Diplomacy D&D 3.5 rewrite PEACH

[Kholai]

Whilst trying to rewrite the Charm F00 and Suggestion series of spells, it became apparent that this was impractical without first making something sensible out of Diplomacy.

So here's what I have; apologies for both layout, and the fact that it's extraordinarily complicated. Diplomacy in itself is too complicated to represent simply, and I loathe tables on this forum.


Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can use diplomacy to change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. These DCs are influenced as indicated in the Level Difference sidebar, the Social Standing sidebar, and the Relationship sidebar. As diplomacy is such a complicated issue, these are by no means the only circumstances that may alter the situation, and the DM is free to determine any additional circumstance modifiers that may be appropriate. Such examples include Alignment, Situation, and motives of the NPC involved. A wanted criminal, for example, can expect a penalty on diplomacy when dealing with any law abiding citizen, with an even greater penalty when dealing with members of the city watch who are looking for him.

You cannot alter an NPC's attitude whilst they are in combat. You may only improve an NPC's attitude by 1 step, and even then natural conflicts of interest may quickly cause relations to worsen once more unless you work to give the NPC a reason to remain on better terms, frequently via something they want or require, though their improved attitude may make ensuing negotiations on that front easier.

You must either share a language with the target or face a -10 penalty to your roll as you try to express yourself through body language and tone of voice. You cannot use diplomacy on creatures with an intelligence score of 2 or lower, or those under magical compulsion or charm effects.

You cannot normally take 10 on a Diplomacy check.

Negotiation
You can also use Diplomacy during negotiations with another party, in this case your roll is an opposed roll with the target's Sense Motive or Diplomacy, whichever is higher. You cannot convince a target to perform obviously suicidal or harmful actions (unless there is an exceptional reason for being able to do so), and in most cases will require an exchange of some manner. You may make a separate bluff or intimidate check as part of this check to fabricate a commodity to exchange, or extort with menaces, but once the target discovers this deceit, or 1d6×10 minutes after you are no longer in its presence after using intimidation, this will permanently drop its default attitude towards you, and impart a penalty to future dealings in the knowledge of this past misdeed.
See the Relationship modifiers for this check, however the DC modifiers stated are added or subtracted from the target's check result accordingly (the DM may take 10 on this check). See also the Example Circumstances sidebar for some additional Negotiation factors that may apply to this check.
Depending on the result of the check, the NPC may then accept the terms (there is no guarantee that this acceptance is genuine), suggest a more favourable offer for themselves, suggest a less risky or costly alternative, or otherwise move to sweeten the deal in their favour. Should the check fail by 10 or more, then the target's attitude towards you and anyone associated with you may decrease unless they are somehow appeased. The nature of these deals depends on the nature of that which is being negotiated for.
It is important to note that negotiation is not mind control, and certain things cannot be negotiated for, no matter their price.
When this negotiation is a financial transaction, both parties may also use their respective Appraise skills for this roll instead.
Note that haggling with merchants is not socially acceptable is some societies, and carries the risk of simply offending the merchant, where haggling is acceptable, then consider every 2 points you beat the merchant's roll to be 1% off the asking price, down to their minimum accepted price. whilst losing the roll may indicate the corresponding increase on all their stock!
In the case of day to day haggling, it is possible (and recommended) to take 10 when negotiating with merchants for goods and services.

Representation
You may also use Diplomacy to represent your case to a third party, by use of an opposed Diplomacy roll. Apply modifiers to both you and your opponent separately in this case. Whether a better represented case makes a difference or not depends on the third party in question.

Action
Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute, usually more. In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check. Certain negotiations of great weight cannot be shortened in this manner, and any changes of attitude as a result of a rushed diplomacy check are usually shorter lived - typically requiring follow-up negotiation or conversation to cement any change.

Try Again
Generally, once attempted a negotiation cannot be retried unless circumstances change. You may generally attempt to change the attitude of a creature only when at least a month has passed or circumstances have changed dramatically,

Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Appraise you gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks when negotiating in a mercantile setting or other situation where the value of the item is in question.
Other skills, where the knowledge may prove useful, may also provide +2 synergy bonuses to diplomacy, such as Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) when dealing with a Royal Court, or Intimidate in a culture with a strong respect for strength.

Influencing NPC Attitudes: New Attitude (Base DC to achieve)
{table=head]Attitude | Hostile | Unfriendly | Indifferent | Friendly | Helpful
Hostile* | Less than 20 | 20 | — | — | —
Unfriendly | Less than 10 | 15 | 30 | — | —
Indifferent | — | Less than 10 | 10 | 35 | —
Friendly | — | — | Less than 10 | 10 | 40
Helpful | — | — | — | Less than 10 | 10[/table]
*May not improve attitudes during combat.

{table=head]Target is...* | DC Modifier
Stranger or Indifferent** | 0
Mortal Enemy | +20
Enemy or Hostile | +15
Rivals or Unfriendly | +10
Recognizes on sight | -5
Friends or associates or Friendly | -10
Close friends or Helpful | -15
Socially superior | +1-5
Socially inferior | -1-5
In a group | +1 per ally
Is more powerful than you*** | +1 per hitdie difference, max +5
Is less powerful than you*** | -1 per 2 hitdice difference, max -5[/table]
*As this is from the target's point of view, rather than yours, if you are using a bluff or disguise to appear as you are not, use their attitude towards your disguise, rather than your own.
**This table includes Attitude modifiers for Negotiations, and these stack. For example, if the target is both Unfriendly and considers you a Rival, then this is a total +20 to the DC.
***In the case of multiple creatures, use the creature with the highest number of hitdice in the group.

{table=head]Negotiation modifiers | DC Modifier
The target is desperate to get rid of what you are requesting. | -5
The offer is fair, and the commodity doesn’t affect the target much. | +0
The offer is slightly in your favour or puts the target at some risk. | +5
The offer is greatly in your favour or puts the target at significant risk. | +10
The offer is ridiculous, almost too incredible to consider. | +20
The offer carries no risk and costs the target nothing. | -5
The target is aware the request is for something exceptionally valuable to you. | +5
Item is of exceptional value to the target. | +5
You have a reputation for honesty and fair dealings. | -2
You have a reputation for dishonesty, or deceived the target in the past. | +5[/table]

Thanks to tuggyne for the tables!

I would appreciate opinions on whether this is: Unuseably complex, Breakable (at least "as breakable as the original"), whether there's any wording issues or anything else wrong with this please.

[toapat]

wouldnt it be simpler, and a significant bit cleaner, if you just lifted persuasion from Rich's stickied topic at the head of the forum?

considering it is the same thing?

[General Patton]

I like it. You haven't listed any example values for Alignment Circumstance Modifiers yet. I'd imagine that in some situations, directly correlating the deal you are asking for with some important objective would reduce the DC depending on how much it impacts that person or corresponds with their Alignment. So convincing someone that the thing you're asking for would help you save their village or prevent the death or soul destruction of their friend/family would be a point in your favor, and if they were Good, then the mention of anyone's soul being in peril would make them more helpful even if they have no connection to that individual. I really want to see a table of examples for that.

[Kholai]

wouldnt it be simpler, and a significant bit cleaner, if you just lifted persuasion from Rich's stickied topic at the head of the forum?

considering it is the same thing?

Having just checked it, there are similarities, yes (I would suggest inevitably so considering the subject matter), however there are some key differences:


#1: Level is comparative, not a flat DC on hitdice.

High level people aren't automatically more committed to their views, but in the same way that Saves and BAB increase level by level, so too do the tools in your social armoury. The diplomatic efforts of an ancient and powerful Dragon are going to carry more weight with a target than that of a level 2 Half-Elf Warlock/Bard with Skill Focus (Diplomacy).

#2: What it takes into account.

Diplomacy for negotiations is a contested roll, which means the best defence against negotiations is to be a negotiator, whilst depending on who you are this changes how you are perceived and consequently how you are perceived. Who your asking is as important as what you're asking.

#3: Surprisingly, less breakable.

By the Rules given in the sticky version, the 20 Wisdom level 10 Drow BBEG who hates them can be diplomancied into giving up their evil schemes in exchange for 1 GP on a roll of 35.

Considering that an 18 Charisma, level 2 Half Elf Warlock/Bard with Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and 5 Bluff has a +15 modifier to their 5 Diplomacy ranks; this means they have a 50% chance of pushing this through "with only minor idiosyncratic changes".

That same level 2 Half Elf trying to persuade their presumably Unfriendly (after a lucky success making him that way to allow the check in the first place) Mortal Enemy, Racial Enemy with a ridiculous offer like that?

Roll a contested check versus their Sense Motive, except they get a +60 modifier.

#4: Incorporates all social skills.

Bluffing to pretend you have something invaluable and then trading that imaginary commodity, or intimidating the target to provide their own knees as a commodity, or using a disguise to appear as someone more important (or conceal their own unimportance). This even brings in other skills for bonuses when appropriate.

#5: Uses.

There are three uses to the diplomacy, this includes all those uses.


You haven't listed any example values for Alignment Circumstance Modifiers yet.

Partly that's because it's seriously complicated and highly individualised, part of this would fall into the already provided circumstances, but otherwise, an evil character isn't necessarily philosophically opposed to helping a friend, and a good character isn't necessarily inclined towards helping a stranger, so it's not as easy as saying "Evil Request/Good character" or vice versa.

Overall I'd put this at:

Target is philosophically opposed to agreeing to the offer. +5
Target is philosophically inclined to agreeing to the offer. -5

This is basically "Target is desperate to sell the commodity / Target considers the commodity of great value" in a moral sense.

More "extreme" philosophical opposition to an idea, like challenging the Paladin to a baby-eating competition, is typically going to be an automatic failure.

[TuggyNE]

I loathe tables on this forum.

If you don't mind, I'd like to rewrite these into table form, as I much prefer the appearance.

Influencing NPC Attitudes: New Attitude (Base DC to achieve)
{table=head]Attitude | Hostile | Unfriendly | Indifferent | Friendly | Helpful
Hostile* | Less than 20 | 20 | — | — | —
Unfriendly | Less than 10 | 15 | 30 | — | —
Indifferent | — | Less than 10 | 10 | 35 | —
Friendly | — | — | Less than 10 | 10 | 40
Helpful | — | — | — | Less than 10 | 10[/table]
*(footnote missing)

Strength Difference
{table=head]Target's HD or levels vs yours... | DC Modifier
More than 5 higher | +10
Within 5 levels | +2
More than 5 lower | -5
Per additional ally* | +1[/table]
* In addition to adding 1 to the DC for each additional ally present, consider the highest level or number of hitdice in the group for the purpose of determining DCs.

Social Standing*
{table=head]Target is.... | DC Modifier
A subordinate in the same organisation | -2
Social inferior | -2
A bureaucrat | +2
Racial/Social enemy | +5
Social Equal | +0
Social Superior | +2
High ranking official | +2
Unaware of your social status. | +1
Monarch or other ruler | +5[/table]
* As this is from the target's point of view, rather than yours, if you are using a bluff or disguise to appear as you are not, use that disguise's social standing rather than your own.

{table=head]Target is... | DC Modifier
Stranger or Indifferent | 0
Mortal Enemy | +20
Enemy or Hostile | +15
Rivals or Unfriendly | +10
Recognizes on sight | -5
Friends or associates or Friendly | -10
Close friends or Helpful | -15[/table]
*This includes Attitude for Negotiations, and the two stack. For example, if the target is both Unfriendly and considers you a Rival, then this is a total +20 to the DC.

{table=head]Example circumstances | DC Modifier
The target is desperate to get rid of what you are requesting. | -5
The offer is fair, and the commodity doesn’t affect the target much. | +0
The offer is slightly in your favour or puts the target at some risk. | +5
The offer is greatly in your favour or puts the target at significant risk. | +10
The offer is ridiculous, almost too incredible to consider. | +20
The offer carries no risk and costs the target nothing. | -5
The target is aware the request is for something exceptionally valuable to you. | +5
Item is of exceptional value to the target. | +5
You have a reputation for honesty and fair dealings. | -2
You have a reputation for dishonesty, or deceived the target in the past. | +5[/table]

Critique: the system appears to be a bit more robust than the aforementioned Persuasion fix, but at the expense of considerable complexity. Also, some of the DC modifiers seem a bit arbitrary, and calibration may be tricky.

[Kholai]

If you don't mind, I'd like to rewrite these into table form, as I much prefer the appearance.

Not at all, it's my inability to make them that engenders my loathing, mind if I slap these up in the original post?


Critique: the system appears to be a bit more robust than the aforementioned Persuasion fix, but at the expense of considerable complexity. Also, some of the DC modifiers seem a bit arbitrary, and calibration may be tricky.

Unfortunately all I really had to go on was Bluff and Disguise, neither of which is particularly well fleshed out either. If there are any potential diplomacy scenarios at various degrees of "reasonable", or a consensus over what sort of DCs were expected at what degrees of optimisation, this would possibly help flesh out the DCs accordingly.


Agreed concerning complexity, unfortunately getting social interaction right is one of the biggest challenges for D&D it seems.

I could strip out social standing and level comparison and put into "Relationship" set of modifiers of At an Advantage and At a Disadvantage, then put in a short section on what an Advantage might entail (basically numbers, level, and social status again).

This cuts it down to one standard DC modifier table and one Negotiations modifier table. Would squeezing examples into the text be kosher within the rules?

[TuggyNE]

Not at all, it's my inability to make them that engenders my loathing, mind if I slap these up in the original post?

That was the idea :smallwink:


Unfortunately all I really had to go on was Bluff and Disguise, neither of which is particularly well fleshed out either. If there are any potential diplomacy scenarios at various degrees of "reasonable", or a consensus over what sort of DCs were expected at what degrees of optimisation, this would possibly help flesh out the DCs accordingly.

I'll see if I can come up with some; I'm not feeling quite energetic enough to work them out right now.


Agreed concerning complexity, unfortunately getting social interaction right is one of the biggest challenges for D&D it seems.

I could strip out social standing and level comparison and put into "Relationship" set of modifiers of At an Advantage and At a Disadvantage, then put in a short section on what an Advantage might entail (basically numbers, level, and social status again).

Any further modularization is good, so one can mentally tie small reference chunks to individual components.


This cuts it down to one standard DC modifier table and one Negotiations modifier table. Would squeezing examples into the text be kosher within the rules?

Sure, although it's common to include short examples in the DC tables; you may want to expand on that for a complex skill like this, though.

[Kholai]

Tables now up in the OP, and modified to be a little more concise. Is it clear enough without, or does it need a text clarification?

Also importantly, is there anything glaringly absent?

[GunbladeKnight]

[spoiler]#1: Level is comparative, not a flat DC on hitdice.

High level people aren't automatically more committed to their views, but in the same way that Saves and BAB increase level by level, so too do the tools in your social armoury. The diplomatic efforts of an ancient and powerful Dragon are going to carry more weight with a target than that of a level 2 Half-Elf Warlock/Bard with Skill Focus (Diplomacy).
Both effectively do the same thing. Yours compares them for the DC. Whereas the Persuasion change the DC may stay flat, but your modifier increases as you level.


#2: What it takes into account.

Diplomacy for negotiations is a contested roll, which means the best defence against negotiations is to be a negotiator, whilst depending on who you are this changes how you are perceived and consequently how you are perceived. Who your asking is as important as what you're asking.
The Persuasion change does the same thing with the relationship modifier. Asking a friend is easier than asking your mortal enemy in both designs, though yours more or less allows for counter offers.


#3: Surprisingly, less breakable.

By the Rules given in the sticky version, the 20 Wisdom level 10 Drow BBEG who hates them can be diplomancied into giving up their evil schemes in exchange for 1 GP on a roll of 35.
Actually, the DC would be 15 + 10(level) + 5(Wisdom) + 10(Hostile) +10(Unfavorable) for a total of DC 50. Of course, a DM might even go so far as to find the offer of 1 GP so insulting that it ruins any possible further negotiations.


Considering that an 18 Charisma, level 2 Half Elf Warlock/Bard with Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and 5 Bluff has a +15 modifier to their 5 Diplomacy ranks; this means they have a 50% chance of pushing this through "with only minor idiosyncratic changes".
If this was for the previous paragraph, it would be only a 5% chance to hit a DC35, which would not be the true DC anyways. Of course, yours would have a modifier of at least of +43, not including other situational modifiers, to the opposed check.


That same level 2 Half Elf trying to persuade their presumably Unfriendly (after a lucky success making him that way to allow the check in the first place) Mortal Enemy, Racial Enemy with a ridiculous offer like that?
The idea that you can influence an NPC attitude with a simple die roll is the contention most people have with the skill. That is the one change I like about the Persuasion change.


#4: Incorporates all social skills.

Bluffing to pretend you have something invaluable and then trading that imaginary commodity, or intimidating the target to provide their own knees as a commodity, or using a disguise to appear as someone more important (or conceal their own unimportance). This even brings in other skills for bonuses when appropriate.
I like this part, though it's easy enough to add synergies to any existing system as long as you can justify them.

Yours is a bit more complex and will probably slow the game down as you have to look up modifiers. I would also get rid of the ability to influence attitudes with a single roll and simply make them into a relationship modifier (which you seem to already have). Overall better than the RAW diplomacy.

I would also suggest not putting limits on how much you can haggle for, but having a good idea as the DM how much the merchants are willing to let items go for.

[Kholai]

Actually, the DC would be 15 + 10(level) + 5(Wisdom) + 10(Hostile) +10(Unfavorable) for a total of DC 50. Of course, a DM might even go so far as to find the offer of 1 GP so insulting that it ruins any possible further negotiations.

Ah yes, my mistake, forgot the base DC.


If this was for the previous paragraph, it would be only a 5% chance to hit a DC35, which would not be the true DC anyways. Of course, yours would have a modifier of at least of +43, not including other situational modifiers, to the opposed check.

Sorry, maths were wrong. With +6 Beguiling, +2 Half Elf, +4 Charisma, +2 Bluff, +3 Skill Focus that's a 17, not a 15. Plus their 5 ranks that's 22, not sure where the 50% came from though, I shouldn't post without my coffee.

DC 15 + 10 (Horrible) + 5 (Level) + 0 (Complete Stranger) +2 (Wisdom) gives that 50% chance of convincing any level 5 stranger you just met to give you all their stuff with that however, and by adding level 3 as Marshal to pick up Negotiator, and an Aura for an extra +6, +1 rank, to the check, giving you a 29, and you probably used that check to qualify for Nymph's kiss, so you're rocking a +31 to the check. Now you really can convince that BBEG that they should give up a life of crime. And that's before the masterwork pimp hat for another +4.


The idea that you can influence an NPC attitude with a simple die roll is the contention most people have with the skill. That is the one change I like about the Persuasion change.

This I consider to be the power of a polite introduction; you won't permanently make them your best friend, but introducing yourself, complimenting them, and putting them at ease with a joke is going to make someone more receptive to what you have to say next, and if you get your words out fast enough, you can say the words that will make those bandits hesitate to attack you for a moment, because you're just that likeable. They might still steal every penny you have (there's a natural conflict of interest in that they want to steal every penny you have, whilst you want them to not steal every penny you have), but diplomacy can allow you the opportunity to try and talk your way out of it.

For example:

Ten orcs leap out of the woodwork, they're pretty durn mad.
You roll rushed diplomacy roll: success.
The orcs move up from being Hostile to being Unfriendly - for now. This stops them from immediately attacking, and buys you enough time to start talking.
The orcs indicate you are trespassing in their territory, and tell you that you must either leave immediately or be killed and eaten or ransomed to an interested party.
You need to travel this way urgently, else you add several days to your journey, so you bluff: You're running this way because you're running from a group of trolls that are on your trail, but you'll gladly pay them 200 Gold Pieces for the privilege of travelling through their territory.

This puts the negotiation at +5 - You seem desparate, but at 20 GP per orc, and the fact that fighting you carries the risk of not only dying in combat against you, but getting ambushed by some trolls, that drops the negotiation modifier, and the DM rules it to be a fair deal after that.

The highest level Orc is 2 levels below you, but there are 9 more of them, so that's a +8. Meanwhile, you have three buddies, who Aid Another; two of them make their rolls (that's basically what the Each Additional Ally modifier represents, they're all making free aid another attempts), so you have a +4 bonus.
Since they're unfriendly, that's another +10, so the Orc is getting a +21 bonus to their roll. Fortunately the leader doesn't have any ranks in Sense Motive, and only has a 7 in Wisdom. Meanwhile, you're a humble level 5 Human Bard, not built for Diplomancy, so you only have a 9 Ranks, +4 for your charisma, +2 for Synergy for your ranks in Sense Motive. That's a +19 with your party-mates Aid Another checks. Close enough to give you a decent chance.
You roll and fail. The head orc considers and rejects your offer, and demands a higher price.

It's almost the opening salvo - you need to stop them from just charging to attack first.


Yours is a bit more complex and will probably slow the game down as you have to look up modifiers.

True, but this is true for all skills. If you summarise it, this is usually +/- 5 per level of prior relationship, per level of current attitude, and per level of ridiculousness of your request; it's +1 per level difference if they're higher level, +1 per additional target in a group, which isn't too much beyond the post-it level of complexity.


I would also suggest not putting limits on how much you can haggle for, but having a good idea as the DM how much the merchants are willing to let items go for.

Seems fair, it is redundant considering the stipulation that there are things people won't agree to. I'll strip that out accordingly.

[Deepbluediver]

Would it get too complicated to split the negitiation aspect of Diplomacy into a seperate skill from everything else? It seems to me like arguing with a shop-keep over the price of his wares would require a different type of social manuvering than to convince a judge that the orphanage attacked you first, and had to burned to the ground for the protection of the whole town.

[Kholai]

Sure, haggling with merchants could well be a subfunction of Appraise only, and would give it some actual worth as a skill, in which case Diplomacy would give it a synergy bonus in those situations.

It would ultimately use the same tables, but it would be an appraise versus appraise (presumably with bluff / intimidate playing their roles in there too) roll rather than a Diplomacy roll.

[Vadskye]

I think the only issue with Rich's system lies in the fact that he caps DC modifiers at +10, and uses a stupid example for a +10 horrible deal. I use a 0/2/5/10/15 DC progression instead of a 0/2/5/7/10 progression for DC modifiers, and the +15 DC option still implies a greater degree of reasonableness than "kill yourself and give me all your money"; such an "offer" would simply immediately fail.

On a more general point, your critique of his system has been limited to the ridiculous extremes; I think you should compare the use of your system and his system with respect to "normal" situations and see which makes more sense and is more playable. I'm actually a big fan of his system, and I think your system uses far too many tables and DC modifiers for specific things for me to be comfortable with it. Plus, you still align your system with the vague and unhelpful "attitude" system, which I'm not a big fan of in the first place.

[Kholai]

On a more general point, your critique of his system has been limited to the ridiculous extremes;

A reasonable assertion, but why would I ever deal between the extremes when it's only a +10 to DC to be extreme?

Checking Bluff, which I based those modifiers on:

The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

"Almost too incredible to consider" is essentially an Epic achievement, +10 isn't an epic achievement, it's "hard to believe". The difference between "the sky is green" and "don't look now, but there's a rampaging orc warband behind you".

I suppose it boils down to: What level is the average NPC in your world? Is the king a level 25 badass, or is he a level 5 Aristocrat?

If he's a level 5 aristocrat, or his son the prince is, then so long as you can get them alone at some point, then your 30 DC roll for the kingdom (or for a written agreement to give you the kingdom when they inherit) is achievable by the example level 3 Bard/Marshal/Warlock on a roll of 8 or better. If they have a 19 in Wisdom, only a 12 or better.

If he rolls a 5 or better, then they may even counter offer to push it up to merely "incredibly bad deal", and if you never fail by more than 10, you can keep haggling with no penalty.

Working in the other direction? Breaks in the other direction.


I think you should compare the use of your system and his system with respect to "normal" situations and see which makes more sense and is more playable.

Okay. Normal situation: You're Bob the level 1 peasant fighter, asking for directions to the tavern to start your campaign.

Surly Joe Level 1 venerable Commoner who dislikes you (personal foe, you walked on his lawn a lot when you were young):

Wisdom for being venerable assuming non-elite array is 9+3, 12. So +1.

#1: DC 15 + 1 (level) + 7 (Foe) + 1 (Wis) + 0 (No risk, no reward) = DC 24. You need a 20 or better if you have a Charisma of 18, or slightly lower if you have 4 ranks in diplomacy.

#2: -5 (no risk, no value), +10 (Rival), +10 (Unfriendly), +1 (Wisdom). Equal level, equal social standing, and neither of you is in a group. They're rolling at +16.

So on average, a 26-27. This brings up a point of double randomness, so the idea of the DM taking 10 for rolls without significance is probably worthwhile.


Failing to get anywhere with Surly, they ask Torvald the Guard. Torvald is a Middle Aged level 5 Warrior (He's the Guard Captain). Torvald knows them by sight.

#1: DC 15 + 5 (level) + 0 (Wis), +0 (NRNR) -2 (Acquaintance, positive) = DC 18. Asking directions is pretty hard work. A 50/50 chance for an 18 Charisma / 4 Diplomacy Ranks character. Even if he asks a few more level 1 Commoners who have never met him, poor Bob, who, as a Core fighter, has no ranks in any useful skills, is going to have to ask, on average, five times to find the tavern.

#2: -5 (NRNV), -5 (Recognises on sight), +0 (Wis), +0 (Indifferent), +4 (Level difference) = -6 to the roll. Taking 10, that's a DC 4.

Asking directions from a guard? Easy as pie.

I'd actually appreciate more of these types of situations though, it helps flesh out the system.



I'm actually a big fan of his system, and I think your system uses far too many tables and DC modifiers for specific things for me to be comfortable with it.

That's fine, tastes differ. I will point out that you're not actually using his system however, you're using your own.

As to the tables and DC modifiers, I would prefer to provide comprehensive examples, rather than leave it barren; take the Core Bluff; what's the modifier for a bluff check when someone is outside on a sunny day that the sun's winked out and the sky's turned green? Or for bluffing someone who's caught you in a lie in the past? DC modifiers aren't set in stone (and you can ignore them as you like), but they exist to provide examples for DMs who want something to tie the rest of their stuff to.

I also note that there is only one additional table, because there is one additional use, and there are more modifiers, because it accounts for more variables. If social status isn't a factor, or the fact that the target outlevels or outnumbers you is irrelevant, then does their inclusion for when they are a negative issue?

I am interested if there's any DC modifier that's redundant however, that's the main reason I haven't included the alignment modifier, it's basically the same thing as "Wants to give it to you/Doesn't want to give it to you."


Plus, you still align your system with the vague and unhelpful "attitude" system, which I'm not a big fan of in the first place.

Ah, but it's no longer vague; being friendly versus being indifferent is a flat, numerically defined +5 bonus towards requesting things. Since Charm F00 explicitly sets things to being friendly, this is explicitly the foundation I was aiming for for the purpose of finishing spell revisions; a numeric advantage to magic that ties in directly to enhancing, rather than replacing skill use.

[Vadskye]

A reasonable assertion, but why would I ever deal between the extremes when it's only a +10 to DC to be extreme?
Basically, I think the creation of any new system should first be devoted to the mechanics of normal use cases before dealing with attempts to break the system. Using diplomacy to get someone to give you their kingdom in exchange for a coin has a DC modifier that isn't worth writing down, because any game where this DC has become possible is a game that has moved so thoroughly into epic realms that the rules break down in many other places than Diplomacy mechanics. (I have the personal experience of having actually killed the final boss of a campaign with a DC 85 Diplomacy check at 21st level. It's dumb.) Worry more about the ordinary situations like Bob asking for directions to the tavern; that's exactly the sort of thing that matters.



Okay. Normal situation: You're Bob the level 1 peasant fighter, asking for directions to the tavern to start your campaign.

<snip>

Failing to get anywhere with Surly, they ask Torvald the Guard. Torvald is a Middle Aged level 5 Warrior (He's the Guard Captain). Torvald knows them by sight.

<snip>

Asking directions from a guard? Easy as pie.

I'd actually appreciate more of these types of situations though, it helps flesh out the system.
This reminds me of the flaws in Burlew's system; you're right, it doesn't work very well here. I use my own system that uses his as a base, but sets the base DC at 10 instead of 15 and adds "if the offer has no cost whatsoever to the target, their hit dice and Wisdom modifier do not increase the DC". Basically, someone's power and wisdom only matter when they're trying to perform a cost/benefit analysis of the offer. If there is no cost/benefit comparison to be made because it costs them nothing, they don't need to bring their full force of wisdom/resistance to bear. This is a lot like your "no risk no cost" modifier, but more so; I think that convincing someone to do something which has no risk and no cost doesn't need to scale with their level. Also, in theory, I think Wisdom shouldn't just be a flat increase to the DC / target's roll; instead, it should be either a bonus or a penalty, depending on whether the deal "makes sense" from their perspective. That's vague, though, so I'm not sure how to incorporate it.

Anyway, that's beside the point; let's look at your system. There are a few things I notice. First, you're double-counting HD. Both or your examples seem to assume that Joe and the guard have no ranks in either diplomacy or sense motive. If you don't assume that, however, then things can get much more difficult.

Let's imagine that Bob asks the neighborhood cleric (who will be 5th level, like the guard) for directions instead, since he knows that clerics are supposed to help people and he doesn't see a guard around. For reasons that are beyond me, clerics don't have Sense Motive, but let's assume that this cleric has maxed Diplomacy. I think that the cleric is socially superior to Bob, but I have no idea how to translate that into a number; I'll give it a +2. That means the cleric rolls at +8 (Diplomacy ranks) +1 (Cha) -5 (recognizes on sight) +2 (socially superior) +4 (HD difference) -5 (nrnv). That's a +5 modifier total; if the cleric takes 10, Bob only has a 30% chance to get directions. Apparently, clerics are a lot less helpful than guards! Also, that was a lot of factors to take into account. Not too fun.

Plus, imagine if Jack the level 1 fighter did the same thing. Everything about him is the same as Bob, except that he's a stranger to the town. That would mean he wouldn't have the -5 modifier for the cleric recognizing him on sight; if the cleric took 10, Jack would have to roll a 20 to get directions! And let's not consider the possibility where the cleric was not the only cleric in the temple at that point; he would then get a +1 bonus for each ally, making the check totally impossible.

But let's also take the classic example of asking a powerful figure for a favor. For the purpose of this example, we need someone who doesn't have Diplomacy or Sense Motive; a mighty wizard would do nicely. He'll be indifferent and won't recognize you on sight. I'll assume he'll have a higher social station; he can have +2 from that. He's not in a group, and we'll assume he's a lot more powerful, for a +5 modifier for HD. In other words, he's rolling at +7, assuming a 10 Cha, before we take into account what you're asking for. In other words, a level 1 Bard with absolutely no effort put into Diplomacy could get a 50-50 deal from this mighty wizard (provided he survived to talk to him). It would be trivial for a 5th or 6th level bard to negotiate fantastic deals from this powerful wizard, particularly if he had a skill focus in Diplomacy. I would argue that it's far too easy. Essentially, it is way too easy to use Diplomacy on everyone who doesn't have Diplomacy or Sense Motive, but too hard if they do have those skills. Plus, the variance of having two d20 rolls is huge. I think you'll be a lot better off with a fixed DC system that isn't based off of the NPC having Diplomacy or Sense Motive.


As to the tables and DC modifiers, I would prefer to provide comprehensive examples, rather than leave it barren; take the Core Bluff; what's the modifier for a bluff check when someone is outside on a sunny day that the sun's winked out and the sky's turned green? Or for bluffing someone who's caught you in a lie in the past? DC modifiers aren't set in stone (and you can ignore them as you like), but they exist to provide examples for DMs who want something to tie the rest of their stuff to.
Core Bluff is almost as bad as core Diplomacy, I agree. I think Bluff works best if it uses the same core system as (a more rigorous version of) Diplomacy, though I haven't decided how best to differentiate them.


I also note that there is only one additional table, because there is one additional use, and there are more modifiers, because it accounts for more variables. If social status isn't a factor, or the fact that the target outlevels or outnumbers you is irrelevant, then does their inclusion for when they are a negative issue?

I am interested if there's any DC modifier that's redundant however, that's the main reason I haven't included the alignment modifier, it's basically the same thing as "Wants to give it to you/Doesn't want to give it to you."
Social status is part of the "wants to give it to you/Doesn't want to give it to you" idiom. Nobles are generally less likely to want to help commoners, but that isn't true for every noble, and it's not true because they are nobility. Instead, it's because of the attitudes that most (but not all) nobles share. The "in a group" modifier is vague and highly problematic. Are people harder to convince to help you if they are in a crowd? Does it matter whether they consider the crowd to be part of their "group"? Is a cleric surrounded by his congregation vastly less likely to help you than that same cleric would be in his office? Is someone from that congregation vastly less likely to help you than they would be if you two were outside on the street? It raises a lot more questions than it answers, and I don't think it's necessary. "Item is of exceptional value to the target" sounds like a special case of putting the target at risk (in this case, of losing the item); it doesn't need to be a separate modifier. "Recognizes on sight" doesn't seem like it should have a very large impact on the success or failure of a diplomacy check; why does it matter if you recognize on sight someone with whom you have had no particular interactions? That would be best removed, which would let you lower the DC modifiers for unfriendliness by 5, making them symmetrical with the modifiers for friendliness (which is confusing to remember otherwise, I think).


Ah, but it's no longer vague; being friendly versus being indifferent is a flat, numerically defined +5 bonus towards requesting things. Since Charm F00 explicitly sets things to being friendly, this is explicitly the foundation I was aiming for for the purpose of finishing spell revisions; a numeric advantage to magic that ties in directly to enhancing, rather than replacing skill use.
That works fine; as long as the effects of attitude are confined to their influence on later Diplomacy (and similar) checks, everything makes sense.

[Deepbluediver]

Sure, haggling with merchants could well be a subfunction of Appraise only, and would give it some actual worth as a skill, in which case Diplomacy would give it a synergy bonus in those situations.

It would ultimately use the same tables, but it would be an appraise versus appraise (presumably with bluff / intimidate playing their roles in there too) roll rather than a Diplomacy roll.

I actually really like this idea. Appraise is supposed to determine an items value, but "value" can be a relative term depending on who you are speaking with (the classic example being that gold is useless if you are starving to death on a deserted island). A good appraise check might convince the local shop-keep that he really does need to buy a dozen sets of slightly used orcish-armor.

I also think Appraise should let you find out the properties of magic items, kind of like a Knowledge (Treasure) check :smalltongue:, but that's getting a little off topic.


Core Bluff is almost as bad as core Diplomacy, I agree. I think Bluff works best if it uses the same core system as (a more rigorous version of) Diplomacy, though I haven't decided how best to differentiate them.

I think of Bluff as basically lying to people, and Diplomacy as making friends or getting some one to do what you want. While being diplomatic you can be witty, or charming, or appear to have valuable experience; while lying you need to appear trustworthy and not trip yourself up with multiple mis-truths.
Admittedly, the distinctions are somewhat subtle and may overlap from time to time, and they two should probably give cirsumstance or synergy bonuses in some situations. You could also choose to follow up one check with the other; the benefit being that that first roll might improve the second, the risk though is that screwing up either roll might make your task harder.
For example, if you convince some one you are a famous band of heroes instead of just a rag-tag group of misfits on the run from the law in at least one country, they are more likely to concede to your leadership. If you are on good terms with some one, they are more likely to believe you.

Also, I think at least part of the problem with balancing these skills is that they have far more available boosts and synergy bonuses than other skills, for some reason. I remember seeing a thread a while back about some one wanting to play a diplomancer, and asking how he could get his check high enough to guarantee converting every enemy from hostile to helpful in a single check. The resulting pile of cheese determined something like a +150 bonus to diplomacy, and he could use it as a swift action every round (I might be paraphrasing a little).

You could probably help yourself out by adding some sort of caveat to the skill, such as (barring extraordinary circumstances) you can't improve some ones attitude towards you more than one step per encounter or within one 24 hour period. That way you are basically slowing down the progression of them getting to know and trust you.
Bluff checks could also have a set of modifiers based on the character's attitude, all the way down to Hostile, when some one automatically disbelieves everything you say just out of spite.

Also, I think I agree with Vadskye that some social interactions that don't cost anyone anything should just have a flat DC or even no DC at all. It's sort of like you don't need to make balance checks every time you want to walk somewhere.
Their are plenty of reasons an NPC might be difficult to deal with (they are xenophobic, don't trust strangers, they are racist, they just have a dickish personality, they worship the god of unhelpful advice, etc) but barring that I don't see any reason for them not to answer a simple question like "How do I get to the temple from here?" with a straightforward answer, "Down past the Inn, make a left, and up the hill."

[Vadskye]

A good appraise check might convince the local shop-keep that he really does need to buy a dozen sets of slightly used orcish-armor.
I think if you use Appraise for that, you will struggle to explain why Appraise is Intelligence-based, though. That example sounds like a classic Diplomacy check to me.


they worship the god of unhelpful advice
I want this to be a deity in my campaign.

[Deepbluediver]

I think if you use Appraise for that, you will struggle to explain why Appraise is Intelligence-based, though. That example sounds like a classic Diplomacy check to me.
It's not perfect, but I think this would accomplish 2 things: it would benefit the appraise skill and help more narrowly define what Diplomacy could be used for.

Also, if you are willing to expand the definition of Appraise slightly it can become knowledge about how an item might be used, and therefor how it is useful or valuable to different people, instead of just what the market value of something is.
As an example: the local fisherman might be your best friend, but that doesn't explain why he would need to buy a magic sword that shoots fireballs.
The Diplomacy aspect of it comes into play as part of the synergy bonus; it's basically the difference between "Oi! You need to buy this!" and "I regretably will not be able to take these items with me on my journey, but luckily for both of us they can be just as useful to you as well."

I haven't really thought out all the various aspects of this yet, and like other skills we could tweak the requirements slightly depending on what it is used for. Determining an item's price or properties, or convincing some one to buy something unusual might be a flat check. Haggling over price could be an opposed check.
If I write anything up, I'll send you the link.



I want this to be a deity in my campaign.

I just made it up on the spot, but now that I think about it, this sounds like something from a Discworld novel.
The altar of this diety can be found inside resturaunts and other facilities that specifically cater to family reunions. :smallwink:

[Kholai]

Some great stuff from this, thank you. Having spent a few hours on this:


Diplomacy (Cha)
Check
You can use diplomacy to temporarily change the attitudes of others with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. These DCs, along with all other uses of diplomacy, are influenced as indicated in the Relationship sidebar.

You cannot alter an NPC's attitude whilst they are in combat. Generally a target's attitude, unless given reason to worsen during the exchange will last 1D6 x10 minutes after they have left your presence, after which time they will revert to their default attitude towards you.

If trying to modify the attitude of a group, then the DC of the roll increases by 1 for each additional creature after the first.

You must either share a language with the target or face a -10 penalty to your roll as you try to express yourself through pantomiming. You cannot use diplomacy on creatures with an intelligence score of 2 or lower, or those under magical compulsion or charm effects.

Negotiation
You can also use Diplomacy during negotiations with another party to trade for something they value, in this case your roll is an opposed roll with the target's Sense Motive, Diplomacy, or total hitdice, whichever is higher.
If the target has advisors or others available to help, then the target gets a +1 modifier per advisor (usually at most up to +5) and uses the highest Diplomacy, Sense Motive or highest # of HD in the group.
If you are attempting to negotiate with a committee without a clear leader then roll your check and compare that to each of their results individually. In this case, each uses their own skill or level accordingly (though each may potentially have their own staff on hand for these purposes).

You cannot convince a target to perform obviously suicidal or harmful actions (unless there is an exceptional reason for being able to do so), and in most cases negotiations of any sort will require an exchange of some manner.

You may make a separate bluff or intimidate check as part of this action to fabricate a commodity to exchange, or extort with menaces, but once the target discovers this deceit, or 1d6×10 minutes after you are no longer in its presence after using intimidation, this will permanently drop its default attitude towards you, and impart a penalty to future dealings in the knowledge of this past mistreatment.

Unlike changing attitude, the DC modifiers instead are added or subtracted from the target's check result. See also the Example Circumstances sidebar for some additional Negotiation factors that may apply to this check.

Depending on the result of the check, the NPC may then accept the terms (there is no guarantee that this acceptance is genuine), suggest a more favourable offer for themselves, suggest a less risky or costly alternative, or otherwise sweeten the deal in their favour. Should the check fail by 10 or more, then the target's attitude towards you and anyone associated with you may decrease unless they are somehow appeased. It is important to note that negotiation is not mind control, and certain things cannot be negotiated for, no matter their price.

For negotiations involving explicitly financial transactions, see the Appraise skill.

Requests
For simple requests, typically for something that the target does not value and of negligible cost, such as directions to a location that is not secret, then there is no need for the target to roll, instead treat this as a check with a base DC of 10 + Modifiers. As with negotiations, there is no guarantee that the information given will be true, even on a successful roll.

Note that you may consider something to be a simple request whilst the target considers it a major negotiation!

Representation
Finally, you may also use Diplomacy to represent your case to a third party, by use of an opposed Diplomacy roll. Whether a better represented case makes a difference or not depends on the third party in question.

Action
Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute, usually more. In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a -10 penalty on the check, and the resultant change of attitude only lasts 1D6 minutes, potentially limiting the number of further interactions before the target returns to their original attitude (though they may be given a reason to remain at their new attitude before this time is up). Negotiations cannot shortened in this manner unless they are greatly in favour of the target or better.

Try Again
A negotiation cannot be retried unless circumstances or the terms of the negotiation change. You may attempt to change the attitude of a creature after one hour or more has passed.

Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Appraise you gain a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks when negotiating in a situation where the value of the item or service being negotiated for is in question
Other skills, where the knowledge may prove useful, may also provide +2 synergy bonuses to diplomacy, such as Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) when dealing with a Royal Court, or Intimidate in a culture with a strong respect for strength.

Appraise

Haggle
When a negotiation involves a financial transaction, rather than exchange of services, both parties use their respective Appraise skill (or for the target, their total number of hitdice, if higher) for this roll instead. Treat this as a special kind of Negotiation check (see Diplomacy).
Note that haggling with merchants is not socially acceptable is some societies, and carries the risk of simply offending the merchant, where haggling is acceptable, then in general consider every 2 points you beat the merchant's roll to be 1% off the asking price, down to their minimum accepted price. whilst losing the roll may indicate the corresponding increase on all their stock!

In the case of day to day haggling, it is possible (and recommended) to take 10 when negotiating with merchants for everyday goods and services.

Synergy:
If you have 5 or more ranks in Diplomacy, you get a +2 bonus on Appraise checks whilst haggling.


Influencing NPC Attitudes: New Attitude (Base DC to achieve)
{table=head]Attitude | Hostile | Unfriendly | Indifferent | Friendly | Helpful
Hostile* | Less than 20 | 20 | — | — | —
Unfriendly | Less than 10 | 10 | 30 | — | —
Indifferent | — | Less than 10 | 10 | 35 | —
Friendly | — | — | Less than 10 | 10 | 40
Helpful | — | — | — | Less than 10 | 10[/table]
*May not improve attitudes during combat.

Relationship/Attitude Modifer
{table=head]Target is...* | DC Modifier
Stranger or Indifferent** | 0
Mortal Enemy | +25
Enemy or Hostile | +15
Adversary or Unfriendly | +10
Acquaintances | -5
Friends or associates or Friendly | -10
Close friends or Helpful | -15[/table]
*As this is from the target's point of view, rather than yours, if you are using a bluff or disguise to appear as you are not, use their attitude towards your disguise, rather than you.
**This table includes Attitude modifiers for Negotiations, and these stack. For example, if the target is both Unfriendly and considers you a Rival, then this is a total +20 to the DC.
***In the case of multiple creatures, use the creature with the highest number of hitdice in the group.


{table=head]Negotiation modifiers* | DC Modifier
The target wants to help you in the requested matter. | -5
The target doesn't want to help you in the requested matter. | +5
The offer is incredibly weighted in their favour. | +15
The offer is greatly in their favour. | +10
The offer is in their favour. | -5
The offer is fair, and the commodity doesn’t affect the target much. | +0
The offer is slightly in your favour or puts the target at some risk. | +5
The offer is greatly in your favour or puts the target at significant risk. | +10
The offer is ridiculous, almost too incredible to consider, or carries severe, guaranteed negative consequences. | +20.[/table]
*These modifiers stack where appropriate; a Significant Risk with an offer that is greatly in their favour in terms of value, for example, are a net 0, whilst a Significant Risk for an offer that is greatly in your favour is a +20 to DC.


Haggling versus Negotiation

If there is doubt about which skill is required, if you are bartering, buying, or selling a service or item that is readily expressed in a value of gold pieces (or equivalent denominations), then the situation is a financial transaction and requires Appraise to be used. If the situation involves you offering or requesting a service or other favour without a set monetary value associated with it, then this is a matter of diplomacy, even if the payment for this service is an item of monetary value.


Relationship versus Attitude

Where a target's attitude is a short term modifier to interactions, akin to their mood or how good of an impression you've made (or how much of a schmoozer you are), their relationship is defined by your previous history with the target. Someone you've known for a few weeks and who has had multiple pleasant or neutral interactions with is likely to consider you an acquaintance or even a friend, whilst a Drow is likely to consider almost every surface elf they meet as an enemy or adversary at best and vice versa, and it would take a long time for this inherent racial tension to give way even to a slightly chilly "acquaintance" level.


To summarise:

Improve attitude: Temporary; like the intimidate (at least the Core intimidate), lasting 1D6x10 minutes after the encounter is over. It's harder with a group

Improving attitude is mandatory for dealing with hostile targets, and must usually be done quickly at a -10, which gives you 1D6 minutes, or 1-6 attempts to negotiate before they become hostile again; you're buying yourself a chance to talk your way out of it, rather than having a get out of jail combat free card.

Negotiate: Varies if you're dealing with a lone party (bear in mind that some lone parties may simply refuse to negotiate without their lawyer present), a leader with a team of advisors, or a disparate group of bureaucrats. By making it Hitdice or skills when defending only, this means your epic level wizard is perfectly capable of defending themselves socially in such negotiations, but cannot boost their check with Wisdom or Charisma or Feats; a trained negotiator still gets a larger benefit and strikes a harder bargain than a novice, without the novice being helpless.

Relationships and Attitudes explained in the same style as the PHB, and offer modifiers simplified.

Request: A cost free negotiation: DC 10, target adds no level, no skill and no roll; a target may still not want to help (+5), hate your guts (+15), and want you dead (+15) for a DC 45 roll, but that doesn't stop it being a simple request. Unless you have a 3 in Charisma, making basic requests (even basic interactions like "please sell me a drink Barkeep") is a take 10 and pretty much guaranteed to pass, whilst making Charisma your dump stat is a painful issue now that it actively harms your ability to interact with others.

Meanwhile, if the request is for something the target considers important, then the request can be secretly upgraded to a Negotiation (on which the DM can secretly take 10 so the player never knows there's even a roll involved), and calculated accordingly.

Appraise / Haggling handled separately. It remains an intellectual issue as you're effectively spotting flaws or dropping economic debates into the matter, with a bonus for being able to do so diplomatically.

For the "Gold is worthless if you're dying of hunger" issue, I personally would rule this as a Diplomacy issue; the food here carries a strictly non-financial aspect of "not starving to death"; this means it's a negotiation.

[Vadskye]

If I write anything up, I'll send you the link.
Cool, sounds good.


I just made it up on the spot, but now that I think about it, this sounds like something from a Discworld novel.
The altar of this diety can be found inside resturaunts and other facilities that specifically cater to family reunions. :smallwink:
I love it! If nothing else, there will be an NPC who professes his undying worship of this deity and proselytizes at the party.


Some great stuff from this, thank you. Having spent a few hours on this

<a whole lot of stuff>

Okay, wow. First thoughts:
If you're using HD, you get neither Wis nor Cha. Is that intentional?

The version for improving attitudes seems legitimately usable in a way that the original one wasn't. Good job.

My main problem is that the length of this just obliterates the next longest skill description. I think most players would just look at this, go "Uhhh..." and move on. It certainly does not fill me with any confidence as a DM that I will understand all of the implications and specific uses of the skill.

One solution to this is to shorten it by stripping down the rules structure, possibly by dropping mechanics and use cases that can be emulated using the existing structure, or by taking out specific mechanics that aren't necessary (such as the specifications for when and how taking 10 is and isn't acceptable). The added value that each rule gives has to be firmly balanced against the additional complexity that it offers, and I think you're veering too far into the "complexity" side right now. Another is to split its uses into two separate skills: Diplomacy to handle handle the "changing attitude" uses, and Persuasion to handle the "negotiating specific arrangements" uses. I'm not saying that's a great solution, but something has to be done; right now this is just way too long for me to drop into my revised PHB.

Finally, I think "the target wants to help you" is identical to saying "the target gets added value from helping you", which is just another way of saying that the offer benefits the target. I don't think that it's necessary to specify that as an additional modifier.

[Deepbluediver]

I like this a lot, and would definitely use it in my games.
Any tweaks I made would likely be minor; and there are only a couple questions/comments I have.

*How long does the diplomacy check to alter a creatures attitude take? In the RAW, it says at least one full minute, but you can take a -10 penalty to rush the check in one Full Round. To me, this is frankly ridiculous; it means you can apparently speak fast enough to alter your targets deeply-held personal opinion in less than 6 seconds.
You are free to do what you like, but I think that maybe 5-10 minutes might be good for a standard diplomacy check, and 1 minute for a rushed check.

*Does alignment have any direct effect on negotiations or diplomacy checks? Or is that intended to be included in the Friendly/Hostile categories?

*I think the DC's to change attitude might be a little high. I realize there is a fine balance between making it to hard for John Q. Everyman and making it to easy for Dr. Expert, but IMO I think you might be swinging a little far towards the former. Limiting it to one step's worth of improvement should keep it in check as compared to the official version.
Also, if your concern is to keep the PC's from diplomancing there way past every fight, then you should reverse the scale to make it harder to change some one's attitude the more they hate you.

*You might want to give a few guidelines on how long you need to work with, or how often you influence some one, before their attitude towards you permanently improves. I realize this is largely role-play based and very variable, but we are talking about the most role-play critical aspects of the game.

*For haggling, is the "minimum accepted price" desribed somewhere (like in the DMG), or did you intend for the DM to just arbitrarily decide this one? It seems like it might be simpler to just say each 1 point over or under changes the price by 1% of the total, up to a max of 25% change. For cultures that hate/love bargaining, the limit might be more or less.

*This last one is purely a suggestion of something I think is neat, you can adopt or ignore it as you wish.
On the SRD in the section for Epic Skill usages, there is one additional level of attitude called "Fanatic". This seems like it might be a good thing to include as an option for certain levels of dedication or obsession. You can have either a Fanatic(hateful) or Fanatic(loyal) attitude, and these are the kind of things where you do MORE than just take risks or expend resources to help or harm some one.
A fanatic is the kind of person who, if you are hanging from a cliff and they are clinging to your ankles, stabs you with a knife. If thrown into a pit and told to work with you to fight a wild lion, they ignore the beast and attack you instead. On the other side of the spectrum, they are the kind of person who stays to hold the bridge against an invading army to buy you time to escape.
You could even include special qualities, such as an immunity to being bluffed into believeing anything good/bad about the target of their fanaticism, or an inability to change their attitude for or against their respective devotion. This would give an additional layer of protection for the all-important characters like the BBEG, or even for some PC's like paladins, who are extra vulnerable to alignment shifts.

[Kholai]

Okay, wow. First thoughts:
If you're using HD, you get neither Wis nor Cha. Is that intentional?

Correct, if their hitdice are higher than their Sense Motive + Wisdom or Diplomacy + Charisma then they're not applying either their insight or their way with words when the PC deals with them, they're applying their raw worldly experience not to be taken for a ride.


The version for improving attitudes seems legitimately usable in a way that the original one wasn't. Good job.

Cheers.


My main problem is that the length of this just obliterates the next longest skill description. I think most players would just look at this, go "Uhhh..." and move on. It certainly does not fill me with any confidence as a DM that I will understand all of the implications and specific uses of the skill.

I'm sure it doesn't help that I'm including half of the Appraise skill in there, but Diplomacy alone was still over a hundred words longer than the Craft skill. I've edited the above post, lemme know if that's any better for you, it's now two hundred words *shorter* than the craft skill.


Finally, I think "the target wants to help you" is identical to saying "the target gets added value from helping you", which is just another way of saying that the offer benefits the target. I don't think that it's necessary to specify that as an additional modifier.

If a beggar were to ask a LG Fighter, a TN Fighter and a CE Fighter for a gold piece so they could eat for the night... Which one "benefits" from losing 1 GP more? And which one "benefits" the least from losing 1 GP?

People are strange creatures, and boiling the motivations of charity, malice, sentiment and justice down to a vague idea of "benefit" doesn't sit well with me.


*How long does the diplomacy check to alter a creatures attitude take? In the RAW, it says at least one full minute, but you can take a -10 penalty to rush the check in one Full Round. To me, this is frankly ridiculous; it means you can apparently speak fast enough to alter your targets deeply-held personal opinion in less than 6 seconds.

Note that there is a difference between attitudes with this system and Core - In Core, attitudes are pretty much forever, so with a 1 minute check you've made someone your best friend. With this, 1 minute is a check to improve the attitude by up to one step; you've said hi, asked how their family are, commiserated with them over the Decanter of Endless Water incident, made eye contact, smiled, and nodded politely as they've told you about how they're saving for a bag of holding.

Doing this to a stranger on the street you've just met gives a good impression, and they'll more happily listen to whatever you have to say next, and that good impression you gave will last about 10 minutes to an hour before they get on with their day.

With a 6 second check, you've sidled over to them, given them a conspiratorial wink, and said "You won't believe what I've got to offer you!". Done right, they're intrigued, but if you don't wow them with whatever you tell them next, they'll probably shake their head and walk off. This is the 1-6 minute rule.

This isn't a deeply held personal belief - if you're a known enemy of their people, it will be both more difficult to get them receptive, and even then you'll at best only offset their inherent antipathy.

Relationships are something you forge over time, attitudes are something fluid and immediate.


*Does alignment have any direct effect on negotiations or diplomacy checks? Or is that intended to be included in the Friendly/Hostile categories?

As I was mentioning up-post, Alignment falls into the "Wants to help/Doesn't want to help" camp. Ask an Orc to beat someone up? Orcs like beating people up, -5. Ask a Good guy to help save someone? Good chance (though not guaranteed) that they'll want to help out. Ask an evil guy to help save someone? You'd better pony up a lot of cash, because +5: they don't wanna.


*I think the DC's to change attitude might be a little high. I realize there is a fine balance between making it to hard for John Q. Everyman and making it to easy for Dr. Expert, but IMO I think you might be swinging a little far towards the former. Limiting it to one step's worth of improvement should keep it in check as compared to the official version.
Also, if your concern is to keep the PC's from diplomancing there way past every fight, then you should reverse the scale to make it harder to change some one's attitude the more they hate you./QUOTE]

I'm open to the prospect, though I maintain it's harder to make someone helpful than it is to merely stop them being sceptical. For starters, what about dropping it to: 15 (25 to do it fast, which you usually need to), 20, 25, 30, 40 instead of 20, 30, 35, 40, 45?

The "John Q Everyman" application isn't changing attitudes, it's asking your friend Fred to lend you five silver, because you're a little short today and you don't get paid until tomorrow, at which point you'll pay him back (Incidentally, a DC 10 or so check assuming Fred isn't a savant).

[quote]*You might want to give a few guidelines on how long you need to work with, or how often you influence some one, before their attitude towards you permanently improves. I realize this is largely role-play based and very variable, but we are talking about the most role-play critical aspects of the game.

On reading the Relationship versus Attitude sidebar, how much more information would you like? It's really quite difficult to set exact dates considering how different each person is.


*For haggling, is the "minimum accepted price" desribed somewhere (like in the DMG), or did you intend for the DM to just arbitrarily decide this one? It seems like it might be simpler to just say each 1 point over or under changes the price by 1% of the total, up to a max of 25% change. For cultures that hate/love bargaining, the limit might be more or less.

I had this originally at 25% off maximum, but it was suggested that DMs may want to set their own tweaks. The absolute limit I would put everywhere is 50%. You craft an item at 33% of its cost in raw materials, that means you're making a third of its price, and that has to cover wages, cost of living, and overheads.


*This last one is purely a suggestion of something I think is neat, you can adopt or ignore it as you wish.
On the SRD in the section for Epic Skill usages, there is one additional level of attitude called "Fanatic". This seems like it might be a good thing to include as an option for certain levels of dedication or obsession. You can have either a Fanatic(hateful) or Fanatic(loyal) attitude, and these are the kind of things where you do MORE than just take risks or expend resources to help or harm some one.
A fanatic is the kind of person who, if you are hanging from a cliff and they are clinging to your ankles, stabs you with a knife. If thrown into a pit and told to work with you to fight a wild lion, they ignore the beast and attack you instead. On the other side of the spectrum, they are the kind of person who stays to hold the bridge against an invading army to buy you time to escape.
You could even include special qualities, such as an immunity to being bluffed into believeing anything good/bad about the target of their fanaticism, or an inability to change their attitude for or against their respective devotion. This would give an additional layer of protection for the all-important characters like the BBEG, or even for some PC's like paladins, who are extra vulnerable to alignment shifts.

I feel it fair to say that this has been made for an E6 framework, so I didn't have any plans for the epic usages myself, but this is a logical extension; you've used your epic powers of persuasion to temporarily make someone your rabid fanboy and asked them something incredibly unreasonable (like holding certain-death-bridge), and they've done it for free because you're just that epic.

The biggest thing here would be to remove the "You cannot persuade someone to do certain things" limiter if they're Fanatical and couple it with a major boost.

The contrary sounds like an interesting Feat for Diplomacy "Malicious Gossip", you can use your diplomatic powers to worsen someone's attitude towards someone else. Just like regular diplomacy can improve relationships with yourself over time, Gossips could push someone into being an Enemy with someone who has never so much as looked crossways at them.

[Deepbluediver]

My main problem is that the length of this just obliterates the next longest skill description. I think most players would just look at this, go "Uhhh..." and move on. It certainly does not fill me with any confidence as a DM that I will understand all of the implications and specific uses of the skill.

I think the real issue here is that D&D 3.5 does not have a very well fleshed-out social interaction structure, because (by my understanding) earlier editions left everything about roleplay up the player and DM, and so there was very little to build on.
It's complicated because Diplomacy has to act as the catch-all for everything that isn't explicitly Bluff/Sense Motive or Appraise.

If you don't like this version of Diplomacy, think you should either import a more rigorous set-up from a different game, or just learn to deal with it. There are systems that can condense the entire rules down to only a few pages, but D&D 3.5 is not one of these.
Also, it is recomended that you keep a PHB (or the internet) on hand for reference when playing, because it is unreasonable to expect ANYONE to have memorized the entire thing. There are over 100 pages of spells in the PHB alone, but people usually are only familiar with the ones that their class uses.

No one is required to use Diplomacy, except maybe for the DM, whose job it is to have a basic understanding of how everything works.
I would worry more about over-simplification; gaps in the RAW are what often leads to arguments about the games actual intentions, or abuse of loopholes.


Correct, if their hitdice are higher than their Sense Motive + Wisdom or Diplomacy + Charisma then they're not applying either their insight or their way with words when the PC deals with them, they're applying their raw worldly experience not to be taken for a ride.
Normally I prefer to use CR or ECL instead of HD, because for lots of creatures calculations involving HD of Humanoids vs. other things, they frequently get skewed one way or the other. In this situation though, I think it works, because the basic numbers (stat+skill) are higher than HD most of the time. It established a good minimum level to work around, although that kind of thing is less critical with the other modifications you made.


Note that there is a difference between attitudes with this system and Core - *snip*
This isn't a deeply held personal belief - if you're a known enemy of their people, it will be both more difficult to get them receptive, and even then you'll at best only offset their inherent antipathy.

Relationships are something you forge over time, attitudes are something fluid and immediate.
I was referring more towards the RAW and less at your version. I still find it hard to concieve of a situation where you can establish all that in just a minute, let alone one round, but I'm also not a trained-diplomat with a 25 in my charisma, so I'll concede the point.


I'm open to the prospect, though I maintain it's harder to make someone helpful than it is to merely stop them being sceptical.
We're probably debating opinion here, without a good "right" answer, but the way I view it is that the more some one dislikes you, the less willing they are to listen to what you have to say or to give you the benefit of the doubt. That means you need to be even MORE persuasive and convincing just to gain the same amount of trust or respect.
I admit that it's situational, but if I redo this at all, I might compromise and have the checks get harder as you move out from Indifferent, so that it's harder to alter the opinion of people who are both really hateful or really friendly.

As for the exact numbers....40 still seems a little high to me, but I know that skills are probably the most easily pumpable part of the game, so I'd say leave it as is, for now, until some one can actually play test it.


On reading the Relationship versus Attitude sidebar, how much more information would you like? It's really quite difficult to set exact dates considering how different each person is.
I was just thinking about some examples, but your right in that it's very variable and personal; forget about it.


I had this originally at 25% off maximum, but it was suggested that DMs may want to set their own tweaks. The absolute limit I would put everywhere is 50%.
I was actually more focused on the 2 points=1% conversion. As far as I know, Appraise is one of those skills without a lot of support behind it, so people's rolls will probably be lower. You are basically saying that you need to beat an opposed roll by 50 to get the maximum benefit.


I feel it fair to say that this has been made for an E6 framework, so I didn't have any plans for the epic usages myself, but this is a logical extension; you've used your epic powers of persuasion to temporarily make someone your rabid fanboy and asked them something incredibly unreasonable (like holding certain-death-bridge), and they've done it for free because you're just that epic.
I'll be honest, I was just thinking about this is the aspect of it being an attitude some one has, instead of taking the ability to change attitudes into consideration. Fantasy is full of stories about knights and other heros flinging themselves into near certain death for the protection of a King, princess, helpless random orphan, etc.
It doesn't even have to be about good or evil. To take an example from popular culture, look at the movie 300. Xerxes was a pretty badass dude, who had managed to convince his entire army he was a god. He made repeated diplomacy checks to get Leonidas to give up the fight, but the Spartans where so committed to war, and honor and glory, that they refused to leave, even when they risked nothing by accepting, faced certain doom if they refused, and had a deal that was heavily in their favor.

Instead of being an actual attitude, maybe "Fanatic" could be just a trait or quality that granted bonuses in certain situations. Just something to think about, I guess.


The contrary sounds like an interesting Feat for Diplomacy "Malicious Gossip", you can use your diplomatic powers to worsen someone's attitude towards someone else.
This actually sounds really interesting. You would probably want to extend the duration of the effect though, maybe to something like several days; otherwise you'd need to practically be refreshing it all the time to have it be effective.

You could even have "starting a rumor" as part of the feat, which a Diplomacy check made against modifiers such as existing reputation or population size. Other variables could be how effective it is comparing change in opinion and duration, such as a scandal that makes headlines for a few days vs. an urban leged that creeps around for years.

[Kholai]

Normally I prefer to use CR or ECL instead of HD, because for lots of creatures calculations involving HD of Humanoids vs. other things, they frequently get skewed one way or the other. In this situation though, I think it works, because the basic numbers (stat+skill) are higher than HD most of the time. It established a good minimum level to work around, although that kind of thing is less critical with the other modifications you made.

I considered these, but CR is a fickle, fluid thing that nobody can really agree on (and a mage has a higher CR than a fighter), whilst ECL accounts for level adjustment, which is honestly a bit of a headache (what happens if someone uses LA-buyoff, do they momentarily become less powerful?). Ultimately, everything uses hitdice; even if it's a mixture of 7 Fey HD + 17 levels in Druid, so I went in that direction.


I still find it hard to concieve of a situation where you can establish all that in just a minute, let alone one round, but I'm also not a trained-diplomat with a 25 in my charisma, so I'll concede the point.

True enough, D&D isn't really the realm of the reasonable, remember that your level 1 guy with 4 ranks in jump and 12 strength can take 10 to long jump 15 feet from a 10' running start.


I admit that it's situational, but if I redo this at all, I might compromise and have the checks get harder as you move out from Indifferent, so that it's harder to alter the opinion of people who are both really hateful or really friendly.

I'd go with a little of both - remember with Helpful you've engendered enough goodwill to more than offset: "The offer is greatly in your favour or puts the target at significant risk."

That's pretty freaking difficult. It should be hard to set up the con game, that's why people engage in the long con and up their friendship modifiers first.


As for the exact numbers....40 still seems a little high to me, but I know that skills are probably the most easily pumpable part of the game, so I'd say leave it as is, for now, until some one can actually play test it.

If someone could test these numbers that would be appreciated, I rarely get the opportunity.


I was actually more focused on the 2 points=1% conversion. As far as I know, Appraise is one of those skills without a lot of support behind it, so people's rolls will probably be lower. You are basically saying that you need to beat an opposed roll by 50 to get the maximum benefit.

If you roll a 20 and the merchant rolls a 1, and you have equivalent ranks and bonuses... They'll give you 9-10% off, already a good benefit.

Since you can be a level 20 Appraiseomancer and dealing with a level 1 Merchant, Skill Focus + Whatever the +2 feat is called + Scales + Masterwork Item + +6 Skillboosting Magic Item + Warlock invocation I seem to recall boosts Appraise by 6 + you took the time to up them to Friendly = +46 modifier before Int. With an 18 that's +50. You roll a 20 and they roll a 1 now? You just got 30% off. Remember Merchants gotta eat, and at 50% off, that's a really, really tight margin and a really, really powerful ability. Buying and selling goods with epic appraise?



Instead of being an actual attitude, maybe "Fanatic" could be just a trait or quality that granted bonuses in certain situations. Just something to think about, I guess.

Easily done, this is an aspect of personality and down to fiat.



This actually sounds really interesting. You would probably want to extend the duration of the effect though, maybe to something like several days; otherwise you'd need to practically be refreshing it all the time to have it be effective.

You could even have "starting a rumor" as part of the feat, which a Diplomacy check made against modifiers such as existing reputation or population size. Other variables could be how effective it is comparing change in opinion and duration, such as a scandal that makes headlines for a few days vs. an urban leged that creeps around for years.

Yeah, long term diplomacy is a whole other kettle of fish, I'll probably get more into it once this is hammered out.