[Flickerdart]

of course. intimidate scares people. you can't scare fearless people.
Intimidate isn't just scaring people - that's the simple, in-combat use. Out of combat, Intimidate is making clear to the other guy that it's in his best interests to cooperate with you. Even someone who's immune to fear isn't immune to having to weigh the pros and cons of being strangled with their own spine.

[Coidzor]

Intimidate isn't just scaring people - that's the simple, in-combat use. Out of combat, Intimidate is making clear to the other guy that it's in his best interests to cooperate with you. Even someone who's immune to fear isn't immune to having to weigh the pros and cons of being strangled with their own spine.

WOTC would disagree with you, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x) amusingly enough. Since the dead levels filler they gave was just for the out of combat usage and included something to specifically bypass the Paladin's immunity to fear.

[MukkTB]

You do not get to have diplomacy roleplay for you. You have to make valid points before rolling that the DM can respond to.

How does that correspond to combat?
Well you have to make sure you're within range of the enemy. You have to specify which weapon you're using. Are you using an improvised fork or that shortsword or the longspear. Even if you have an understanding with the DM which is your primary weapon you have to have done that. Do you power attack? Do you use some other fighting style? Do you attempt to grapple...

In combat you do not roll a die at the beginning to see if you win. You make a number of decisions that specify fairly exactly what you are doing. Even the lack of called shots are a decision. A called shot is much harder to hit than just whacking whatever body part the enemy left vulnerable.

In diplomacy you must lay down the bare bones of your argument before the DM. The skill adds nothing to the structure of the argument. It adds fluff. It represents good speech skills rather than stumbling over your own words. It represents your harnessing of your animal charisma and how people are drawn to you. The delivery not the package.

I have my PC say, "We need to kill all the Chinese people." And then I roll a natural 20. Well this sentiment doesn't sit well with the NPC. The diplomacy roll won't change my words to, "We should respect the Chinese people." The NPC is going to perceive a really charismatic attractive smooth talking psychopath. They may even find my delivery amusing. But if, "Kill all the Chinese people," isn't something they could get behind they're still going to oppose me.

In fact if you don't specify what you say before rolling a diplomacy check then you've said, "Hi," as convincingly as you can. Maybe you made some small talk. "Lovely weather we're having," "Its been great. The DM hasn't given us bad weather all campaign." "So how have you been lately?" "Pretty good."

If you tell the DM I want this guy to let me past I'm rolling diplomacy, the core of your argument is either "I want you to let me pass," or just "Let me past." Not a very strong argument. On the other hand if you roll well so the NPC is thinking, 'This lordlike guy in full battle gear wants past. I should probably let him.' then you're through. Maybe the NPC is thinking 'That hot person wants something from me. Its done."

Now lets say that NPC has been told on pain of death to hold the position. A successful check, "I want past" will the guy helpful but hes not going to let you past. However as a helpful guy he is going to explain why he can't let you past. In which case you can craft a more in depth argument about why he should make an exception for you and then make another diplomacy roll.

Someone with a RL stutter and a total lack of elegance with words can sound like Shakespeare in the game world if he sticks enough points into diplomacy. But that guy still has to pick the core arguments that come out of his mouth.

Trying to evade the rollplay is not going to cut it with a decent DM.

[lunar2]

Intimidate isn't just scaring people - that's the simple, in-combat use. Out of combat, Intimidate is making clear to the other guy that it's in his best interests to cooperate with you. Even someone who's immune to fear isn't immune to having to weigh the pros and cons of being strangled with their own spine.


INTIMIDATE (CHA)
Check: You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).
If you fail the check by 5 or more, the target provides you with incorrect or useless information, or otherwise frustrates your efforts.
Demoralize Opponent: You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.
Action: Varies. Changing another’s behavior requires 1 minute of interaction. Intimidating an opponent in combat is a standard action.
Try Again: Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial check succeeds, the other character can be intimidated only so far, and a retry doesn’t help. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly resolved to resist the intimidator, and a retry is futile.
Special: You gain a +4 bonus on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are larger than your target. Conversely, you take a –4 penalty on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are smaller than your target.
A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.
If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.

you can't use intimidate against anyone immune to fear by RAW.

[PotatoNinja]

Woah, guys, i leave for one day to go study for the GRE and come back to an explosion of discussion.

I never meant to use a reverse diplomancy against an unsuspecting party, that's quite silly but i'm sorry for the initial vagueness. Posting before coffee consumption is being added to the list of PotatoNinja No-No's. :smallannoyed:

I was putting forth the idea of using it against rules lawyer-ing shennanigins for DM's who are playing low to mid level optimization campaigns where belligerent players might disregard home rules or just be... well... belligerent. Not because it works under RAW, but just to give those players a little something to think over. Not to be used in place of heart to heart talks.

Why then? For the lulz.

Despite this, i'm glad to see some good discussion going on. I'm currently halfway done revising Diplomacy to be unbrokenish (right now i've just tossed it out the window). This threads got some good insight into ways i can work with the skill.

[Coidzor]

Eh. Not very good lulz if that's the main motivation.

[PotatoNinja]

Eh. Not very good lulz if that's the main motivation.

Admittedly not for the majority of the people i have ever, and hope to ever play with. I did have a specific two people in mind though when i posted this. I Figured surely one or two other DM's might have played with/Dm'ed for a few of the same types of people :smallcool:

[Tenno Seremel]

idea of using it against rules lawyer-ing shennanigins

[evil] Assume NPC in question is under Programmed Domination (Untapped Potential, I think) and will wreak havoc (or at least summon guards or something) when someone successfully force him to do something you don't want to.

[Coidzor]

Admittedly not for the majority of the people i have ever, and hope to ever play with. I did have a specific two people in mind though when i posted this. I Figured surely one or two other DM's might have played with/Dm'ed for a few of the same types of people :smallcool:

Most DMs seem to just not allow shenanigans if they don't enjoy them and run with them, so it certainly looks like it'd be a distinct minority.

[Paul H]

Hi

Diplomacy should be about Persuasion. Give a plausible request, then back it up with the Diplomacy roll.

Reduce hostility? Look, we're sorry. Why don't we go buy you a barrel of ale. Or "Why don't we join forces just this once, against the realthreat"?

It's got to be plausible and realistic, and it must benefit the other party.

Thanks
Paul H
[Got a Gnome Synthesist in PFS, with diplomacy +18 at 1st lvl]!

[Ravens_cry]

To which, as a player, I must ask "Then why even have the roll?" Also: "But I am not made to swing a sword every time I make an attack roll?"
The Diplomacy skill exists for a reason, to allow player to play something they are not.
Role play is important, especially with something like negotiations of course the Diplomacy can be abused, but I think it is important to still exist basically within its function

[Yuki Akuma]

If you only allow people to do what they can roleplay, why make rolls at all?

Forcing people to roleplay Diplomacy rolls is ridiculous and restricts what roles a person can play. Don't do that.

[Psyren]

I agree with Yuki, to a point. Rolls actually enhance roleplay, because they can make a player's character perform according to his PC statistics rather than those of its player. I've played Bards and Paladins, but I doubt I'm charismatic enough personally to be one myself, or genius enough to be a Wizard/Erudite etc.


But simply having players say "I convince him to let us see the king" and leave it at that can be boring as well. So, what you can do to reward roleplaying is add a circumstance bonus to rolls, or even fudge the dice entirely if a player makes a fantastic argument that his roll fails to support.

[Ravens_cry]

@Psyren:
I said pretty much the same thing earlier when I mentioned what I termed a "floating modifier system." Like so much of D&D, like so much of GMing any role playing game, it requires some . . .finesse.

[lunar2]

when we are talking about roleplaying diplomacy, i think it has already been made clear we are not talking about epic speech writing and hour long in depth negotiations at the table. we're just talking about saying "I bring up that favor i did for him last week, and ask him to let me through the door", instead of "i convince him to let me through the door". of course most real people can't play a diplomat, but they can come up with something to use diplomacy with, such as past favors, gold, "owing them one". when you're fighting, you have to draw your sword and get in range to attack. if you have multiple swords, you have to say which one you draw. well, when you use diplomacy you have to pick an argument that will affect that particular NPC(draw your sword) decide what you want from them (get in range) and try to convince them (attack). just like fighting, you have 3 "actions", but only 1 roll. if you just roll an attack in a fight, you swing your fist at empty air. if you just roll diplomacy with no arguments, you're just making small talk.

[Yuki Akuma]

@Psyren:
I said pretty much the same thing earlier when I mentioned what I termed a "floating modifier system." Like so much of D&D, like so much of GMing any role playing game, it requires some . . .finesse.

And this is why the Giant's Diplomacy houserule is so much better than the default skill.

[Ravens_cry]

And this is why the Giant's Diplomacy houserule is so much better than the default skill.
Which is pretty much where I got/stole the idea from.:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

And this is why the Giant's Diplomacy houserule is so much better than the default skill.

Yep, it's fantastic. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) I don't agree with all his changes though - I wouldn't have removed the other two synergy bonuses myself, or at least had them apply in a different way.

Using the Giant's own example of the bard hoodwinking the party into the baron's ball - one of the options was to have the bard dress everyone up as nobles to gain access. Nobility & Royalty would obviously assist in making a convincing disguise (picking the right seals/colors, coaching the rest of the party etc.) so how well he pulled that off should factor into the final diplomacy roll. Another example was determining whether the guard at the door knew his boss was a cultist, and how he felt about that, i.e. his alignment, and this is obviously where Sense Motive would have come into play. But I do agree that benefits like that shouldn't apply universally to every Diplomatic situation. (The bugbears that just ambushed you won't give a flying fig which noble house you belong to, after all.) So I would give one-off circumstance bonuses based on the tactic the party face uses and his use of those two skills.

(Or penalties, if he picked an avenue of attack that his skills didn't support.)

[stainboy]

Using the Giant's own example of the bard hoodwinking the party into the baron's ball - one of the options was to have the bard dress everyone up as nobles to gain access. Nobility & Royalty would obviously assist in making a convincing disguise (picking the right seals/colors, coaching the rest of the party etc.)

Shouldn't using disguises be a Disguise check?

[Psyren]

Shouldn't using disguises be a Disguise check?

That's where skills can get complicated. Impersonating a noble should involve (Nobility & Royalty) at some point, shouldn't it? Disguise can help you construct a convincing... well, disguise, but the Knowledge skill would help you determine which noble isn't already inside the ballroom and thus blow your cover.

Anyway, the problem with the Giant's method as written is that the point is moot - Disguise doesn't factor into the Diplomacy roll either (even if the party goes with this tactic.) Though he at least has them use Bluff, he also kept the synergy bonus for that skill.

[LordBlades]

In diplomacy you must lay down the bare bones of your argument before the DM. The skill adds nothing to the structure of the argument. It adds fluff. It represents good speech skills rather than stumbling over your own words. It represents your harnessing of your animal charisma and how people are drawn to you. The delivery not the package.

I have my PC say, "We need to kill all the Chinese people." And then I roll a natural 20. Well this sentiment doesn't sit well with the NPC. The diplomacy roll won't change my words to, "We should respect the Chinese people." The NPC is going to perceive a really charismatic attractive smooth talking psychopath. They may even find my delivery amusing. But if, "Kill all the Chinese people," isn't something they could get behind they're still going to oppose me.


The way I see it: You(the player) state what you want to do, in this case convince the NPC that 'we need to kill all the Chinese people'. Your ranks in Diplomacy represent your character's ability to find the right arguments(such as 'they're different' if talking to a xenophobe, or 'they're taking over our economy and we're all going to starve' etc.)and present them in a convincing way.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The way I see it: You(the player) state what you want to do, in this case convince the NPC that 'we need to kill all the Chinese people'. Your ranks in Diplomacy represent your character's ability to find the right arguments(such as 'they're different' if talking to a xenophobe, or 'they're taking over our economy and we're all going to starve' etc.)and present them in a convincing way.

Which then makes diplomacy more powerful then suggestion spell.

[Dragonsoul]

Which then makes diplomacy more powerful then suggestion spell.

You mean magic isn't the best and most efficient way to do everything?

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

[Ravens_cry]

Technically, diplomacy only changes their attitude toward you. They will be more willing to take certain actions on your behalf at certain levels of friendliness, after all friends help each other.
But as long as you leave out the Epic skill uses, it's not terribly abusable.
"Yes, the king now likes you and considers you his chum. He isn't going to give you his crown and/or open up the vaults for your personal purloining."

[Lord Vukodlak]

You mean magic isn't the best and most efficient way to do everything?


A skill's ability to influence someone should not be able to surpass an enchantmetn spell. Just as you shouldn't be able to fly by making a high enough jump check. If suggestion requires you to say something that sounds reasonable there is no reason diplomacy shouldn't be held to the same standard if you change the skill from attitude adjustment to persuasion. When using bluff to lie your required to come up with the lie not just roll the dice.
Why should diplomacy be easier to use then suggestion or the bluff skill.


Technically, diplomacy only changes their attitude toward you. They will be more willing to take certain actions on your behalf at certain levels of friendliness, after all friends help each other.


We've been over the problems of the attitude adjustment, many people like to use diplomacy as a persuasion skill.

[MukkTB]

If you really don't want to roleplay yourself, what you could do is say, "I make a knowledge roll to know what to say to this guy." Make that roll or multiple rolls if you want to use multiple knowledge skills. After the DM explains what your character thinks will work to say based on his knowledge you could say, "I say that. Diplomacy check."

[Lord Vukodlak]

If you really don't want to roleplay yourself, what you could do is say, "I make a knowledge roll to know what to say to this guy." Make that roll or multiple rolls if you want to use multiple knowledge skills. After the DM explains what your character thinks will work to say based on his knowledge you could say, "I say that. Diplomacy check."

Then the DM has no clue how to gauge the bonus or penalty on the argument. If your trying to sell stolen gems quickly and the merchant is suspicious to your low price. The PHB gives examples of different bluffs.
"These gems aren't stolen I'm just desperate for cash" is a much easier bluff then. "I'm really a Lammasu, polymorphed into a halfling"

If one is to use diplomacy like a persuasion skill it should be held to the same standard as bluffs non-combat application.

[Tyndmyr]

Has anybody ever needed to, done for ****s and giggles, used to make a point, a diplomancer against the party?

I ask because previously, I have had several problems with people wanting to play diplomancers (but not recently). I was wondering how, uhm, ethical this would be against stalwart defender of the diplomancer faith.

I had in mind something like...

<DM> Yeah, he's ritualistically killing babies to fuel some dark purpose
<LG Diplomancer> OMG THAT'S HORRIBLE I WILL CONVINCE HIM TO STOP /rolls
<DM> /rools, so, what did you get?
<Diplomancer> 45
<DM> He makes a good point, and you find yourself killing babies.

By RAW, diplomacy does not work on PCs. I do not allow it to be used on them as a result, because this very, very quickly leads to one player dominating the party, and that is not a great deal of fun for the rest.