Dealing With High Diplomacy Characters

[Scorponok]

Hi Giants,

One of my players is starting a new character in a level 12 campaign and took a bunch of Unearthed Arcana warrior for the skill points, took prestige class Evangelist for 5 levels, maxes out Diplomacy and CHA, and I think will be one of those characters who thinks he can talk his way out of any situation and convince anyone to do anything he wants.

I know I've heard mentioned by other 3.5 players that Diplomacy is one of those things that can be easily abused in 3.5 and was wondering if there is anything I should know about how to deal with this, as I haven't really had a character like this. What I don't want is for this to turn into a sideshow about how diplomacy does and doesn't work. Of main concern is that he claims there should be no circumstance bonus to a diplomacy roll, so he can convince all the guards to betray the king or something.

[Werephilosopher]

Of main concern is that he claims there should be no circumstance bonus to a diplomacy roll, so he can convince all the guards to betray the king or something.

If he's actually said this to you, it should say enough about what he plans to do with his Diplomacy. Using Diplomacy exactly as laid out in the SRD is probably a bad idea anyway- I think there was an easy fix somewhere on these boards, but I can't find it. You should probably houserule it to work more realistically. Give him a chance to redo his character in light of the new rules, but don't be afraid to tell him that his high check doesn't always work the way he wants it to.

Also, I'm not sure if you meant he took UA's Expert class, not Warrior- Warrior has only 2+Int skill points per level- but note that those classes shouldn't normally be used with regular ones.

[Brookshw]

Hi Giants,

One of my players is starting a new character in a level 12 campaign and took a bunch of Unearthed Arcana warrior for the skill points, took prestige class Evangelist for 5 levels, maxes out Diplomacy and CHA, and I think will be one of those characters who thinks he can talk his way out of any situation and convince anyone to do anything he wants.

I know I've heard mentioned by other 3.5 players that Diplomacy is one of those things that can be easily abused in 3.5 and was wondering if there is anything I should know about how to deal with this, as I haven't really had a character like this. What I don't want is for this to turn into a sideshow about how diplomacy does and doesn't work. Of main concern is that he claims there should be no circumstance bonus to a diplomacy roll, so he can convince all the guards to betray the king or something.

A) there are some mods such as -10 to diplo in one round instead of a minute.
B) diplo just tells you attitude, its not charm person. There's an argument to be made for fanatical if epic rules are in play but otherwise they don't blindly do what you want. Guard laugh, say "we know you're just kidding" or "look, as your friend I gotta warn you to stop talking like that, its gonna get you in big trouble". This is not some autominion skill. Read it carefully.
C) the giant posted some interesting homebrew for this, check it out. Sorry, on phone so hunting it down and linking is obnoxious.

[nedz]

Diplomacy is well known for being breakable through optimisation. You could try reading the Giant's own article (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com) on this — it's a good place to start at least. He even suggests some fixes, though there are other ways of handling this problem.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Rich has his own way of dealing with Diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com&p=9606632&viewfull=1#post9606632), it's a house rule you should take a look at it.

[The Grue]

I don't know if it's been linked already, but there's a very useful article (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com) here on this site regarding a Diplomacy fix.

[Coidzor]

Well, there's the Giant's Diplomacy fix floating around here somewhere that helps with being able to just mindrape people into minions using the diplomacy rules to diplomance.

Edit: Serves me right for buttering my toast first.

[Grod_The_Giant]

B) diplo just tells you attitude, its not charm person. There's an argument to be made for fanatical if epic rules are in play but otherwise they don't blindly do what you want. Guard laugh, say "we know you're just kidding" or "look, as your friend I gotta warn you to stop talking like that, its gonna get you in big trouble". This is not some autominion skill. Read it carefully.
This is the big one. RAW, Diplomacy isn't a persuasion skill, it's a schmoozing skill. It's how good you are at making friends.

An easy fix is to get rid of the static DCs. Say, add the target's Wisdom modifier and any difference in levels to the normal Diplomacy DC.

EDIT: And if you're concerned, talk to your player. Be doubly sure to do this if you're planning on an unfavorable Diplomacy ruling, and triply sure if you're instituting houserules. Make sure he has plenty of time and freedom to change things around if he doesn't like the changes.

[shadow_archmagi]

Try talking to your player about Diplomacy. The first step to resolving any potential problem is to make sure that you and your group understand one another and are working towards the same goals. It might be possible to just direct their character towards a less broken part of the game.

[Telonius]

Also, I'm not sure if you meant he took UA's Expert class, not Warrior- Warrior has only 2+Int skill points per level- but note that those classes shouldn't normally be used with regular ones.

I'm guessing the Generic Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#warrior) variant, not the NPC class?

Anyway, I put that sort of thing in the same bin as ridiculous Bluff checks - Diplomacy is all about getting people to a) like you or b) agree to a deal. A cop can think you're the best guy on the planet, but if it's his job to arrest you, he's going to do it. (At least until you get your check high enough to make him a fanatical follower - then all bets are off).

[Thealtruistorc]

The Book of Exalted Deeds has an optional rule that allows you to gain xp for talking a foe into submission (though you do not gain xp if you then kill it). If you use this book, I can see a powerful diplomancer being a problem.

The number one counter to diplomacy: earplugs. Number two: Screaming at the top of your lungs.

[Coidzor]

The Book of Exalted Deeds has an optional rule that allows you to gain xp for talking a foe into submission (though you do not gain xp if you then kill it). If you use this book, I can see a powerful diplomancer being a problem.

The number one counter to diplomacy: earplugs. Number two: Screaming at the top of your lungs.

Trying to XP starve people for bypassing & resolving challenges peacefully using diplomancy is a less than ideal, and probably the wrong approach, because then you're going into actively encouraging murderhoboing.

[jjcrpntr]

I have a player in my game that has a high diplomacy build. It's fun, he likes it. But I sat down and told him, "look you're not going to be able to persuade everyone". I give my NPC's situational modifiers. If it's just something they don't want to do then there's a chance they will be persuaded. But if it's something they have multiple really good reasons for not doing, then they aren't doing it. I think it bothers the pc a bit because that was kind of how he built his character as one of the main abilities. But I looked at it and thought it would just be a broken skill if I didn't put some kind of modifiers in for the NPC's.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Bluff has a table of modifiers for adjusting the circumstances of your check based on the plausibility of the ruse, or how inclined the victi--er, I mean, "target"--is inclined to believe you. It stands to reason that Diplomacy checks to improve behavior should be modified as well by the plausibility of the approach, as well as the request the player is making. The player can hem and haw about this all they want, but you're the DM, and as long as you don't abuse this fact, he shouldn't have cause to seriously object.

[XmonkTad]

The Evangelist is a bit of a 1-trick pony, and so shutting down diplomacy hard can shut him down hard too. The first thing to do is make sure you do your rolls in secret (my DM has us roll everything ourselves). Second: a good roll can be botched by bad roll playing, and a bad roll can be mitigated with good RP. Diplomacy can be fun with complex checks, but out of the box it tends to be really black and white.

[Coidzor]

The Evangelist is a bit of a 1-trick pony, and so shutting down diplomacy hard can shut him down hard too. The first thing to do is make sure you do your rolls in secret (my DM has us roll everything ourselves). Second: a good roll can be botched by bad roll playing, and a bad roll can be mitigated with good RP. Diplomacy can be fun with complex checks, but out of the box it tends to be really black and white.

If you're forced to deciding things completely ad-hoc while pretending to roll rather than being able to come up with a real fix, you'd probably be better served asking them not to engage in such practices or banning such behaviors directly. :/

[John Longarrow]

When talking to your player, remind them that there are some creatures that cannot be affected by diplomacy.

Animals can't be affected (too low of an Int)
Constructs can't be affected.
Many Undead can't be affected.

Traps don't talk much. Also opposed diplomacy VS merchants can get UGLY.
Player "OK, I see if I can get the merchant to give me what I want. OK, I get a 47!"
DM "Well, since the merchant has a +55 to diplomacy out of the box, and rolled a 20, I guess that means you give them everything you own?"
Player ":smallfurious:"

NOTE: Merchant at lvl 15 with a magic item +20 to diplomacy isn't out of bounds...

Real answer is make sure the player understands that you, as DM, can add situational modifiers based on what is going on, who they are approaching, and what they are asking for. If they strongly object, then look them in the eye and ask if they are OK with NPCs using diplomacy on THEM.

[WeaselGuy]

My DM makes us RP what we say on Bluff and Diplomacy checks, and even if they are ridiculously cheesy (Hey baby, did it hurt when you fell out of Heaven and into my thoughts?), if I roll like a 30 or some such ridiculously good number, she just happens to be a sap for cheesy pick up lines and it works. If I roll low, she laughs, my buddies laugh, and we carry on. The same thing would apply to the guards. "Yeah, nice try guy, good effort, but I get paid to protect this guy, even if you do make some good points, I gotta put bread on the table". In either case, making us come up with what we say makes us at least have to think about what we're doing, instead of throwing a d20 and math is hard. When you have to come up with your own words, instead of just "I roll diplomacy to get the guards to attack the king", you tend to not throw the dice over and over. At least that's how it works for us.

If that doesn't work, woohoo, the king is protected by Constructs and Undead!

[sideswipe]

rule 0?

the player is being a ****. change the rules. or use them as you see fit.

if he wants to convince a guard he has just met to betray his king the guard would get possibly a +20 or so to the check. since he.
1. gets paid by the king
2. his family live in the kingdom
3. he would alone with a stranger fight an army and the high mage to kill the king
4. if he fails he will be put to death and probably his family would be too.
5. he just met this guy and he has suggested something that he would never want to do. same thing as telling a dominated person to do a suicidal task. even a high level spell cant do it so a single skill roll can't.

he may however be easily able to manipulate the guard (with actual player talking to back up the roll) to assist him in a non deadly way or to stand aside.

[Vogonjeltz]

A) there are some mods such as -10 to diplo in one round instead of a minute.
B) diplo just tells you attitude, its not charm person. There's an argument to be made for fanatical if epic rules are in play but otherwise they don't blindly do what you want. Guard laugh, say "we know you're just kidding" or "look, as your friend I gotta warn you to stop talking like that, its gonna get you in big trouble". This is not some autominion skill. Read it carefully.
C) the giant posted some interesting homebrew for this, check it out. Sorry, on phone so hunting it down and linking is obnoxious.

There's also the "impossible task" setting for which you have rules that no amount of effort is going to work (ie convincing sworn minions of the king to betray them on the fly)

[ArqArturo]

There's a saying in 40k, referring the the Comissar, a squad leader of sorts for the Imperial Guard: 'The only thing scarier than the enemy infront of you, is the person giving you orders'. In other words, intimidate your minions into not screwing up.

A guard might be coerced into opening a gate, but the BBEG threatened him with devouring his soul, or turning him into a frog, or anything. I like to call it The Rory Breaker Approach (http://youtu.be/TRYE5gPoI8A?t=51s).

[Coidzor]

There's a saying in 40k, referring the the Comissar, a squad leader of sorts for the Imperial Guard: 'The only thing scarier than the enemy infront of you, is the person giving you orders'. In other words, intimidate your minions into not screwing up.

A guard might be coerced into opening a gate, but the BBEG threatened him with devouring his soul, or turning him into a frog, or anything. I like to call it The Rory Breaker Approach (http://youtu.be/TRYE5gPoI8A?t=51s).

Then you're in the opposite territory where the skills never work and that's equally unsatisfying and bad without just admitting that you're getting rid of them. :/

[TuggyNE]

There's also the "impossible task" setting for which you have rules that no amount of effort is going to work (ie convincing sworn minions of the king to betray them on the fly)

Strictly speaking, this is in no way impossible, merely astonishingly difficult; it is, after all, demonstrably possible, albeit difficult, to convince sworn bodyguards to betray their ward (as has occurred time and time again), so the only other factor is doing so in great haste. Exactly how much this adds to the difficulty is hard to say, but I see no reason for it to be outright impossible when tasks like "crawling through a hole too small for your head to fit", "balancing on a cloud", and "swimming straight up a waterfall" are all given skill DCs. Indeed, it's probably easier than those are, so perhaps (seriously spitballing) a DC of 80-100 or so for your average fiercely loyal 5th-level guards.

Diplomacy in general does need to be reworked, though, either with The Giant's fix as linked earlier, with Justin Alexander's tweaks to it (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/700/roleplaying-games/advanced-rules-diplomacy), or some modification of those.

[ArqArturo]

Then you're in the opposite territory where the skills never work and that's equally unsatisfying and bad without just admitting that you're getting rid of them. :/

Only when my intricate series of encounters, puzzles, traps, and clues are thrown away with just one swift hit.

[Doug Lampert]

A) there are some mods such as -10 to diplo in one round instead of a minute.
B) diplo just tells you attitude, its not charm person. There's an argument to be made for fanatical if epic rules are in play but otherwise they don't blindly do what you want. Guard laugh, say "we know you're just kidding" or "look, as your friend I gotta warn you to stop talking like that, its gonna get you in big trouble". This is not some autominion skill. Read it carefully.
C) the giant posted some interesting homebrew for this, check it out. Sorry, on phone so hunting it down and linking is obnoxious.

It isn't charm person, it's BETTER! Seriously, read the rules. Charm person makes a person friendly, it SPECIFICALLY references the attitude rules and describes what that attitude does, and that's pretty much it. Diplomacy maximized and no epic rules makes them Helpful, a STRONGER condition one step better than friendly, for making a fixed DC check that can easily be hit by a level 12 character optimized for it.

Seriously, when people say "it isn't charm person" they are saying that it's never even occurred to them to run it by the book, because charm person, no save, everyone you can talk to at will, takes only 6 seconds, and applies to undead and others immune to mind-effecting since the skill isn't magic would be WEAKER by the book than the skill. Flat out crap by comparison actually, why settle for friendly and giving a save and having a limited duration?

Read helpful, read what it means, consider that you can get this from ABSOLUTELY ANYONE in 6 seconds flat. Can't convince the guards to betray the king because of an ad-hoc -40 circumstance penalty, who cares?! I can certainly get them to let me talk to the king and 6 seconds later I don't NEED to have my good friend who would risk death to help me killed, I can have him ORDER his ever so loyal guards to follow me. That's how much minor tweaks don't help.

Use a comprehensive fix like the giant's. Ad hoc "it's not that good" is based on ignoring the plain words of the rules.

[Brookshw]

It isn't charm person, it's BETTER! Seriously, read the rules. Charm person makes a person friendly, it SPECIFICALLY references the attitude rules and describes what that attitude does, and that's pretty much it. Diplomacy maximized and no epic rules makes them Helpful, a STRONGER condition one step better than friendly, for making a fixed DC check that can easily be hit by a level 12 character optimized for it.

Seriously, when people say "it isn't charm person" they are saying that it's never even occurred to them to run it by the book, because charm person, no save, everyone you can talk to at will, takes only 6 seconds, and applies to undead and others immune to mind-effecting since the skill isn't magic would be WEAKER by the book than the skill. Flat out crap by comparison actually, why settle for friendly and giving a save and having a limited duration?

Read helpful, read what it means, consider that you can get this from ABSOLUTELY ANYONE in 6 seconds flat. Can't convince the guards to betray the king because of an ad-hoc -40 circumstance penalty, who cares?! I can certainly get them to let me talk to the king and 6 seconds later I don't NEED to have my good friend who would risk death to help me killed, I can have him ORDER his ever so loyal guards to follow me. That's how much minor tweaks don't help.

Use a comprehensive fix like the giant's. Ad hoc "it's not that good" is based on ignoring the plain words of the rules.

Now, I'm not at the book currently but the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not substantiated your claim. At best there are possible actions (requiring dm adjudication) but nothing definitive, certainly not to the degree you've prescribed. I'm calling shenanigans.

[sideswipe]

Now, I'm not at the book currently but the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not substantiated your claim. At best there are possible actions (requiring dm adjudication) but nothing definitive, certainly not to the degree you've prescribed. I'm calling shenanigans.

looking in the rules compendium yes you can with a set dc check which depends on the current attitude towards you increase their attitude to you.
in ascending order
hostile
unfriendly
indifferent
friendly
helpful

an interoperation of this is that since the charm person spell makes the target friendly, and diplomacy can make them helpful, it is weaker than diplomacy. though a -10 for a full round action. and circumstances penalties to the check depending on what you want them to do means that all but the most optimised characters should not be able to do whatever they want.

and optimised ones should be shot. some people just say no. deal with it.

[Coidzor]

Only when my intricate series of encounters, puzzles, traps, and clues are thrown away with just one swift hit.

If subverting one minion of uncertain loyalty would throw all of that away, you really need to re-examine the delicacy of your rails.

And also throw out Diplomacy as it exists as an open decision. :smallconfused:

[Brookshw]

looking in the rules compendium yes you can with a set dc check which depends on the current attitude towards you increase their attitude to you.
in ascending order
hostile
unfriendly
indifferent
friendly
helpful

an interoperation of this is that since the charm person spell makes the target friendly, and diplomacy can make theim helpful, it is weaker than diplomacy. though a -10 for a full round action. and circumstances penalties to the check depending on what you want them to do means that all but the most optimised characters should not be able to do whatever they want.

and optimised ones should be shot. some people just say no. deal with it.

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of this. The rules compendium (whose validity is questionable, see:curmudgeon) sounds to be synched with the players handbook. However the responses proposed do not align in a raw fashion with what the skill prescribes are the outcomes to which the reactions should be aligned. I'm not sure I understand where the validity of this stance arises, it doesn't seem supported in the raw.

[Doug Lampert]

Now, I'm not at the book currently but the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not substantiated your claim. At best there are possible actions (requiring dm adjudication) but nothing definitive, certainly not to the degree you've prescribed. I'm calling shenanigans.

You can change attitudes as a standard action at a modest penalty. You can go from hostile to friendly with a single roll. It requires only a common language. There is no save and no duration to run out. It generates "Helpful" which is better than "friendly" and will explicitly take risks for you while charm person only gets friendly and the listed stuff from charm falls entirely within the effects of friendly.

Helpful will take risks to help you and will protect, aid, backup, and heal you.

The DCs are right there in the link YOU give as are flat DCs with no save.

All of this is in both the books and the SRD.

What exactly makes you think the skill DOES NOT generate helpful when that's what it says it does. What exactly do you think charm person does that diplomacy doesn't? What exactly do you think the save is if that's what you think is unsubstantiated.

What about giving DCs to change attitudes is just a suggestion requiring DM adjuration? There's nothing worse than Hostile which includes actual combat and I can change that to Helpful at which point he'll explicitly risk his life to protect me.

What RULES are you saying don't exist in your game, because the link you give says exactly what I said it does and mentions nothing about this requiring adjuration beyond what any skill use needs.

[Gildedragon]

[...] Helpful at which point he'll explicitly risk his life to protect me.

What RULES are you saying don't exist in your game, because the link you give says exactly what I said it does and mentions nothing about this requiring adjuration beyond what any skill use needs.
Italics added for emphasis
Helpful does not mean "risk his life to protect [you]" and that is in no way explicit. The text is:

Means: Will take risks to help you
Possible Actions: Protect, back up, heal, aid
It does not stipulate what sort of risks, and leaves that to the DM
As to Protect & Back Up: Protect can mean pulling you out of a situation, trying to explain and justify your actions to others. Ditto for back up. It is neither explicit nor necessary for these actions to lead into combat or involve the risking of life or even the taking of significant risks.
That would be the Fanatic listing from the Epic Skills section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#diplomacy), which woefully under DCed (the fanatic listing at least)

[chickenkiller]

Real answer is make sure the player understands that you, as DM, can add situational modifiers based on what is going on, who they are approaching, and what they are asking for. If they strongly object, then look them in the eye and ask if they are OK with NPCs using diplomacy on THEM.

this right here 100%, i use a similar approach with the group i dm and have not had a problem yet

[Coidzor]

Yeah, you want to aim for Fanatic anyway, that way the DM can't even attempt to screw with it and just has to come out and talk about it directly.


looking in the rules compendium yes you can with a set dc check which depends on the current attitude towards you increase their attitude to you.
in ascending order
hostile
unfriendly
indifferent
friendly
helpful

an interoperation of this is that since the charm person spell makes the target friendly, and diplomacy can make them helpful, it is weaker than diplomacy. though a -10 for a full round action. and circumstances penalties to the check depending on what you want them to do means that all but the most optimised characters should not be able to do whatever they want.

The only time Charm Person is superior to Diplomancy is when you either A. can't use Epic Diplomacy rules for whatever reason or B. can't get a high enough check result to get Fanatic yet; and that's only if you have a good enough Charisma to force them to do whatever you want with opposed charisma checks.

[Jack_Simth]

My general fix for diplomacy is to realize that it doesn't make them automatons (once you dump the Epic expansion, anyway). It just makes them like you better. That won't always really improve your situation. My classic take is on a prison scenario. The player diplomances the guard, and I check the guard's alignment (possibly by rolling it randomly on the spot):

Lawful Good: Argues with the judge on your behalf.
Lawful Evil: Provides you with whatever is considered the tools for honourable suicide so you can cleanse yourself of the dishonour of [getting caught at] whatever your crimes were.
Chaotic Good: Slips you some lockpicks and a note on the likely best time to slip away (but what's a Chaotic doing guarding a prison in the first place? Eh, whatever... roll with it...).
Chaotic Evil: Slips you a dagger and a note on when a hated co-worker will likely be around (but what's a Chaotic doing guarding a prison in the first place? Eh, whatever... roll with it...).
Neutral(any): Rolls randomly between the closest of the extremes, or ask the player which direction they want to lean if the player exceeded the roll by 10.

All situations result in the guard taking risks to help you (if most get caught, they lose their jobs or worse; the LG option involves publicly risking reputation). It's not, however, a get-out-of-jail-free card. You're still meeting the magistrate with LG, have fun figuring out how to make decent use of that vial of poison that the LE guard gave you, you'll still need to pick the locks and sneak out yourself for the CG guard, and you've got a fight on your hands when the CE guard helps you. Moves the game along, gives it a direction to go, and grants you resources that you would otherwise not have had... but it's not an 'I win' button.

[Virdish]

I'm playing a diplomancer in an irl campaign of mine and have had to monitor myself because of it. With only a little optimization of it I can hit a result of 51 without rolling. (Thank you binder) which means I can always turn something from hostile to helpful in one round. I've straight up stopped combats with it. Now I self regulate and also don't try for particular actions. I simply attempt to conserve party resources by sidestepping encounters. We don't play with fanatic because the dm rules that only epic characters can use epic skills but if we did I could further optimize (another class or two and an item) to make them fanatical. Let me end this all by saying that I have not even touched the idea of a custom item of Diplomacy.

[Vogonjeltz]

Strictly speaking, this is in no way impossible, merely astonishingly difficult; it is, after all, demonstrably possible, albeit difficult, to convince sworn bodyguards to betray their ward (as has occurred time and time again), so the only other factor is doing so in great haste. Exactly how much this adds to the difficulty is hard to say, but I see no reason for it to be outright impossible when tasks like "crawling through a hole too small for your head to fit", "balancing on a cloud", and "swimming straight up a waterfall" are all given skill DCs. Indeed, it's probably easier than those are, so perhaps (seriously spitballing) a DC of 80-100 or so for your average fiercely loyal 5th-level guards.

Diplomacy in general does need to be reworked, though, either with The Giant's fix as linked earlier, with Justin Alexander's tweaks to it (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/700/roleplaying-games/advanced-rules-diplomacy), or some modification of those.

I have to disagree, the PHB has a section on practically impossible that ends with:
"The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible."

That being the case (and in conjunction with the practical limitations on Diplomacy mentioned in its entry) I as DM would probably nix any attempt to influence these guys unless the player is capable of providing the proper incentive (read as: some NPCs may be capable of turning against their employers, but it takes more than words)

*Some examples may help express my position:

Jory from GoT, for example, would die before turning on Ned Stark. Anyone speaking against Ned is basically always going to have the reverse of their goal happen.

In contrast, the commander of the Kings Landing Goldcloaks, Janos Slynt, who is nominally on Neds side can be persuaded to betray Ned for rewards (lands, titles).

Average guards who're just doing it for the money? Sure diplomacy might work. Lifelong vassal with no complaints? Never.

[Jack_Simth]

I have to disagree, the PHB has a section on practically impossible that ends with:
"The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible."

That being the case (and in conjunction with the practical limitations on Diplomacy mentioned in its entry) I as DM would probably nix any attempt to influence these guys unless the player is capable of providing the proper incentive (read as: some NPCs may be capable of turning against their employers, but it takes more than words)
Did you flesh out all NPC's enough that it's an actual possibility for the players to learn of Guard # 34's childhood link to halflings and make use of that?

[Vogonjeltz]

Did you flesh out all NPC's enough that it's an actual possibility for the players to learn of Guard # 34's childhood link to halflings and make use of that?

When I design an adventure I plot for any use of social skills, yes.

[Jack_Simth]

When I design an adventure I plot for any use of social skills, yes.
... which also suggests that if you're not specifically planning for the use of social skills, social skills become meaningless. Meanwhile, if the game turns social, the Fighter can still sometimes help by breaking a few heads to get people to talk, the sneaky scouting rogue can still eavesdrop on important people, the Wizard can bust out the Charm Person and Suggestion, and the Cleric can deal with the occasional social skill check via such spells as Divine Insight. But the guy who took ten different languages (including Draconic) so he could communicate with almost anything he encountered flat-out CANNOT convince that kobold scout (who speaks Draconic) he spotted that the party means no harm and is just passing through, no need to worry his superiors with reports of the big folk walking through the swamp.... because you weren't planning on a social encounter, so the kobold doesn't have a backstory to take advantage of (not that it would matter if he did, as Random Kobold Scout #387 is effectively impossible to research anyway).

The dice aren't really there for when you know all the factors. They're there for when you don't. If you research the King & Queen, and find out that they've been having trouble conceiving and that the queen had a recent miscarriage... then using that information to start a war with the neighbouring kingdom by way of arranging a 'gift' from said neighbouring kingdom of a black cradle with a small humanoid skull in it really shouldn't need a social skill check past the information gathering (and the disguise to plant things).

[TuggyNE]

I have to disagree, the PHB has a section on practically impossible that ends with:
"The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible."

Of course. And any DM who decides that this is actually impossible is incorrect. (They are of course free to run their game in an incorrect way, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.)


Average guards who're just doing it for the money? Sure diplomacy might work. Lifelong vassal with no complaints? Never.

Never? Never is a long time, and the number of rulers not merely betrayed but assassinated by their own lifelong no-complaints sworn-oath guards is non-zero.

[Vogonjeltz]

... which also suggests that if you're not specifically planning for the use of social skills, social skills become meaningless. Meanwhile, if the game turns social, the Fighter can still sometimes help by breaking a few heads to get people to talk, the sneaky scouting rogue can still eavesdrop on important people, the Wizard can bust out the Charm Person and Suggestion, and the Cleric can deal with the occasional social skill check via such spells as Divine Insight. But the guy who took ten different languages (including Draconic) so he could communicate with almost anything he encountered flat-out CANNOT convince that kobold scout (who speaks Draconic) he spotted that the party means no harm and is just passing through, no need to worry his superiors with reports of the big folk walking through the swamp.... because you weren't planning on a social encounter, so the kobold doesn't have a backstory to take advantage of (not that it would matter if he did, as Random Kobold Scout #387 is effectively impossible to research anyway).

The dice aren't really there for when you know all the factors. They're there for when you don't. If you research the King & Queen, and find out that they've been having trouble conceiving and that the queen had a recent miscarriage... then using that information to start a war with the neighbouring kingdom by way of arranging a 'gift' from said neighbouring kingdom of a black cradle with a small humanoid skull in it really shouldn't need a social skill check past the information gathering (and the disguise to plant things).

To be fair, the guy who took all the languages may be the only person who can actually communicate with some encounters. You can very well use diplomacy on that species that only speaks its own language if you can't speak it.


Of course. And any DM who decides that this is actually impossible is incorrect. (They are of course free to run their game in an incorrect way, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.)

Never? Never is a long time, and the number of rulers not merely betrayed but assassinated by their own lifelong no-complaints sworn-oath guards is non-zero.

Of course, and vice versa. Such is the nature of DM decision making

Well the example I gave was someone who actually has no complaints, those who are susceptible actually do have a complaint. I'm perfectly ok making up such a thing, but it requires some level of PC effort to actually look for such an weakness specifically.

[Gildedragon]

Actually, in Dragon Magazine 303 pg 52-53 there are guidelines for using Sense Motive to get "Deep Insight" into an NPCs motivations
The DCs are kinda... odd as they are modifiers (+10 for the deep insight) that I think are meant to apply to the "Hunch" option of sense motive or the opposed check against a Bluff.

The whole article is pretty good for elaborating on social encounters (including a "use bluff to make intimidation more effective" optional rule

[Togo]

The most important limitation to my mind is that it's a skill, it's representing the effects of being diplomatic, and can't achieve anything that being diplomatic to someone couldn't.

So first off, you have to be diplomatic. You can't be rude or pushy and expect to get to roll, any more than the climb skill allows you rise up sheer surfaces without having to climb them.

Secondly, helpful reaction means someone will take risks, try and help you out. It doesn't mean they'll chuck away everything that's important to them in order to give you a fleeting advantage. A prison guard isn't going to subvert their own career, their own county's legal system, and their own lives, to let you out of jail. They may be willing to slip a lockpick to you, as long as it can't be traced, or make a diversion. In other words, they'll be helpful. They're not going to follow you around and be your meatshield.

Thirdly, if you are using epic rules, then diplomacy should be the stuff of legend, turning people's allegiance and winning their loyalty. If that's not what you want, don't use epic rules for a non-epic game.

[prufock]

one of those characters who thinks he can talk his way out of any situation and convince anyone to do anything he wants.
...
Of main concern is that he claims there should be no circumstance bonus to a diplomacy roll, so he can convince all the guards to betray the king or something.

Well he is demonstrably wrong (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#favorableAndUnfavorableConditions) on this count. However, a +2/-2 may not account for much. There's always the "rule 0" option, however unsatisfying that is. Some uses of diplomacy simply shouldn't work, such as swaying a guard to be friendly when you've just slaughtered his whole troop.

On a personal note, I have played a character like this. Michal Carter, a bard/marshal/virtuoso focusing on social skills. A cart-maker and everyman, I played him up as everyone's second-best friend, a guy who would rather talk out differences than swing a sword. Of course, encounters often DID come to violence, to which he was mostly a support member, using bardic abilities and spells to either buff the party or deal with noncombat portions of encounters (like covering the escape for civilians).

He was INCREDIBLY fun to play (and I hope we go back to that campaign at some point, since we left it unfinished), so try not to nerf the guy's build too much. One of the balancing aspects of Michal was actually the rest of the party - a barbarian, duskblade, and wizard focusing on illusion and blasting. They were not content to just let me talk my way through every encounter, and lots of encounters can't be talked through. Use your own social skills to talk to your group and make it clear you can't diplo-roll your way through everything.

Another possibility that occurs to me is to backward-engineer the epic diplomacy rule: fanatic. It gives a rule for making someone fanatical to you, but what if the target is already fanatical to another party? You're looking at DCs of 50+ to change their attitude away from that party.

[Brookshw]

You can change attitudes as a standard action at a modest penalty. You can go from hostile to friendly with a single roll. It requires only a common language. There is no save and no duration to run out. It generates "Helpful" which is better than "friendly" and will explicitly take risks for you while charm person only gets friendly and the listed stuff from charm falls entirely within the effects of friendly.

Helpful will take risks to help you and will protect, aid, backup, and heal you. This was already replied to but these are defined as "possibly", not explicitly, not definitely, not anything other than "possible". What that means is not defined. Does "help" mean suggest that your course of action is not wise rather than throw away everything in a foolish self destructive crusade? Charm Person could get the throw away result, but diplomacy? Nope, nothing says anything about how the skill and attitude manifest themselves. The parenthetical examples do not in anyway define these things.


What exactly makes you think the skill DOES NOT generate helpful when that's what it says it does. What exactly do you think charm person does that diplomacy doesn't? What exactly do you think the save is if that's what you think is unsubstantiated. Well I'd say "blind obedience" would be a start. Doesn't seem to be listed under the "possible" actions. Note the importance of that word, "possible".


What about giving DCs to change attitudes is just a suggestion requiring DM adjuration? There's nothing worse than Hostile which includes actual combat and I can change that to Helpful at which point he'll explicitly risk his life to protect me. No in fact, he will not explicitly risk his life to protect you. He "might" with no explanation of what parameters would be taken into account of when the "possible" would become actualized. That requires adjudication. This is the skill "you made a friend". Are you telling me if you decide to go shoot up city hall and try and take down the police station irl that your friends are going to say "heck yeah, count me in!"?


What RULES are you saying don't exist in your game, because the link you give says exactly what I said it does and mentions nothing about this requiring adjuration beyond what any skill use needs. No, it really doesn't say what you seem to want it to say.

[Virdish]

Well he is demonstrably wrong (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#favorableAndUnfavorableConditions) on this count. However, a +2/-2 may not account for much. There's always the "rule 0" option, however unsatisfying that is. Some uses of diplomacy simply shouldn't work, such as swaying a guard to be friendly when you've just slaughtered his whole troop.

On a personal note, I have played a character like this. Michal Carter, a bard/marshal/virtuoso focusing on social skills. A cart-maker and everyman, I played him up as everyone's second-best friend, a guy who would rather talk out differences than swing a sword. Of course, encounters often DID come to violence, to which he was mostly a support member, using bardic abilities and spells to either buff the party or deal with noncombat portions of encounters (like covering the escape for civilians).

He was INCREDIBLY fun to play (and I hope we go back to that campaign at some point, since we left it unfinished), so try not to nerf the guy's build too much. One of the balancing aspects of Michal was actually the rest of the party - a barbarian, duskblade, and wizard focusing on illusion and blasting. They were not content to just let me talk my way through every encounter, and lots of encounters can't be talked through. Use your own social skills to talk to your group and make it clear you can't diplo-roll your way through everything.

Another possibility that occurs to me is to backward-engineer the epic diplomacy rule: fanatic. It gives a rule for making someone fanatical to you, but what if the target is already fanatical to another party? You're looking at DCs of 50+ to change their attitude away from that party.

With Diplomacy a dc of 50+ is child's play

[John Longarrow]

Hi Giants,

One of my players is starting a new character in a level 12 campaign and took a bunch of Unearthed Arcana warrior for the skill points, took prestige class Evangelist for 5 levels, maxes out Diplomacy and CHA, and I think will be one of those characters who thinks he can talk his way out of any situation and convince anyone to do anything he wants.

I know I've heard mentioned by other 3.5 players that Diplomacy is one of those things that can be easily abused in 3.5 and was wondering if there is anything I should know about how to deal with this, as I haven't really had a character like this. What I don't want is for this to turn into a sideshow about how diplomacy does and doesn't work. Of main concern is that he claims there should be no circumstance bonus to a diplomacy roll, so he can convince all the guards to betray the king or something.

I was thinking about this and that is the part that bothers me the most.

I'd simply talk to the player.

If they want to play knowing there are modifiers they may or may not be aware of, kewl.
If they don't want to, don't invite them to the game.

At no time should a player be telling the DM what they can or can't do in game. The DM sets ground rules, not players. If they really really really want to play that character they can find a DM who's fine with that character in game without modifiers on Diplomacy. If your not fine with it, don't allow it.

I've met more than one player who thought they could make the rules. It has never worked well.

[prufock]

With Diplomacy a dc of 50+ is child's play

Depends entirely on system mastery, and 50 is only bringing the target from fanatical to the other party to helpful to the other party. You'd want them to ideally get to indifferent or better, which would mean 90-150 on your check.

[atemu1234]

Emphasize roleplaying your diplomacy roll rather than just rolling a d20 with a few ranks thrown in and saying, "well, they just decide to listen to me."

I had a PC who tried this on a group of kobolds, and because he made a very reasonable argument, he succeeded. Had he just said, "don't attack us", I would have given him like a -200 penalty. It's all basically DM fiat when you get down to it. If I don't want him to not fight the kobolds, I'll take away his option to do so. But don't do this out of the blue. Only do it when it would derail the adventure. Otherwise, you'll just look like a jerk.

[John Longarrow]

atemu1234,

DM Fiat would be having the King dominate person all of the guards. Sure they help the party get to the throne room. Sure they'll help the party kill the king.

The King isn't in the throne room. Once inside, 40 dominated guards start slaughtering the PC. The tip off is the mound of dead bards laying in the middle of the room...

:sabine:

[atemu1234]

atemu1234,

DM Fiat would be having the King dominate person all of the guards. Sure they help the party get to the throne room. Sure they'll help the party kill the king.

The King isn't in the throne room. Once inside, 40 dominated guards start slaughtering the PC. The tip off is the mound of dead bards laying in the middle of the room...

:sabine:

I like the way you think.

[Angelalex242]

It also depends on if it's a good king or an evil king.

The good king's guards might well be Paladins.

"Betray your king!"

"Uh, no. SMITE EVIL!"

The evil king's guards (Think Vlad the Impaler, however, have something like "and those who betray me will be killed and their families will be sold into slavery of the worst kind."

"Betray your king!"

"Uh, no. Have you seen what he did to the LAST guy who tried that? He had a massive wooden stake shoved up his hindquarters and out his mouth! Instead, I think I'll let that happen to YOU."

I'd say there's an invisible massive modifier to all diplomacy checks that attempt to force someone to lose class abilities. Convincing the paladin to do evil, convincing the druid to roast trees, convincing the cleric to betray his god...none of this will go well for you, not even with a 50+ on the diplomacy check.

[John Longarrow]

OK, I can see it now....
Diplomancer VS Pit fiend.

Diplomancer "But you should be nice to people, love then, treat them like your family!"

Pit Fiend "OK". Opens with most potent spell followed by full melee attack. While tearing people limb from limb the Pit Fiend is heard to be singing...

"you only hurt the ones you love"

[icefractal]

If you go by the rules (and don't use Epic Diplomacy), Diplomacy does not make anyone do anything or agree to anything. It changes their attitude to Helpful, at best. Then you make your argument/request.

A lot of things can be done by virtue of being on excellent terms with someone.
Diplomancer: Instead of trying to rob us, you should give us directions to the nearest town.
Bandit: Sure thing buddy, it's seven miles north of here. I can't believe we were going to rob you guys!

But certainly not everything:
Diplomancer: Let me into the royal chambers with my weapons.
Guard: Look, I know you're trustworthy, but you'd cause a huge incident, and I'd be thrown in jail at best. Why would you want them anyway?
Diplomancer: We have enemies, we need to be prepared always.
Guard: I will personally keep the weapons safe, and I'll stay right by this door.
Diplomancer: Look, we want to stab the king, ok?
Guard: Holy ****, don't even make jokes like that, someone else might hear! Wait ... you're serious? Please tell me you're under a spell or something, otherwise this is treason. And - I have to detain you now, I'm really sorry. :smallfrown:

[Coidzor]

I like the way you think.

Seems like a lot of time spent on a derail of the game everyone was intending to play in order to "teach a lesson to a player" that should've been settled with a simple talk or houserule.

[Gildedragon]

If you go by the rules (and don't use Epic Diplomacy), Diplomacy does not make anyone do anything or agree to anything. It changes their attitude to Helpful, at best. Then you make your argument/request.

A lot of things can be done by virtue of being on excellent terms with someone.
Diplomancer: Instead of trying to rob us, you should give us directions to the nearest town.
Bandit: Sure thing buddy, it's seven miles north of here. I can't believe we were going to rob you guys!

But certainly not everything:
Diplomancer: Let me into the royal chambers with my weapons.
Guard: Look, I know you're trustworthy, but you'd cause a huge incident, and I'd be thrown in jail at best. Why would you want them anyway?
Diplomancer: We have enemies, we need to be prepared always.
Guard: I will personally keep the weapons safe, and I'll stay right by this door.
Diplomancer: Look, we want to stab the king, ok?
Guard: Holy ****, don't even make jokes like that, someone else might hear! Wait ... you're serious? Please tell me you're under a spell or something, otherwise this is treason. And - I have to detain you now, I'm really sorry. :smallfrown:

True'nuff
Baator, the last bit might even go as follows.
Diplomancer: Look, we want to stab the king, ok?
Guard: Holy ****, don't even make jokes like that, someone else might hear! Wait ... you're serious?
Guard [internally]: Damn... they must be mind controlled. My boss, the Lv 14++ Paladin knows Break Enchantment He can fix that up.
Guard [aloud]: Let me help you out!
Proceeds to take his friends to the paladin's chamber, and explain the situation... And a Sense Motive reveals only that the guard is helping out

[Angelalex242]

Then again, why would you even WANT your weapons if you're going to see Good King Niceguy? Good King Niceguy has lots of guards, lots of wizards, lots of clerics, and enough magical wards to stop Bad King Evilguy's best scry and die tactics. They're safer in the throneroom then anywhere else in the kingdom.

[Coidzor]

Then again, why would you even WANT your weapons if you're going to see Good King Niceguy? Good King Niceguy has lots of guards, lots of wizards, lots of clerics, and enough magical wards to stop Bad King Evilguy's best scry and die tactics. They're safer in the throneroom then anywhere else in the kingdom.

Because DMs love to have ambushes in the throne room of a supposed ally. It's like a classic trope. Though you combine it with this and you get Schrodinger's Throne Room. Before you go in it's a doublecross, a triplecross, and being played completely straight all at the same time.

Same reason why you don't trust porny slave girls you find in dungeons, it's just another opportunity for the DM to try to pull one over on you and laugh at you for being gullible enough to fall into his trap.

[Brookshw]

Because DMs love to have ambushes in the throne room of a supposed ally. It's like a classic trope. Though you combine it with this and you get Schrodinger's Throne Room. Before you go in it's a doublecross, a triplecross, and being played completely straight all at the same time.

Same reason why you don't trust porny slave girls you find in dungeons, it's just another opportunity for the DM to try to pull one over on you and laugh at you for being gullible enough to fall into his trap.

I weep for the npcs that fell innocent victims and were caught in the trope crossfire.

Now of course I'm reminded of a paladin in hell.where the party meets a group of npcs that despite the parties best intentions do not trust the pcs thinking they're another clever trap/illusion. Turn about is fair play I guess.

[Gemini476]

Now, I'm not at the book currently but the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) does not substantiated your claim. At best there are possible actions (requiring dm adjudication) but nothing definitive, certainly not to the degree you've prescribed. I'm calling shenanigans.

Charm Person, PHB page 209

This charm makes a humanoid creature
regard you as its trusted friend and ally
(treat the target’s attitude as friendly; see
Influencing NPC Attitudes, page 72). If
the creature is currently being threatened
or attacked by you or your allies, however,
it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control
the charmed personas if it were an
automaton, but it perceives your words
and actions in the most favorable way. You
can try to give the subject orders, but you
must win an opposed Charisma check to
convince it to do anything it wouldn’t
ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An
affected creature never obeys suicidal or
obviously harmful orders, but a charmed
fighter, for example, might believe you if
you assured him that the only chance to
save your life is for him to hold back an
onrushing red dragon for “just a few
seconds.” Any act by you or your apparent
allies that threatens the charmed person
breaks the spell. You must speak the
person’s language to communicate your
commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Page 72, "Influencing NPC attitudes" sidebar


Attitude
Means
Possible actions


Hostile
Will take risks to hurt you
Attack, interfere, berate, flee


Unfriendly
Wishes you ill
Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult


Indifferent
Doesn't much care
Socially expected interaction


Friendly
Wishes you well
Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate


Helpful
Will take risks to help you
Protect, back up, heal, aid



Also, in the Epic Level Handbook page 40:


Fanatic
Will give life to serve you
Fight to the death against overwhelming odds, throw self in front of onrushing dragon



Charm Person changes their attitude to friendly, and making them do things beyond what that indicates means that you need a Charisma check for each instance.
Diplomacy puts them straight into Helpful, which can be more useful. Especially since it's just a set DC.
Fanatic is literally mind control, by the way. It's an Enchantment [Mind-affecting] and everything.

[Brookshw]

Charm Person, PHB page 209

Page 72, "Influencing NPC attitudes" sidebar


Attitude
Means
Possible actions


Hostile
Will take risks to hurt you
Attack, interfere, berate, flee


Unfriendly
Wishes you ill
Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult


Indifferent
Doesn't much care
Socially expected interaction


Friendly
Wishes you well
Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate


Helpful
Will take risks to help you
Protect, back up, heal, aid



Also, in the Epic Level Handbook page 40:


Fanatic
Will give life to serve you
Fight to the death against overwhelming odds, throw self in front of onrushing dragon



Charm Person changes their attitude to friendly, and making them do things beyond what that indicates means that you need a Charisma check for each instance.
Diplomacy puts them straight into Helpful, which can be more useful. Especially since it's just a set DC.
Fanatic is literally mind control, by the way. It's an Enchantment [Mind-affecting] and everything.

We already addressed on page one that fanatic is another matter.

The spell you've quoted identifies that it changes the attitude and then goes in to list the additional things it will cause people to do. If those things were intrinsic to the attitude there would be no reason to list them. Further it says "the spell", not the new attitude. Also you've excluded the word "possible" contained within the srds parenthetical examples which indicates that the actions are not guarantees. Note also that diplomacy is a skill rather than a subset of the enchantment rules.

[NichG]

I've found this to generally be a good guideline for anything a player wants to play:

Whenever you think there may be a mismatch between how a player expects their character to work and how you would run it, you should talk to the player before it hits play and make absolutely sure you're on the same page.

That even might be something like, they think that 'Helpful' attitude means that the NPC will do everything they ask but you're running it strictly from the point of view of 'they'll take risks up to a certain point, but nothing that would cost them their life or livelyhood'. Whether its 'correct' or not is irrelevant, because the player is going to be frustrated that their character doesn't actually work, and now they have most of their resources sunk into a schtick that is non-functional.

Simply running a test example before game will make it clear to both DM and player how the character is going to function in the game. A DM should not generally spring house-rules, ad hoc effects, etc on a player that invalidate a large part of their character. But at the same time, a player should not spring a surprise character on a DM that puts them in a position where their choice is either to spontaneously nerf the character or allow the game as a whole to break down.

If the DM does a test scenario with a player who they suspect might be either misunderstanding something or bringing in a character that will push them towards such measures, then that will help get the surprise out of the way and the DM can say things like 'look, by the rules that works but it ruins the game; please make a different character' or 'okay, now its clear to you how I run NPC attitudes, so do you still want to play this character?' or whatever.

I'm not saying you have to compromise with the player to make it work, though that's best if you can figure out how to, but if you've been completely open with the player about how something is going to work before it hits play, then they can take steps to avoid the otherwise inevitable frustration on both sides of the screen.