Attitude adjustment

[lunar2]

this is a diplomacy, charm, etc. fix.

part 1. social skills (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate) can all be used to improve attitude.

2. skills can only increase attitude 1 step ever, so a diplomancer can get a hostile enemy to quit attacking by increaing them to unfriendly, but any higher than that must be earned.

3. the base dc of any attitude improvement is equal to the printed dc of improving to helpful, so hostile to unfriendly is base dc 25.

4. creatures add their will save modifier to the dc of improving their attitude, plus conditional modifiers for charms (diplomacy), compulsions (intimidate), or illusions (bluff). creatures specifically immune to one of those 3 can't be influenced by the corresponding skill, but blanket mind affecting immunity does not block skill use unless the creature is actually mindless.

5. spells that influence attitude (charm person, et al.) have their durations changed to instantaneous, but only improve attitude 1 step. magic can only improve a specific creature's attitude toward another specific creature 1 step, as with skills.

so, what do you think?

[lunar2]

anyone? no opinions at all?

[lunar2]

come on, i'd really like some feedback here.

[Invader]

What problem are you trying to fix or are you just making changes to make change?

[NikitaDarkstar]

I honestly don't see what you're trying to do other than possibly nerf diplomancers. So what are you trying to accomplish?

Also, why doesn't blanket immunity grant protection but specific ones do? Other than "mechanical balance" why? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep it as is?

[lunar2]

diplomacy and charm, as written, are flat broken. in a campaign i'm working on, one of the available classes is the beguiler, who, of course, gets both diplomacy and charm. i'm trying to make attitude adjustment more widely available, by adding in intimidate and bluff as possible routes (mainly to help the fighter and barbar do something outside of combat), while making it more difficult to pull off (almost universally higher DCs) and less game breaking (you're only capable of influencing another creature's attitude towards you by 2 steps, maximum. anything above that must be voluntary on their part).

@ blanket immunity. because i see no reason why you can't use diplomacy on a vampire. that suggests that they aren't able to change their mind, and therefore not truly sentient, despite their high mental ability scores. it just doesn't fit my vision of undead and similar creatures.

[Kogak]

@ blanket immunity. because i see no reason why you can't use diplomacy on a vampire. that suggests that they aren't able to change their mind, and therefore not truly sentient, despite their high mental ability scores. it just doesn't fit my vision of undead and similar creatures.

Mental flexibility does not necessarily equate to intelligence. I seem to recall somewhere (Libris Mortis, if I recall but I do not have my books on hand) that this specific issue is mentioned. Sentient undead become 'locked' in their way of thinking at the time of death. Thus a 700 year old lich appears insane because he is operating on a different set of principles, believes, world view etc. (not to mention he probably is fruitier than bat guano). Another example might be the AI in "I Robot" (think "awakened" golems, both sentient and immune). Clearly a sentient being capable of reasoning and novel responses/solutions, but rigid and inflexible in its beliefs and views.

To that end, I would imagine the blanket immunities make as much sense as anything else. I also seem to recall mention of using diplomacy on vampires somewhere... it mentioned being able to temporarily change their views, but it only lasted temporarily before their basic nature reasserted itself and they went right back to wanting to eat the cattle.

[lunar2]

yeah, i know about that, and i don't agree with it. all sentient creatures are at least capable of changing their opinions, beliefs, etc. imo.

that's not to say that old undead may not have some strange beliefs that they've stubbornly held on to for a few centuries, or that their mindset isn't somewhat alien simply because their brains work differently. but they are capable of making their own decisions about what to believe, and are therefore capable of being influenced by persuasive individuals.

[rockdeworld]

yeah, i know about that, and i don't agree with it. all sentient creatures are at least capable of changing their opinions, beliefs, etc. imo.

that's not to say that old undead may not have some strange beliefs that they've stubbornly held on to for a few centuries, or that their mindset isn't somewhat alien simply because their brains work differently. but they are capable of making their own decisions about what to believe, and are therefore capable of being influenced by persuasive individuals.
In my experience, not all sentient people are capable of changing their opinions and beliefs.

IMO, for a reasonable diplomacy fix, check out the tomes. (http://code.google.com/p/awesometome/downloads/list)

[lunar2]

can i please just get 1 single response about the actual posted fix. not questions about why undead can be affected by diplomacy (because it was stupid for them not to be), not links to other fixes, not questioning the obvious need for a fix (seriously, charm and diplomacy are about as broken as polymorph and calling spells, for the same reasons), just a simple response to the actual posted content.

[Psyren]

Do they get a will save AND sense motive, or the higher of the two, or what?

I don't like the "1-step-only" approach. It's possible (and indeed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0801.html) plausible (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0804.html)) to get someone from trying to kill you to on your side as opposed to merely unfriendly, and the system needs to account for that.

I personally like the Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/diplomacy.html#diplomacy) (can go more than one step, but never above Helpful) as a quick fix, or the Giant's version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9606632) as a much more in-depth improvement.

[lunar2]

charm spells give will saves, skill checks are against base DC + will modifier. sense motive has nothing to do with it.

@ example. that one isn't really about influencing attitude. nale just convinced her that he wasn't Elan, and so she quit attacking. her base attitude towards Nale was always indifferent, or possibly friendly, but she thought he was Elan, so was expressing her hostile attitude towards Elan.

while it would certainly be possible to convince someone that you are not the person they hate, it is a completely different thing than getting someone from hating you to loving you in the course of a few seconds. that sort of thing only happens in romance movies.

[Psyren]

charm spells give will saves, skill checks are against base DC + will modifier. sense motive has nothing to do with it.

Except Bluff, one of the skills you mentioned, is indeed an opposed check vs. SM.


@ example. that one isn't really about influencing attitude. nale just convinced her that he wasn't Elan, and so she quit attacking. her base attitude towards Nale was always indifferent, or possibly friendly, but she thought he was Elan, so was expressing her hostile attitude towards Elan.

She not only stopped attacking, she was willing to sign up. That's clearly a move to Helpful or at least Friendly. Now, you can argue that Nale got a circumstance bonus due to hating Tarquin too but he still had to convince her that he wasn't on Tarquin's side, which would clearly be Diplomacy.


while it would certainly be possible to convince someone that you are not the person they hate, it is a completely different thing than getting someone from hating you to loving you in the course of a few seconds. that sort of thing only happens in romance movies.

Who on earth mentioned love? :smallconfused: I certainly didn't.

[rockdeworld]

Considering it's up to the DM to define what any of the terms "Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, Helpful, or Fanatic" actually mean in a game (i.e. whether going from Hostile to Unfriendly means they actually stop attacking you, or your party), I don't know that your rule change makes it better. If anything, they're more confusing. Moreover, you don't specifically define "conditional modifiers," nor give a reason as to why will saves should be added to a skill check (which doesn't make sense to begin with, since no other check involves a saving throw). As far as the change goes, I wouldn't use it.

[lunar2]

Except Bluff, one of the skills you mentioned, is indeed an opposed check vs. SM.



She not only stopped attacking, she was willing to sign up. That's clearly a move to Helpful or at least Friendly. Now, you can argue that Nale got a circumstance bonus due to hating Tarquin too but he still had to convince her that he wasn't on Tarquin's side, which would clearly be Diplomacy.



Who on earth mentioned love? :smallconfused: I certainly didn't.

@sense motive. no, bluff is not always an opposed check against sense motive. using bluff to lie is opposed against sense motive, using bluff to feint is opposed against spot, and using bluff to influence attitude has a set DC.

@example. but her base attitude towards Nale was indifferent. she was attacking him because she thought he was Elan, not because she hostile to him. so he didn't have to influence her attitude to get her to stop attacking, he just had to point out that he wasn't Elan. from there (indifferent), he did influence her to friendly, but that's all.


Considering it's up to the DM to define what any of the terms "Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, Helpful, or Fanatic" actually mean in a game (i.e. whether going from Hostile to Unfriendly means they actually stop attacking you, or your party), I don't know that your rule change makes it better. If anything, they're more confusing. Moreover, you don't specifically define "conditional modifiers," nor give a reason as to why will saves should be added to a skill check (which doesn't make sense to begin with, since no other check involves a saving throw). As far as the change goes, I wouldn't use it.

actually, i do define which conditional modifiers apply to which checks. charm to diplomacy, compulsion to intimidate, illusion to bluff.

they don't make a separate will save, they add their save modifier to the base DC, because stubborn people are harder to influence.

also, the attitude terms are defined in the players handbook, both in what they mean and in what kinds of actions someone with that attitude would take. hostile people attack, unfriendly people don't. yes, a DM could rule that an unfriendly person attacks anyway because situation X, just like they could rule that a fanatic person attacks because of situation X.

[Psyren]

@sense motive. no, bluff is not always an opposed check against sense motive. using bluff to lie is opposed against sense motive, using bluff to feint is opposed against spot, and using bluff to influence attitude has a set DC.

Either way, none of those interacts with Will at all, which was my point.



@example. but her base attitude towards Nale was indifferent. she was attacking him because she thought he was Elan, not because she hostile to him. so he didn't have to influence her attitude to get her to stop attacking, he just had to point out that he wasn't Elan. from there (indifferent), he did influence her to friendly, but that's all.

He still had to convince her that he wasn't Elan before she could react to that information. As that is a true statement, it would require Diplomacy to calm her down (as opposed to actually being Elan and lying, which would be a Bluff.)