Diplomacy, can we salvage it? [3.PF]

[Tanuki Tales]

As we all know by this point, Diplomacy is one of the many things borked when it comes to most d20 based games. It is incredibly overpowered as a skill and, with monster builds like the Diplomancer, highly abusable.

So the question becomes, can we salvage it to be more balanced?


Talking Points

Is Diplomacy as broken as claimed?
Do you use Diplomacy in your games?
If so: Do you use it as is or do you use any house rules for it?
If you do not: What do you use in it's place to moderate the flow of social encounters/interactions?

[Urpriest]

The Giant did a pretty nice rework of diplomacy. Definitely kept the only diplomancer I've played from doing anything particularly insane. :smallwink:

[GoatBoy]

Subtract the target's hit dice and charisma modifier from the Diplomacy check because, hey, I'm powerful and awesome. I don't have to listen to you.

[Bogardan_Mage]

The Giant did a pretty nice rework of diplomacy. Definitely kept the only diplomancer I've played from doing anything particularly insane. :smallwink:
Yeah, right here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2). He pretty succinctly outlines what's wrong with the old rule and makes a very good replacement.

[navar100]

My DM uses an opposed roll for Diplomacy. He makes it secret, so I don't know if he's using an opposed Diplomacy roll or perhaps Sense Motive as a logical alternative.

[Yorrin]

The way I handle Diplomacy: I dont allow more than 2 steps on the Diplomacy table (and even that is rare- it's usually just 1). And if it's against an intelligent target it's often an opposed roll (so NPC Diplomancers can exist too!).

[Ashtagon]

The way I handle Diplomacy: I dont allow more than 2 steps on the Diplomacy table (and even that is rare- it's usually just 1). And if it's against an intelligent target it's often an opposed roll (so NPC Diplomancers can exist too!).

I go one further: A Diplomacy check can't change attitudes permanently. Instead, it can influence an NPC's attitude for one specific request. The key difference here between Diplomacy and Intimidate is that he won't be mad about it afterwards.

If you want to change their attitude on a long-term basis, that's a task for campaign-based story-telling and role-playing, not dice rolls. In other words, it happens when the DM says it happens.

[Blisstake]

I think the diplomacy rules are really supposed to be guidelines. Sort of like "If you can't think of how difficult the DC should be, here's a quick table" rather than "this is a fullproof method for having complete control over any given person you encounter by being diplomatic."

It's not really something that should be forced on the DM and players, and I think ideally, the diplomacy process should go like this:

1. DM decides whether or not the NPC in question has any possibility of doing what the PCs request.

2. The PCs initiate diplomacy, explaining their argument or viewpoint or whatever.

3. The DM decides what the DC for the request in question is, and gives the PCs modifiers based on how good their argument was. If it's powerful enough, it could even be an auto-success.

So, really, I'm fine with the rules, but they should put emphasis on only being a guideline.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I think the diplomacy rules are really supposed to be guidelines. Sort of like "If you can't think of how difficult the DC should be, here's a quick table" rather than "this is a fullproof method for having complete control over any given person you encounter by being diplomatic."
As The Giant pointed out in his rewrite, it doesn't even do this very well. It basically boils down to the GM deciding for himself whether a given Diplomacy check should succeed or fail (do you use the DCs listed, do you apply circumstance modifiers and how large do you make them, or do you just arbitrarily decide?) and in that case why bother rolling dice at all? Also the listed DCs just describe moving from one mood to another, but these moods aren't very well defined. So it's not very useful as a quick reference because the effects are so vague.

[Blisstake]

Actually, vague is exactly how I would prefer the rules to be. When they become specific for complicated interactions, it tends to be either exploitable or an unwieldy simulation of a rather complicated process.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Actually, vague is exactly how I would prefer the rules to be. When they become specific for complicated interactions, it tends to be either exploitable or an unwieldy simulation of a rather complicated process.
Except you're suggesting that these rules be used when the GM doesn't have any other plan. That's exactly when you need specific rules. The Diplomacy rules as written are essentially leaving it all to the GM to decide, the exact opposite of your proposed usage.

[Blisstake]

Not really. Perhaps I haven't exactly been explaining my point as clearly as I'd like.

I think the rules should just give some idea of the difficulty and results of a diplomacy check. The more specific you make the rules, the more narrowly the system is defining the process of diplomacy, which in my opinion, isn't really a good thing.

The rules as they are (or at least the concept, if not the implementation) seem fine. You have a succint list of NPC attitudes, a general idea of what that means (and what that NPC would do for you), and a range of difficulties for changing their attitudes. It's perfectly enough for a GM to work with... I really can't think of why you'd need more than what's provided, unless you're trying to get a DC for every single task the person could accomplish or every conceivable modifier to the situation, which frankly I find not worth the effort (if possible), and an information overload for GMs.

The only real problems come from the actual mechanical information: the DCs. It gets to the point where if you invest into the ability enough, the results aren't too difficult to obtain, and you can suddenly convince people to give up everything for you. To solve this, either these DCs need to be higher, explicitly take time or not work in combat, or care should be taken in the description that the GM can (and should) use their own judgement for these situations.

[docnessuno]

Some very simple house rules:
Diplomacy DC is decided entirely by the DM's, and a successful use can (at most) increase the attitude by two steps.
Diplomacy is not rolled like other skills, unless the scene is being skipped over. Instead the player using it does actually talk in-character, and the DM decides on a "dice roll" outcome depending on how successful he deems the character speech is. Skill ranks, stats and other modifiers are added normally. Contrary to other skills you can fumble a diplomavy "roll".

[Canarr]

I use the skill mostly as written; except I will build a sort of "Diplomacy Immunity" into some NPCs.

Example: standing before an Orc Warlord and trying to use Diplomacy to get him to release captives he is holding, may result in him regarding you as a snivelling weakling and trying to kill you. Having your Wizard disintegrate his shaman and then rolling a decent Intimidate check is more likely to result in the desired outcome - but may bring its own problems.

Basically, I let the players' decisions in when and how to apply the skill(s) influence their chance of success.

[FMArthur]

Diplomacy can never make any sense as long as it still scales with ranks or levels. It shouldn't even be a regular skill.