The Limits of the Diplomacy Skill

[ShaneMRoth]

A charismatic evil PC encounters an NPC Paladin.

This PC is optimized for Diplomacy, an effective skill bonus of at least 40. A mithril tongued devil.

He attempts to use his Diplomacy on the Paladin.

Here is how I would handle this, as DM:


Player- "My Diplomacy check is... 54. That should render him Helpful."

DM- "The Paladin draws his sword. He doesn't look like he's in the mood to help you."

Player- "But, the Diplomacy check... 54..."

DM- "Yeah, I heard. Hey, remember that neck-crack thing that Agent Smith did in the Matrix movies? Right before he starting beating the crap out of Neo?"

Player- "Yeah..."

DM- "That's what the Paladin is doing now."

Player- "But I made my Diplomacy check... 54..."

DM- "You realize that the Paladin knows you're evil, right?"

Player- "So? I made my Diplomacy check..."

DM- "The Paladin does not seem to care."

Player- "Wait, this is an NPC..."

<Player leafs through the PHB.>

Player- "...the rules say right here that I can influence the attitude of NPCs."

DM- "Yeah, well I say you can't influence the attitude of a Paladin who knows your ass is Evil."

Player- "Where in the rules does it say you can do that?"

DM- "It doesn't."

Player- "Alright, so my Diplomacy roll was 54..."

DM- "If you don't roll initiative, I'm going to assume your character is not defending himself at all when the Paladin starts stabbing him."

<Player sullenly rolls for initiative.>

Player- "...but I made my Diplomacy check..."

DM- "What was that?"

Player- "Nothing."

So, how would you resolve the encounter?

[erok0809]

-snip-

Player- "...the rules say right here that I can influence the attitude of NPCs."

DM- "Yeah, well I say you can't influence the attitude of a Paladin who knows your ass is Evil."

Player- "Where in the rules does it say you can do that?"

DM- "It doesn't."

-snip-


That part right there is Rule 0 in action though. By RAW, the player is probably right, at least as far as I can tell. It certainly makes sense to resolve it the way you did; as a matter of fact, that's definitely the best way to handle it, at least IMO. A Paladin would probably not be too affected by the diplomacy, and would try to stop whatever evil the PC was doing. But by RAW? Pretty sure the player is correct in this case, although confirmation from another more knowledgeable source would be helpful.

[The Evil DM]

The Paladin would abide by his chivalrous standards and give the evil character who is not defending himself a single opportunity to surrender before stabbing him in the face.

Mechanically one can always use the "Circumstance Modifier" that you can employ. DM says, -5 Circumstance modifier for evil characters using diplomacy against paladins.

Also any paladin worth his salt would have buffs in place. Some buffs, such as Prayer invoke a penalty to the skill checks of opponents.

Diplomacy checks also require a full minute and rushed checks are penalized by -10. If the paladin is attacking, its too late.

[Saintheart]

If we're going by RAW, I assume the DM's justification for the paladin throwing down on a random evil passerby who's tried to finagle some aid from him is some interpretation of the Code of Conduct.

Paladins on my reading are not required to slaughter everyone with an evil alignment that they come across. Indeed Lawful Good includes a respect for life. The code of conduct merely provides that a paladin will "never knowingly associate with evil characters." It does not place a positive requirement on paladins to kill, maim, or physically oppose evil individuals they come across in their daily lives who are doing nothing but asking for help.

A successful Diplomacy check can move an NPC from "Hostile" -- 'willing to take risks to harm you' -- to "Helpful" -- 'willing to take risks to help you'. So unless the paladin believes that beating the snot out of an evil character is in some way helping said evil person, a cold stare and unwillingness to deal with him is about as far as a paladin's conduct should be taking him under a successful Diplomacy check of this kind. If the evil person is about to slit a baby's throat, that's different: it's protecting an innocent or preventing an evil act. But a random encounter with a paladin against an evil character out for a daily stroll who wants to know the quickest route to Scarborough Fair, no.

[AvatarVecna]

There are two bad assumptions taking place here, one on the player's side and one on the DM's side.

First, the DM's issue: paladins are not smite-happy automatons who senselessly attack someone for no reason other than "they came up evil"; they do that for fiends and undead and certain other monsters, but just registering as evil doesn't mean the paladin has to kill you. Granted, it means the paladin can't knowingly work together or adventure with you, but that's about it.

Secondly, the player's issue: Diplomacy isn't a Dominate Monster Spell with no saving throw; it does not make the target your unquestioning slave. At best, it makes a person you don't know very well react to your request as if the two of you are BFFs; circumstances can either make this result harder to achieve, or even outright impossible depending on the request. Also, slight side note: Diplomacy generally takes a minute to use, so that's another way to shut this kind of thing down. Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter how charismatic you are; unless you can hit that Epic Diplomacy DC that actually simulates mind control magic, the best you're gonna get is "come on, do it for your old pal". At that point, you compare both the alignments and the specific motivations of the characters involved.

Let's make a couple comparisons using actual characters, rather than cardboard cutouts.

Situation A

President Lex Luthor walks up to Superman and spends a full minute trying to talk Superman into performing a bombing run over some 3rd world country. Assuming Superman doesn't try to arrest Luthor, or at least fly away, he's still probably not going to bomb that country, since it's completely against his moral code and Superman is not sworn to obey the POTUS. So...Superman just doesn't do it.

Situation B

President Lex Luthor walks up to Superman and spends a full minute trying to talk Superman into saving Metropolis from an incoming alien invasion. Superman's probably going to do it, but not because Luthor told him to do it.

[geekintheground]

unless the player is currently or recently committed an evil act, why would the paladin go straight to neck breaking? evil alignment doesnt mean bad person, right? i mean, not everyone Evil is deserving of death, even to the most hardened of paladins... unless youre going for a miko like character. but thats just how i see it

[The Evil DM]

OP gave no details on the lead up to the encounter, motivations or whether or not the paladin is wantonly attacking an evil character are off issue.

The question is about the diplomacy mechanic.

That said I agree with all the stuff about Paladins not necessarily being kill happy slaughter all evil. OP/DM is missing a lot of opportunities to explain to the player - in terms of RAW mechanics - how and why a 54 skill check might not cut it.

Regardless, diplomacy is a bit broken - I have a matrix of modifiers for relative alignments and cultural associations.

[erok0809]

For the purpose of the discussion, can we assume that the Evil person is basically about to do an Evil act, or is already doing it but can somehow take a minute out to use diplomacy? Otherwise it becomes what's already been said, that the worst the Paladin would do is a glare and some disapproving words, unless he's a "smite ALL the evil for no adequate reason" type.

[ShaneMRoth]

...paladins are not smite-happy automatons who senselessly attack someone for no reason other than "they came up evil"; ...


... unless the player is currently or recently committed an evil act, why would the paladin go straight to neck breaking? ...

These are good points. I kept the scenario as brief as I could to get the ball rolling...

...the reason that the Paladin is getting stabby is because an evil piece of crap is clearly trying to manipulate him and didn't take the hint when steel made an appearance. He isn't going to wait to see what other tricks the PC has up his sleeve.

Since the PC has such a high Diplomacy modifier, assume that he is high enough level to register at least a moderate strength evil aura.

[iDesu]

In the case of such a high diplomacy modifier wouldn't this be along the lines of the PC trying to convince the paladin that the act itself is not only not evil, but also a necessity for the greater good? Or even if it is evil then it's an evil action where the good outweighs the bad, but with no other alternatives other than letting a greater evil occur?

Either way the paladin shouldn't be getting violent because of words, unless those words are verbal component to a spell that's about to be used for evil deeds.

[ShaneMRoth]

In the case of such a high diplomacy modifier wouldn't this be along the lines of the PC trying to convince the paladin that the act itself is not only not evil, but also a necessity for the greater good? Or even if it is evil then it's an evil action where the good outweighs the bad, but with no other alternatives other than letting a greater evil occur?

Either way the paladin shouldn't be getting violent because of words, unless those words are verbal component to a spell that's about to be used for evil deeds.

In my campaigns, Paladins are not Lawful Stupid.

[Saintheart]

These are good points. I kept the scenario as brief as I could to get the ball rolling...

...the reason that the Paladin is getting stabby is because an evil piece of crap is clearly trying to manipulate him and didn't take the hint when steel made an appearance. He isn't going to wait to see what other tricks the PC has up his sleeve.

If so, I'd have said the paladin is close to falling out of his alignment. Proactive shishkebabbing of people on the prospect they might do something nastier solely because they tried to pull a fast one on you strikes me as firmly Chaotic Good stuff. Not to mention that while the paladin can register "evil", it's debatable whether he can register "piece of crap" or arbitrarily determine that this particular person's life deserves to be snuffed out while the evil ruler of the kingdom goes unassailed on a daily basis. Indeed viewing the person as a piece of crap when they've just demonstrated how charming and persuasive they are seems a bit inconsistent.

[lord_khaine]

A charismatic evil PC encounters an NPC Paladin.

This PC is optimized for Diplomacy, an effective skill bonus of at least 40. A mithril tongued devil.

He attempts to use his Diplomacy on the Paladin.

Here is how I would handle this, as DM:

Player- "My Diplomacy check is... 54. That should render him Helpful."

DM- "The Paladin draws his sword. He doesn't look like he's in the mood to help you."

Player- "But, the Diplomacy check... 54..."

DM- "Yeah, I heard. Hey, remember that neck-crack thing that Agent Smith did in the Matrix movies? Right before he starting beating the crap out of Neo?"

Player- "Yeah..."

DM- "That's what the Paladin is doing now."

Player- "But I made my Diplomacy check... 54..."

DM- "You realize that the Paladin knows you're evil, right?"

Player- "So? I made my Diplomacy check..."

DM- "The Paladin does not seem to care."

Player- "Wait, this is an NPC..."

<Player leafs through the PHB.>

Player- "...the rules say right here that I can influence the attitude of NPCs."

DM- "Yeah, well I say you can't influence the attitude of a Paladin who knows your ass is Evil."

Player- "Where in the rules does it say you can do that?"

DM- "It doesn't."

Player- "Alright, so my Diplomacy roll was 54..."

DM- "If you don't roll initiative, I'm going to assume your character is not defending himself at all when the Paladin starts stabbing him."

<Player sullenly rolls for initiative.>

Player- "...but I made my Diplomacy check..."

DM- "What was that?"

Player- "Nothing."


So in other words, the limits of diplomacy is that in your personal game the skill has been houseruled to the ground?
How on earth is that going to effect the rest of us who play by the regular rules? :smallconfused:


In my campaigns, Paladins are not Lawful Stupid.

No.. seems to be chaotic stupid instead.. or perhaps just stupid evil.
Attacking someone unprovoked is certainly an evil act in itself.

[ShaneMRoth]

So in other words, the limits of diplomacy is that in your personal game the skill has been houseruled to the ground?

That is one way of putting it.

[Karl Aegis]

Player's plan B: Use an escape artist check to squeeze into the Paladin's stomach. Use Exemplar ability to use escape artist check as a diplomacy check. If paladin persists in being a common highwayman use scroll of righteous might.

[ShaneMRoth]

Player's plan B: Use an escape artist check to squeeze into the Paladin's stomach. Use Exemplar ability to use escape artist check as a diplomacy check. If paladin persists in being a common highwayman use scroll of righteous might.

Stop being an evil genius.

[DarkOne-Rob]

How long did your Diplomacy check take? If I remember correctly, RAW a Diplomacy check takes one minute, during which time the Paladin may be detecting Evil and then choosing to ignore you.

There are ways to make the check faster (with significant penalties) as well as the circumstantial modifiers available to the DM that would also adjust the "54" result.

Finally, the Diplomacy rules are very poorly written. I would suggest you consider those found on this forum (I think originally written by the Giant himself).

[ShaneMRoth]

How long did your Diplomacy check take?

At least a minute. During which time the Paladin Detected Evil and determined that this PC was too powerful to be just some small time criminal and too smooth by half.

[Spore]

First things first:


A mithril tongued devil.

Actual devil (evil subtype) or just a metaphor? This changes EVERYTHING.

Secondly, I am sick of players saying: "I rolled x on social skill y." No, you don't. You roleplay the situation and then support your story with a check if the outcome isn't already obvious from the argumentation the PCs had. Otherwise there would be no actual roleplaying on the table, just comparing social skill rolls.


If so, I'd have said the paladin is close to falling out of his alignment. Proactive shishkebabbing of people on the prospect they might do something nastier solely because they tried to pull a fast one on you strikes me as firmly Chaotic Good stuff.

I object. There is no one interpretation of a paladin code, and one interpretation is certainly preventive measures. Still, usually this would be using nonlethal force and detaining the PC and not outright killing him (smiting is fine, otherwise paladins don't stand a chance).

Also, Paladins are not required to be smart (and only to an extend wise in 3.5). If his gut instinct is to draw a sword when someone not part of his order or church tries to convince him about something, then so be it.

You can be a perfectly good champion of good with Int 8.

[NichG]

If you live in a world where 60 seconds of speech can un-resistably charm someone, I could actually see that as a justification for being smite-happy. If this were RAW, the paladin's mistake was letting them talk for 60 seconds - that's ten rounds, and after the first round the sword should already have been employed.

[OldTrees1]

1) As many have already said, the Paladin seems too eager to murder evildoers rather than destroy evil. So let's call it a Fighter instead since its actual alignment(LG, LN, or LE) is inconsequential to the question at hand.

2) The Diplomacy skill RAW is ill suited to diplomacy checks. We could replace it with some kind of opposed check like Bluff or Intimidate. However for now let's stick with the RAW. (although my conclusion works under both systems).

3) The target of the diplomacy has a distrust of smooth talkers and dislikes manipulation. Since the PC is using smooth talk and attempting manipulation(I am assuming these but there is no textual evidence of either being the case), there is a circumstance penalty to the diplomacy check.

4) Diplomacy is like Bluff and Intimidate in that it is about convincing, it is not Mind Control. Just like some bluffs autofail (saying something immediately disproved) and some intimidates fail to cause action (but do render the target afraid), some requests via Diplomacy will autofail ("would you help me by falling?"). Diplomacy changes the NPC's attitude towards the PC. The NPC, with their new attitude, decides how to respond to the verbal request that accompanied the check.

Putting it together:
Lex Luthor: "Superman, I hope you can hear me. I am stranded out in the middle of the pacific ocean. I know we have be enemies at times, but would you please send a rescue party?" [Rolls diplomacy]

Superman1: [-5 penalty for it being from Luthor, +2 for a reasonable request][Check failed, superman is still Unfriendly] Watches Luthor suspiciously. Might not save him depending on the author.
Superman2: [-5 penalty for it being from Luthor, +2 for a reasonable request][Check succeeded, superman is now Helpful until Luthor does something to worsen his attitude yet again] Superman cautiously surveys the situation and either rescues Luthor himself or drops supplies and directs a rescue team(probably with handcuffs) to the location.

So back to the example in the OP:
I do expect the Paladin would have been made helpful. The question is how would the Paladin help that PC making that request? Based upon my assumptions of details left out of the text, I would expect the paladin to pull out some handcuffs and proceed to subdue the PC for their own good.

[Vaz]

Secondly, I am sick of players saying: "I rolled x on social skill y." No, you don't. You roleplay the situation and then support your story with a check if the outcome isn't already obvious from the argumentation the PCs had. Otherwise there would be no actual roleplaying on the table, just comparing social skill rolls.
You mean like how a player with a character with ranks in Climb actually has to climb a mountain, yeah?

[OldTrees1]

You mean like how a player with a character with ranks in Climb actually has to climb a mountain, yeah?

It would be more accurate to say:
You mean like how a player decides where they want to climb before rolling a climb check? The verbal(usually in character) description of the social skill check allows the DM to know what the DC of the check would be. Just like the player saying where they want to climb.

[AvatarVecna]

You mean like how a player with a character with ranks in Climb actually has to climb a mountain, yeah?

While I personally rarely push it that far for Diplomacy and similar, if you're trying to convince someone of why they should do something, your argument should be at least a little more convincing than "**** you, I rolled a 50, that's why!"

[Namfuak]

It would be more accurate to say:
You mean like how a player decides where they want to climb before rolling a climb check? The verbal(usually in character) description of the social skill check allows the DM to know what the DC of the check would be. Just like the player saying where they want to climb.

I think SporeEgg was saying that the person actually has to say what their character says, rather than describing the action ("I beseech you to stand down!" vs. "I ask the Paladin to stand down"). While I understand the intent behind a rule like that, I think it unfairly punishes people who aren't as comfortable roleplaying or aren't good at improvisation and forces them to avoid characters that would use diplomacy.

[jiriku]

So, how would you resolve the encounter?

Ok, PC is evil, the encounter begins with the PC and the paladin talking. No weapons are drawn. They talk for a while, you permit the player to roll. He succeeds at the check. You invalidate his success and your NPC takes his successful Diplomacy check as sufficient cause to attack him with intent to kill.

First thoughts: Your player probably feels he was treated unfairly. He invested time and trouble in building a character that mechanically reflects his concept, and he sat down with you hoping to play the game and have a good time. You imposed a houserule ("paladins are immune to Diplomacy checks made by evil PCs and the paladin's code encourages killing evil people who try to negotiate") that unexpectedly invalidated his actions and placed his character in danger. He clearly felt blindsided and wasn't having fun. May I suggest: if you're going to change the rules of the game, always always always do it before your player rolls the dice, before he even builds his character if at all possible. This gives the player a fair chance at succeeding in the game. For example, if the PC had known about your rule, he might have invested in an item or spell that would conceal his alignment from detection, or might have attempted to run away from the paladin or ambush him, since he would have known that his Diplomacy skill was useless. Also, always, always, always give your players some in-game clue to help them estimate the likelihood of success before they attempt an action. Whether you provide a DC before the roll, or give some descriptive comment like "he seems extremely suspicious and angry, this will be a tough sell", or "your character knows from experience that paladins almost never negotiate with evil people", give your players some warning if you think they're about to unknowingly do something stupid. You are their eyes and ears in the game world; their PCs are blind and deaf without your descriptions. Always err on the side of over-disclosing.

Second thoughts: I can understand why the player was incredulous at the paladin's reaction. It's extremely inconsistent with the paladin's code. The code requires a paladin to act with honor and help those in need (provided they don't use the help for evil ends). It is not honorable to attack a defenseless opponent who is not offering any threat. If the PC was asking for help and had a good story ("I won't claim to be a good man, sir, but I've been paid well to rescue these orphans so perhaps you and I have common cause here, whatever our differences might normally be"), the paladin might even have been obligated by the code to help him (although of course a wise paladin would always make sure his story checked out, just in case).

Answer to your question, "how would you resolve the encounter". First thing, the core Diplomacy rules are unsatisfying. This is what I use instead (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?201014-3-5-Remix-The-joy-of-skills!). Now, in game, there are three points here where I might have departed from how you handled the encounter.

(a) Before I even sit down to game, I think about how to challenge my PCs. A PC with a Diplomacy modifier of +40 can end most combat encounters peacefully whenever he wants. A rushed check in the middle of combat is still enough to render hostile creatures indifferent or better and stop the fight. Even under the variant Diplomacy rules I proposed, a character with +40 Diplomacy can deal his way out of a great many situations. Typical combat encounters are not challenging to such a character -- I'm going to have to come up with novel ways to challenge him. The Monster Manuals are crammed full of creatures that don't speak Common, are immune to mind-affecting effects or are mindless, or have an alien mindset. I'll need to use those if I want to be sure to have a fight. Alternately, I could engineer situations where Diplomacy is impossible, such as a battlefield where armies are locked in pitched combat. Perhaps I can give the PC a mission that requires him to fight his foes in order to successfully complete the task at hand. Taking a different tack, I can find in-game reasons why a paladin might resist attempts at diplomacy. Perhaps the paladin is charmed or dominated, or has a feat, spell, or magic item that renders him resistant or immune to Diplomacy attempts. It would also be a good idea for me to include lots of encounters where things could go either way -- the PC could fight his way past an opponent or talk his way past. After all, if my player built a Diplomacy expert, he clearly wants to negotiate with people. I should give him lots of opportunity to do so.

(b) Once the player has succeeded at the roll, it is too late for me to take his success away from him. DM fiat is a thing, but that's not the time or the place to use it. However, getting what you want doesn't always mean getting what you want. The paladin is helpful -- but he's still in charge of his actions. Perhaps the player wanted a horse, the keys to the jail, and for the paladin to look the other way while a crime was committed. But the paladin decides that the best way to help such an evildoer is to sit down with him and have a long, private conversation about the afterlife and divine punishment and try to help him see the error of his ways. If he refuses to turn from a path of evil, the paladin might reluctantly decide that the best way to help him is warn the authorities of the planned jailbreak so that the PC is forced to choose some other course of action -- this averts the intended evil act. Alternately, I may move the goalposts. The PC has made the paladin helpful, but the paladin lacks the clearance or authority or wealth to provide whatever help the PC was expecting. Or perhaps the paladin has a pressing problem that needs solving and asks the PC to help him first (the paladin chooses a task that he thinks will be morally instructive to the evil PC). Hey presto -- the enemy you subverted is now a quest-giver! That makes a lot of sense, actually -- if you want to play nice with Team Good, they're going to then expect you to act like one of the good guys, or at least make a credible effort at appearing to do so.

(c) If all else fails, I may admit to myself that I didn't plan the encounter very well and the player just waltzed in and got what he wanted with a brief chat and die roll when I hadn't expected it. I'll congratulate the player on his good play and try to plan better encounters for the future. If I'm really stumped, I may have to implement some house rules or nerfs, and give the player a chance to rebuild his character in response to those nerfs. As a last resort, I may have to admit to the player that I don't know how to challenge his PC and ask him to retire the character and play something else.

[Spore]

While I understand the intent behind a rule like that, I think it unfairly punishes people who aren't as comfortable roleplaying or aren't good at improvisation and forces them to avoid characters that would use diplomacy.

Of course it punishes them. But they should have a solid reason to build their diplomacy check upon. Bluff has penalties and bonusses depending on what you claim (I rode on a dragon, kissing five virgins while wearing the king's crown is -15), so why shouldn't Diplomacy has some of that. I am not asking them to write a 5 page essay on why following evil is better, I just want a reason because I've had players exclaim: "I roll Diplomacy." instead of telling the DM what they actually wanted to do.

Good Diplomacy check: "You should not attack me for I have never done anything wrong that you have evidence for. My friends will get you incarcerated."
(While this could also be an Intimidate check it's at least something)
Bad Diplomacy check: "I roll Diplomacy: 54."

[Vaz]

While I personally rarely push it that far for Diplomacy and similar, if you're trying to convince someone of why they should do something, your argument should be at least a little more convincing than "**** you, I rolled a 50, that's why!"
It should? Where does it say that in the rules?

Since do Social skills become so highly overpowered that it requires you to roleplay, but Lucid Dreaming, Autohypnosis, Climb, and Iaijutsu only require someone to roll a dice?

Giving some flavour text is the name of the game, sure, it's pen and paper where it's down to our imagination and every little bit of story telling can help. "I spend a minute explaining to the Paladin why he should help us, trying to put across a winning smile and using disarming hand gestures" but that should have no different from "I rolled a Crit with my attack" apart from the DM liking that and rewarding someone with a slight bonus, but in the same vein, would you reward someone who explained exactly how they swung their sword by increasing their damage?

But requiring someone to roleplay someone becoming Kofi Annan just because they've got a high bonus is defeating the point of a roleplaying game.

Let's not talk about magic, either, eh?

[Sacrieur]

It bugged me as well that diplomacy could be used to convince a king to give you his kingdom. Fortunately I came up with a solution.

Knowing that diplomacy could only affect NPCs, I started making the more important characters into DMPCs, and thus per RAW, weren't able to be influenced by skill. In other words, players would have to roleplay to convince these characters to do anything. One player asked, "How do we know who is and who isn't?" In response I applied rigorous criteria for who qualifies as a DMPC and who is an NPC:


has a name.
has a character sheet; a statblock is not sufficient.
has at least one level in a PC class.


Should any character I create fail to meet this criteria, then the character is considered an NPC and diplomacy can be used on them. Players do not know who is a DMPC and who is not, so it may have to be mentioned when they attempt to use diplomacy to influence their decision. This hasn't come up in any of my games since DMPCs always tend to be more flavored, interesting, and important than NPCs.

I should also note that the rules permit NPCs to be elevated to the status of a DMPC, but the reverse is never true.

On a side note and my personal preference, I create documentation of all DMPCs including their stats to provide transparency to my players in the interest of fairness.



It should? Where does it say that in the rules?

Since do Social skills become so highly overpowered that it requires you to roleplay, but Lucid Dreaming, Autohypnosis, Climb, and Iaijutsu only require someone to roll a dice?

Giving some flavour text is the name of the game, sure, it's pen and paper where it's down to our imagination and every little bit of story telling can help. "I spend a minute explaining to the Paladin why he should help us, trying to put across a winning smile and using disarming hand gestures" but that should have no different from "I rolled a Crit with my attack" apart from the DM liking that and rewarding someone with a slight bonus, but in the same vein, would you reward someone who explained exactly how they swung their sword by increasing their damage?

But requiring someone to roleplay someone becoming Kofi Annan just because they've got a high bonus is defeating the point of a roleplaying game.

Let's not talk about magic, either, eh?

Are we also applying this same logic to other PCs? PvP be damned: shouldn't the silver tongued bard be able to convince the brain-dead barbarian into giving up his gold?

It seems like we have to make an exception there, lest the game breaks down because a player gets upset that they're being forced to give up their gold. But wait, couldn't a mind bending psion do that? We also tell players that their characters believe or don't believe lies based on bluff. Why can't we also tell players that they have to treat a particular person as more hostile or friendly based on the diplomacy skill?

The whole thing just seems incongruous. Better to just treat diplomacy as some kind of mundane Jedi mind trick that doesn't work on the PC-minded.

[DarkOne-Rob]

At least a minute. During which time the Paladin Detected Evil and determined that this PC was too powerful to be just some small time criminal and too smooth by half.
I think my point was unclear - if you allow the player's PC the full minute to make the check, you need to adjudicate the check reasonably within the rules. If the paladin interrupted the PC's efforts, detected Evil, and did not allow the full minute before initiating combat then carry on with the (combat) encounter. But if you let them roll the check, there is nothing in either the rules or the spirit of good gameplay between the DM and player to throw out that roll.

The fact that you feel you have to ask the question here and the hostile tone your dialogue to in the original post suggests that you know there is something intrinsically wrong with your approach. As a DM I can relate to not wanting the Paladin to be swindled by the silver tongued Evil PC. There are ways to avoid that swindling within the rules, and then there is what you described (DM fiat). I dislike relying on fiat when there are other, better, rules-supported options available.

[Mendicant]

If all else fails, I may admit to myself that I didn't plan the encounter very well and the player just waltzed in and got what he wanted with a brief chat and die roll when I hadn't expected it.

This is something a lot more GM's need to learn. People play tabletop RPGs in no small part because they want to go off script. For that to be meaningful means sometimes you as the GM just "lose." The players do something clever that negates your planning, have abilities you didn't account for, understand a rule better than you did, or just get really lucky. Making up an on-the-spot houserule to "fix* things is bad DMing, plain and simple.

[Segev]

Some good points have been made. However, I would like to illustrate another issue I have with the opening post's example with a counter-example of my own:

The PC is a highly optimized swordsman. A veritable superman with a blade. He has a +50 to hit with a magical sword that lets him re-roll multiple times each round and can pierce any DR and hit incorporeal and even ethereal enemies, and he can deal nearly a thousand hp of damage on a successful first strike with proper power attacking and other benefits. The DM has optimized AC to the point where this should still be a challenge.

PC: I roll a natural 20 (after re-rolling 4 times) to hit.

DM: You miss.

PC: But... I rolled a natural 20. That's an automatic hit. It says so in the rules.

DM: He dodged.

PC: Where in the rules does it say he can do that?

DM: It doesn't.


When you start negating PCs' investments in abilities arbitrarily, how do you decide which ones you invalidate?

I sympathize with frustration over Diplomacy being potentially game-winning, though others have pointed out encounter-types this doesn't help with. D&D isn't, in the end, a game with a well-designed social system. But if you're going to negate it by having it be solely dependent on whether you feel like the PC should be able to sway the NPC, then you should tell players this up front so they don't waste SP on the useless skill. Only their own skill at using RL diplomacy (and other social pressures and manipulations) on you will matter. So Bob the Uncharismatic can't ever play charismatic, silver-tongued people, while Greg Arious will always be doing so, even if he dumps all the social stats and skills.

This is a valid way to play, but you should let your players know it in advance. It's unfair to bait and switch them with rules that say they can play one sort of game only to find out that if they guessed wrong about what you "really" were allowing, they've effectively thrown away a bunch of character resources.

[Duke of Urrel]

Diplomacy skill should always count for something, and a phenomenally good Diplomacy check should have an effect. The question is what Diplomacy can accomplish by itself.

I think there are several common-sense limits on all uses of Diplomacy skill.

1. Diplomacy changes your target's attitude toward you, the one who uses Diplomacy. It doesn't change your target's attitudes toward other creatures, nor does it change your target's various personal, moral, political, and economic commitments, some of which (particularly in the case of paladins) are inviolable.

I think that a demon can at least buy some time by making a Diplomacy check. If a demon is willing to talk – and speaks very well, using excellent Diplomacy – a paladin should listen to the demon rather than kill it immediately. However, there is one other point to consider.

2. Diplomacy skill is not Bluff skill. If a demon has an honest proposal to make to a paladin, for example a proposal for a truce and a short expedition to attack a common enemy, it can use Diplomacy to make that proposal. But if the demon is dishonest and only wants to trick the paladin into a one-sided agreement by making a promise that it doesn't intend to keep, the demon needs to make a Bluff check before it can make a Diplomacy check.

[mabriss lethe]

It's unfair to bait and switch them with rules that say they can play one sort of game only to find out that if they guessed wrong about what you "really" were allowing, they've effectively thrown away a bunch of character resources.

This is the heart of it, right here.

[AzraelX]

This is something a lot more GM's need to learn. People play tabletop RPGs in no small part because they want to go off script. For that to be meaningful means sometimes you as the GM just "lose." The players do something clever that negates your planning, have abilities you didn't account for, understand a rule better than you did, or just get really lucky. Making up an on-the-spot houserule to "fix* things is bad DMing, plain and simple.
Thank you for this post. If more DMs understood this, there'd be more tables worth playing at.

[prufock]

Segev hits all the right notes in his response. The player is right to be upset. He put effort and investment into his character build, only to have it negated for no real reason. He focused on diplomacy, not combat (presumably).

It is reasonable for the DM to apply penalties for difficult circumstances, but that should be stated before the roll is made. Even at a hefty -20 for the paladin having seen the PC perform an evil act in front of him and detected him as evil, that would still give him a 34, enough to bring the paladin to indifferent, which would keep him from attacking.

Some tasks are simply impossible, but the paladin is hostile, there's no reason diplomacy shouldn't work at all.

[NichG]

This is something a lot more GM's need to learn. People play tabletop RPGs in no small part because they want to go off script. For that to be meaningful means sometimes you as the GM just "lose." The players do something clever that negates your planning, have abilities you didn't account for, understand a rule better than you did, or just get really lucky. Making up an on-the-spot houserule to "fix* things is bad DMing, plain and simple.

Its neither plain nor simple. It's a matter of 'why'.

When it comes to the GM losing, its not 'sometimes', it must be 'always'. The GM isn't trying to win - if they did, in most cases that would mean a TPK and the game would break down. On the other hand, the PCs nearly always cause a TPK to their enemies. So its not about winning or losing, and yeah, if the GM fiats in order to 'win' then there's something going wrong.

On the other hand, the GM is responsible for providing meaningful resistance, because without resistance then the players can't actually try to go all out in any meaningful sense - there's no challenge that requires thought to resolve, only at best thought of how you'd like to declare that you have resolved it.

The problem is when something about the system makes it inordinately problematic for the GM to provide that requisite resistance. Almost every system has these moments, and the more complex the system the more likely there are things like that waiting. That is when the GM has the responsibility to step in and change things to ensure that the game can still continue to go forward in a meaningful fashion. That doesn't mean stealing victory from the players, it means making sure that the GM can still bring sufficient challenge to the game to keep it interesting. And in those cases, the GM absolutely needs to consider on-the-spot house rules as a tool at their disposal.

[Aegis013]

I'm in the "you don't need to be a social butterfly to play one" camp. The social skill rules exist so that the awkward nerd can play the charismatic leader. If you have to be the charismatic leader to play one, then you should also need to be a master warrior to play one, or capable of bending meat space reality at a whim to play a Wizard (so in that case, nobody should ever be allowed to play a Wizard). Otherwise, you're applying a double standard, and while the normal rules of the game are certainly not perfectly fair, (just see any of eight million threads about tiers and class balance) it's generally desirable to have as much fairness between players as possible, and in order to do that, randomly or arbitrarily invalidating rules and character abilities without sufficient and proper prior warning should be avoided.

I think I would have a talk outside of the game with the DM in the OP's scenario if that situation was handled in that way, even (and especially) if I wasn't the player singled out, since I think I am more confident in my negotiation skills than someone who would want to rely wholly on their die to handle the talking in-game. If the DM was unwilling to compromise, I would walk from the game, particularly since I can strongly empathize with people who have limited communicative ability.

[jiriku]

Its neither plain nor simple. It's a matter of 'why'.

When it comes to the GM losing, its not 'sometimes', it must be 'always'. The GM isn't trying to win - if they did, in most cases that would mean a TPK and the game would break down. On the other hand, the PCs nearly always cause a TPK to their enemies. So its not about winning or losing, and yeah, if the GM fiats in order to 'win' then there's something going wrong.

On the other hand, the GM is responsible for providing meaningful resistance, because without resistance then the players can't actually try to go all out in any meaningful sense - there's no challenge that requires thought to resolve, only at best thought of how you'd like to declare that you have resolved it.

The problem is when something about the system makes it inordinately problematic for the GM to provide that requisite resistance. Almost every system has these moments, and the more complex the system the more likely there are things like that waiting. That is when the GM has the responsibility to step in and change things to ensure that the game can still continue to go forward in a meaningful fashion. That doesn't mean stealing victory from the players, it means making sure that the GM can still bring sufficient challenge to the game to keep it interesting. And in those cases, the GM absolutely needs to consider on-the-spot house rules as a tool at their disposal.

You had me nodding and agreeing in my head, all the way up until the last sentence. :smallbiggrin:

I have to ask: Do on-the-spot house rules "keep it interesting"? Do they "bring challenge to the game"? Or does inventing a rule to produce failure after a success was rolled "steal victory from the players"? On the surface, it seems as though the OP's example steals victory from the player. The player doesn't enjoy the on-the-spot ruling or find it interesting. And if there's a "challenge" here, the challenge is in trying to predict the arbitrary behavior of the DM -- it's not an in-game challenge since the PC had no opportunity to influence the outcome. The whole exchange boiled down to the DM saying "you encounter a paladin who attacks you no matter what you try to do".

[AvatarVecna]

It should? Where does it say that in the rules?

Since do Social skills become so highly overpowered that it requires you to roleplay, but Lucid Dreaming, Autohypnosis, Climb, and Iaijutsu only require someone to roll a dice?

Giving some flavour text is the name of the game, sure, it's pen and paper where it's down to our imagination and every little bit of story telling can help. "I spend a minute explaining to the Paladin why he should help us, trying to put across a winning smile and using disarming hand gestures" but that should have no different from "I rolled a Crit with my attack" apart from the DM liking that and rewarding someone with a slight bonus, but in the same vein, would you reward someone who explained exactly how they swung their sword by increasing their damage?

But requiring someone to roleplay someone becoming Kofi Annan just because they've got a high bonus is defeating the point of a roleplaying game.

Let's not talk about magic, either, eh?

Firstly, and I know this may come as a shock: the rules as written are not perfect. Generally speaking, they're extremely unbalanced, especially at the high end. It is the Dm's job to keep the game realistic and fun for everyone, and one member of the party steamrolling through the game using anything ruins the fun.

Secondly, the example you gave would likely be perfectly fine in one of my games; my problem is with examples like the one I gave or the player in the OP. Once again, I know this may come as a shock to some people, but D&D is a roleplaying game. There are certain parts where you should at least attempt to roleplay. I'm not going to give any player more than a -2 or +2 for a really weak or strong argument they roleplayed, but I'm definitely going to give the Save DC a boost if they're trying to accomplish something really far out there. Attempting to convince people to stop fighting when combat breaks out is +20 for the DC (or maybe it was was a -20 for the player's roll, I can't recall exactly which). Attempting to seduce a paladin to evil when they know you're evil isgoing to atleast be that significant a penalty, and is probably gonna be bigger.

Thirdly, this kind of thing (ridiculous +50 Diplomancers wandering the land looking for people to mindscrew) wouldn't happen in one of my games because not only does that kind of thing ruin my fun as the DM, it ruinsthe fun of the rest of the players. That's why I generally forbid certain things that make that easier, as well abusing different Diplomacy rules (I generally use the Giant's Diplomacy fix, but YMMV).

Once again, I'm not talking about people who are at least making a bare minimum effort to convince the person IC, even if it's as bare bones as what you said. But a player who's attempting to convince Superman to murder orphans and puppiesis going to have to deal with it when I tell them that check is at best ridiculously more difficult than normal, and at worst straight up impossible.

[jiriku]

Thirdly, this kind of thing (ridiculous +50 Diplomancers wandering the land looking for people to mindscrew) wouldn't happen in one of my games because not only does that kind of thing ruin my fun as the DM, it ruinsthe fun of the rest of the players. That's why I generally forbid certain things that make that easier, as well abusing different Diplomacy rules (I generally use the Giant's Diplomacy fix, but YMMV).

AvatarVecna raises a really good point. If you're a DM and +50 Diplomancers ruin your fun, or if you perceive that they're ruining the fun of the other players, don't allow +50 Diplomancer PCs in the game. It is MUCH better to set clear expectations up front and say "no" to some character concepts than to trick a player by pretending to accept his character idea and then sabotaging him during the game.

[Killer Angel]

Some good points have been made. However, I would like to illustrate another issue I have with the opening post's example with a counter-example of my own:

The PC is a highly optimized swordsman. A veritable superman with a blade. He has a +50 to hit with a magical sword that lets him re-roll multiple times each round and can pierce any DR and hit incorporeal and even ethereal enemies, and he can deal nearly a thousand hp of damage on a successful first strike with proper power attacking and other benefits. The DM has optimized AC to the point where this should still be a challenge.

PC: I roll a natural 20 (after re-rolling 4 times) to hit.

DM: You miss.

PC: But... I rolled a natural 20. That's an automatic hit. It says so in the rules.

DM: He dodged.

PC: Where in the rules does it say he can do that?

DM: It doesn't.


When you start negating PCs' investments in abilities arbitrarily, how do you decide which ones you invalidate?



Another question could be: how many often does this happen?
Because, if this paladin was the first one that "negates" the diplomacy skill, but usually the silver-tongued evil guy get a free pass, it would be different.

And if the BBEG dodges your natural 20, the real question should be "how is it possible?". To discover the reason behind this "rule 0", becomes a plot hook.


(I don't think it's the case described by the OP, I'm reasoning in general terms)

[ExLibrisMortis]

Page 65 of the Player's Handbook states:

Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more to the DC).

[...]

The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely practically impossible. Characters with very high skill modifiers are capable of accomplishing incredible, almost unbelievable tasks, just as characters with very high combat bonuses are.

It's a repetition of rule 0, but it's the answer to the question your player asked ("Where in the rules does it say you can do that?"). It can be helpful to remind the player that rule 0 is in fact a rule, and although it must be wielded in moderation, skill check DCs are one of the areas the DM has a lot to say about.

If you decide that the task is practically impossible, you have to set the DC ahead of time (at your normal DC +20, +40 or higher, but at some point you should declare it impossible). In this situation, maybe you'd want to write the target number down, to show your player afterwards.

If you decided that the task is impossible, you probably shouldn't have let the player roll, unless you heavily hinted at it before, and your player decided to go ahead anyway.

If the paladin decided to stop listening (= interrupt the skill check), after using detect evil during the diplomacy attempt, you shouldn't have let your player roll. Just tell them them the paladin stops listening and starts looking angrier by the round. Your player will conclude this paladin is (irrationally) resentful of evil people attempting to convince them of anything. That's not a very unusual sentiment for a paladin - though it's not the ideal of good, per sé - so your player shouldn't be too surprised. A big factor here is that we're talking about a paladin. Paladins are crazy by RAW.

[jjcrpntr]

That part right there is Rule 0 in action though. By RAW, the player is probably right, at least as far as I can tell. It certainly makes sense to resolve it the way you did; as a matter of fact, that's definitely the best way to handle it, at least IMO. A Paladin would probably not be too affected by the diplomacy, and would try to stop whatever evil the PC was doing. But by RAW? Pretty sure the player is correct in this case, although confirmation from another more knowledgeable source would be helpful.

This is easily my biggest gripe about pathfinder/3.5 (though I love pathfinder). Sometimes mechanics can get in the way of roleplay/story.

We had a similar situation arise in the game I run. My players are friends with an NPC that is at least somewhat tied to a super elite military organization. They were breaking into a noble house to investigate something when someone failed a stealth check and alerted the guards. The team rogue/bard decided the best way to handle it would be to pull out a symbol of said elite military organization and say they were investigating as agents of said organization. Problem is that organization doesn't investigate things that way, if they are suspicious about a house they just barge in and do their things that way.

Now I know looking back I should have rolled a sense motive with a large bonus towards the guards roll, but for sake of speed I said the guards didn't buy it. It made sense to me as they lived in that area all their lives and knew full well how this group of knights worked. Player got annoyed but got over it quickly.

Sometimes the mechanics of the game can get in the way of story/roleplay especially if you have someone that is a massive rules lawyer.

In the OP's case I think a better way to handle it rather than "flipping through the book to tell DM he's wrong" is to just ask. Personally I think the DM's explanation of "you're evil, he's LG and knows you're evil, roll initiative." makes perfect sense. It's like when my players tried talking a crew on a merchant ship to go help them attack an elite group of pirates that had just attacked and seized their ship with little difficulty. That crew was like "hell no". No matter what the roll.

[Troacctid]

So the player here is making a generic Diplomacy check to improve NPC attitudes. Unless they indicate otherwise, that generally involves chatting, schmoozing, and making small talk for about a minute. The Paladin is distrustful of small talk and, as soon as the player starts the check, uses detect evil, detecting a moderate evil aura emanating from the PC. This only takes three rounds, so on the fourth round, the NPC says "Avaunt, scoundrel!" and initiates combat, interrupting the PC in mid-check.

[Socratov]

First off, by RAW the player is right. He made a terrific diplomacy check that, by all means, should have rendered the paladin helpful.

BUT!

There are multiple things at play here:


the diplomacy skill is utterly broken when optimised
paladins are often played wrongly alignment wise
two people here have broken what I call the 'fun convenant'


I'll adress these issues in order, sometimes referring to each other.

1- The diplomacy skill is broken. This is an often realised angle of thought and most people playing/adjudicating (in the case of a DM) have realised this for better (to play it sensibly) or worse (to abuse or butcher it). You see, the diplomacy skill exist upon itself in a vacuüm, unopposed by any means and generally wihtout repercussions (well, under 15 really ruins it, but any face worth his salt can hit those with his eyes closed). Added to that it's the skill that gains the most bonuses (bonii?) through synergy. And, as if it wasn't enough, it's one of THE easiest skills to optimise for: you only require a character with social skills, skillpoints to put them in and a character who can afford to take Cha. That's it. That's all the chassis you need.

Please remember that a diplomacy, until you reach the level of fanatic, which is a problen in and of its own, is never the substitute for a charm spell.

2- Paladins are often played as stick-in-the-behind characters and tend to become a bit one-dimensional. AS the paragons of good in teh battle versus evil they are played as unable to associate with Evil. And I see how people would think that. However, my time on these boards have taught me a great deal about paladins and why they exist as a thing. HYou see, a Paladin is the foremost person to associate with Evil. It's their mission to make the world a better place and to take away the foothold Evil has in the world. So, instead of killing Evil people they should rather explore the option of conversion. He does this partly by being a good example of honour and goodness, in another way by showing mercy and to encourage goodness in others, even if they are card carrying evil. Please think of the fact that the evil PC here gave no offense (at least, that's how it seems), nor issued a challenge. He only sought to change the Paladin's attitude to enlist his aid or assistence in some matter. This shoudl never be a reason for the Paladin to draw arms and attack the PC, in fact that woudl cause the Paladin to fall since he just committed a dishonourable and unjust act counter to the principles of good and law that he is to uphold.

3- Now here is the real heart of the matter. Here both the DM and the PC are at fault. You see, the PC seems to want to cheat the game by abusing the diplomacy mechanic. Which is bad behaviour and should be adressed by the DM. The DM in this case is equally at fault since he Rule 0'd his way through the encounter and blatantly ignored the player's notions about the game, how it shoudl work and by forcing him into a course of action he did not plan for, was not intent to take up on and is quite frankly railoaded into a situation where his freedom of choice has been taken away (and this is a big no-no).

I may not have had decades of dnd experience, but during the short time of my existence and gaming career as well as social things happening I can say that the 'fun covenant' is the Rule that completely blows Rule 0 out of the water. As long as everyone is having fun the game is good. When people start to get inhibited in their fun or the balance shifts in some people having disproportionally more fun the others, the game will wither and die.

If you are curious, my version of the 'Fun Covenant' is as follows:


Thou shan't be a Richard
No really, don't
If slighted thou shall communicate this others present, most importantly the person who had slighted thou
Thou shall cunduct thyselves as reasonable and respectable adults
Thou shall remember Hanlon's Razor: "Mistake not for malice what could be explained by stupidity"

[ShaneMRoth]

Scenario #2

Same charismatic evil PC.

New hostile NPC. Not a Paladin, no ability to Detect Evil.

Player attempts a Diplomacy check.


DM- “The man looks at you with seething rage and says, ‘You murdered my son…’ “

Player- “So? The rules as written say that I am able to change the attitude of NPCs.”

DM- “I say you can’t use Diplomacy to change the attitude of an NPC when you’ve murdered that NPC’s family.”

Player- “Where in the rules does it say you can do that?”

DM- “It doesn’t.”


How would you resolve that encounter?

[Karl Aegis]

I have a moderately strong evil aura.

This NPC can't even afford to resurrect his own son.

I feel like I can safely ignore him.

If he actually can afford to resurrect the son, why isn't the son here as well? If the son is too much of a coward to show his face, I can safely taunt and ignore the NPC.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I tend to feel that, if a player has made a character focused on being a manipulative swindler, part of my job as the DM is to put things there for him to manipulate and swindle. Just because a player is good at something doesn't mean it should be taken away. If I made a charger in an E6 game and suddenly every encounter involved a combination of flying and incorporeal monsters and difficult terrain I don't know that I'd react particularly well.

And the justification for violence of "because evil!" sits really poorly with me, especially because there are a lot of DMs out there who would react really badly to a player committing similarly random acts of violence and justifying it in the same way this paladin is. How many DM horror stories start with evil PCs ruining games? Lots. Lots and lots. And one of the common threads is that players ought to justify their actions beyond simple recourses to what's written on a character sheet. I don't really see a difference here. (This is part of why alignment is stupid.)

Alignment doesn't scale with power level. "Too powerful to be a small-time criminal..."; why? What makes a more powerful Evil character more evil than a lower level one? Resources? It doesn't take that many resources to walk into someone's house, stab them to death and set their baby on fire. A high level PC, meanwhile, exploits the system for fun and profit; victimless crimes, one might say, including non-violent bank robberies and defrauding of the rich. The paladin might let the first one go - he's too low-level to be a really evil perpetrator! - while freaking the hell out over the second. It's a series of assumptions that lead to Ted Bundy walking and Moist von Lipwig hanging.

"...and too smooth by half." That suggests as well that part of the problem here is that the player rolled too well. He's too good at this trick. This ability is overpowered! It must be stopped. And if that's the case, then the situation should have been resolved out of character. In-character conflicts and problems get in-character solutions. Out of character conflicts and problems get out of character solutions. That's one of the most important rules for running a healthy game.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Scenario #2

Same charismatic evil PC.

New hostile NPC. Not a Paladin, no ability to Detect Evil.

Player attempts a Diplomacy check.


DM- “The man looks at you with seething rage and says, ‘You murdered my son…’ “

Player- “So? The rules as written say that I am able to change the attitude of NPCs.”

DM- “I say you can’t use Diplomacy to change the attitude of an NPC when you’ve murdered that NPC’s family.”

Player- “Where in the rules does it say you can do that?”

DM- “It doesn’t.”


How would you resolve that encounter?

As the DM or the player?

As the DM, I'd let the player use his skill. Is there a reason this NPC must remain hostile? How does that advance the plot, and how does it affect the larger game world if the NPC suddenly is cooperative with the player? What might be the repercussions either way, and am I confident enough in my ability to adapt to handle them?

As the player, I'd expect to be allowed to use my skills. Yeah, I killed his kid, and I know that there's no way to bring his son back for him. But he had been possessed by the evil Shard of 2GD, a malicious artifact which makes people do bad things. I came here specifically to tender my apologies and ask for forgiveness. And that is that.

As a player, the resolution as written would bother me. Post hoc banning is the worst thing a DM can do to a game. It's a recipe for mistrust and conflict. I can't say it'd make me leave the game, but I would 100% be having a private word with the DM.

[Mendicant]

Its neither plain nor simple. It's a matter of 'why'.

When it comes to the GM losing, its not 'sometimes', it must be 'always'. The GM isn't trying to win - if they did, in most cases that would mean a TPK and the game would break down. On the other hand, the PCs nearly always cause a TPK to their enemies. So its not about winning or losing, and yeah, if the GM fiats in order to 'win' then there's something going wrong.

On the other hand, the GM is responsible for providing meaningful resistance, because without resistance then the players can't actually try to go all out in any meaningful sense - there's no challenge that requires thought to resolve, only at best thought of how you'd like to declare that you have resolved it.

The problem is when something about the system makes it inordinately problematic for the GM to provide that requisite resistance. Almost every system has these moments, and the more complex the system the more likely there are things like that waiting. That is when the GM has the responsibility to step in and change things to ensure that the game can still continue to go forward in a meaningful fashion. That doesn't mean stealing victory from the players, it means making sure that the GM can still bring sufficient challenge to the game to keep it interesting. And in those cases, the GM absolutely needs to consider on-the-spot house rules as a tool at their disposal.

I don't think I made myself perfectly clear. I understand that the GM isn't trying to win in the conventional sense, that's why I put "lose" in quotation marks. However, most GM's have a certain story they're trying to tell, and particular scenarios they want to create. This is a very freeform story if you're doing it right, since the players contribute the protagonists, but even the most sandboxy games I've played in and run still had some sort of structure, even if that was just the walls of a particular dungeon. Players are pretty much guaranteed to wreck that plot in some way, and the higher they get in level the more their options for doing so expand. Adapting to this by creating on-the-spot rulings that gimp characters is pretty much guaranteed to cause conflict.

The DM in the opening post had a very particular way he wanted things to go down: the PC was gonna fight that Paladin. I assume the DM assumed that player had a better than average chance of winning and that the paladin wasn't just some sort of disguised rockfall, so he didn't expect to "win" via PC death. But he most certainly was treating it as a contest when he decided, at the table and without prior warning, to negate that character's resource investment.

Now, diplomacy, RAW, is pretty borked. I've never actually seen someone seriously bring a full-scale diplomancer into play because such a character breaks the game in a particularly problematic way, by hitting the "I win" button and generally freezing the rest of the party out of conflict resolution. It's also just really silly. Best-case scenario, you, as the DM, are aware of the problem ahead of time, and utilize an alternate system like Rich Burlew's or Justin Alexander's, or just fall back on some kind of MTP. Then you talk to your players about why you want to make this change, what the implications are. We don't live in a perfect world though, so maybe you didn't catch the problem, or some other piece of rules-weirdness. In that context, I firmly believe you should just take your lumps, at least for that encounter/scenario. Away from the table, you should talk it through with that player, and explain all the ways this use of the rules makes it hard or impossible to build fun encounters, and then either redesign the character, put in some kind of houserule that slows the trick down, or have the character experience a diplomularity and become the new god of smooth-talkin' and get replaced by something less wacky. I have no problem with modifying the rules to fit expectations or do a more satisfying job of allowing a certain playstyle, but that should not be done on the spot. Such rules tend to have weird unintended consequences, and they're almost always used to bring the hammer down on a player.

[Troacctid]

Scenario #2

Same charismatic evil PC.

New hostile NPC. Not a Paladin, no ability to Detect Evil.

Player attempts a Diplomacy check.


DM- “The man looks at you with seething rage and says, ‘You murdered my son…’ “

Player- “So? The rules as written say that I am able to change the attitude of NPCs.”

DM- “I say you can’t use Diplomacy to change the attitude of an NPC when you’ve murdered that NPC’s family.”

Player- “Where in the rules does it say you can do that?”

DM- “It doesn’t.”


How would you resolve that encounter?

The player begins to make a Diplomacy check to improve NPC attitudes. Round 1 of 10:

PC: Hey, man, let's talk about this...
NPC: Let's not. *facepunch*

Round 2 of 10:

PC: No, seriously, this is all just a big misunderstanding!
NPC: *facepunch*

Round 3 of 10:

PC: Look, would you just--
NPC: *facepunch*

Round 4 of 10:

PC: Stop that! I'm only trying to--
NPC: *facepunch*

Round 5 of 10:

PC: Can't we settle our differences like civilized--
NPC: *facepunch*

[...]

Round 10 of 10:

PC: LOOK JUST LET ME EXPLAIN AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY STORY YOU CAN KILL ME AFTERWARDS OKAY
NPC: Fine, talk. I'm listening.
PC: So, yes, I killed your family. But I'm also extremely handsome. You can't say that's not worth something, right?
NPC: ...Give me one good reason why I shouldn't kill you right now.
PC: Um...extremely handsome?
NPC: *facepunch*

[Keltest]

So, ok, I have a question here. What was the PC trying to diplomacy the paladin to do? Just to like him? Or was there actually an attempt to get him to do something?

If it was the former, as a DM I would impose a heavy circumstance penalty due to philosophical differences (Ie your overall goal is actively opposed to what he stands for). If the latter, it would depend heavily on what he was being asked to do. As someone mentioned, a Paladin will still be likely to go out and do his job even when asked to by an evil person, just not necessarily because of who was doing the asking.

[OldTrees1]

Scenario #2

Same charismatic evil PC.

New hostile NPC. Not a Paladin, no ability to Detect Evil.

Player attempts a Diplomacy check.


DM- “The man looks at you with seething rage and says, ‘You murdered my son…’ “

Player- “So? The rules as written say that I am able to change the attitude of NPCs.”

DM- “I say you can’t use Diplomacy to change the attitude of an NPC when you’ve murdered that NPC’s family.”

Player- “Where in the rules does it say you can do that?”

DM- “It doesn’t.”


How would you resolve that encounter?
The player wants a mere roll with no connection to an in game action to have an in game result.
The DM is trying to prevent this with a crude restriction.

Resolution:
1) Diplomacy cannot be rolled without description of what the character is saying(spoken in character is better).
2) The rolled result describes how well the character did what it was doing.

So to change the attitude of an NPC (which is possible even if you murdered their family) you would need to describe a direction of attack that could change the attitude if done with enough skill (and if you rolled a high enough result).

So saying "I killed your family, you should help me" would take a massively high roll since you would need to convince the NPC that the misfortune you inflicted was actually fortunate and that the NPC should be grateful to you OR you need to convince the NPC that helping you would be the best way to try to reap revenge for their dead relatives.

In contrast saying "Helping me will benefit you much more than the misery I inflict upon you" would not take quite as high a roll although it would still be quite hard of a DC.

[Keltest]

The player wants a mere roll with no connection to an in game action to have an in game result.
The DM is trying to prevent this with a crude restriction.

Resolution:
1) Diplomacy cannot be rolled without description of what the character is saying(spoken in character is better).
2) The rolled result describes how well the character did what it was doing.

So to change the attitude of an NPC (which is possible even if you murdered their family) you would need to describe a direction of attack that could change the attitude if done with enough skill (and if you rolled a high enough result).

So saying "I killed your family, you should help me" would take a massively high roll since you would need to convince the NPC that the misfortune you inflicted was actually fortunate and that the NPC should be grateful to you OR you need to convince the NPC that helping you would be the best way to try to reap revenge for their dead relatives.

In contrast saying "Helping me will benefit you much more than the misery I inflict upon you" would not take quite as high a roll although it would still be quite hard of a DC.

My interpretation of the mechanic is that the actual roll determines how well you are able to present your argument. Its up to the player to try and pick a goal that has sounds reasonable, but once the goal is stated (in this case its "Help me") the actual way the argument is framed in character is based on the roll.

[Story]

The problem with that is that IC social skills shouldn't rely on OOC social skills.


Reminds me of the stories of 6 CHA faces because the social encounters are just roleplayed out anyway.

[OldTrees1]

My interpretation of the mechanic is that the actual roll determines how well you are able to present your argument. Its up to the player to try and pick a goal that has sounds reasonable, but once the goal is stated (in this case its "Help me") the actual way the argument is framed in character is based on the roll.

I can understand that interpretation, but it steals way too much of the Player's control for me to run with it. I prefer the Player deciding what they do (the argument & goal) and the DM deciding if it works(DC) than the DM deciding both(framing & DC).


The problem with that is that IC social skills shouldn't rely on OOC social skills.

Reminds me of the stories of 6 CHA faces because the social encounters are just roleplayed out anyway.

I don't think my resolution relies on OOC social skills more than the minimum of thinking of something that could work (the same OOC requirement that permeates D&D). It is the IC social skill that determines success via my resolution.

[ShaneMRoth]

So, ok, I have a question here. What was the PC trying to diplomacy the paladin to do? Just to like him? Or was there actually an attempt to get him to do something?


The PC was trying to mechanically change the Paladin's attitude from Hostile to Helpful.

[Keltest]

I can understand that interpretation, but it steals way too much of the Player's control for me to run with it. I prefer the Player deciding what they do (the argument & goal) and the DM deciding if it works(DC) than the DM deciding both(framing & DC).

I disagree. The player has a lot more control when its based on a skill check rather than having any relevance to their real life charisma or diplomatic ability. A character who stumbles over words will never get the benefits of a well spoken character the way youre doing it.


The PC was trying to mechanically change the Paladin's attitude from Hostile to Helpful.

In that case I would say that the appropriate response was that the circumstances imposed such a penalty that the desired outcome was not possible without magic.

[ShaneMRoth]

The player begins to make a Diplomacy check to improve NPC attitudes. Round 1 of 10:

PC: Hey, man, let's talk about this...
NPC: Let's not. *facepunch*

Round 2 of 10:

PC: No, seriously, this is all just a big misunderstanding!
NPC: *facepunch*

Round 3 of 10:

PC: Look, would you just--
NPC: *facepunch*

Round 4 of 10:

PC: Stop that! I'm only trying to--
NPC: *facepunch*

Round 5 of 10:

PC: Can't we settle our differences like civilized--
NPC: *facepunch*

[...]

Round 10 of 10:

PC: LOOK JUST LET ME EXPLAIN AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY STORY YOU CAN KILL ME AFTERWARDS OKAY
NPC: Fine, talk. I'm listening.
PC: So, yes, I killed your family. But I'm also extremely handsome. You can't say that's not worth something, right?
NPC: ...Give me one good reason why I shouldn't kill you right now.
PC: Um...extremely handsome?
NPC: *facepunch*

This post is made entirely out of gluten-free fair-trade artisanal awesome.

[Susano-wo]

First off, by RAW the player is right. He made a terrific diplomacy check that, by all means, should have rendered the paladin helpful.

BUT!

There are multiple things at play here:


the diplomacy skill is utterly broken when optimised
paladins are often played wrongly alignment wise
two people here have broken what I call the 'fun convenant'


I'll adress these issues in order, sometimes referring to each other.

1- The diplomacy skill is broken. This is an often realised angle of thought and most people playing/adjudicating (in the case of a DM) have realised this for better (to play it sensibly) or worse (to abuse or butcher it). You see, the diplomacy skill exist upon itself in a vacuüm, unopposed by any means and generally wihtout repercussions (well, under 15 really ruins it, but any face worth his salt can hit those with his eyes closed). Added to that it's the skill that gains the most bonuses (bonii?) through synergy. And, as if it wasn't enough, it's one of THE easiest skills to optimise for: you only require a character with social skills, skillpoints to put them in and a character who can afford to take Cha. That's it. That's all the chassis you need.

Please remember that a diplomacy, until you reach the level of fanatic, which is a problen in and of its own, is never the substitute for a charm spell.

2- Paladins are often played as stick-in-the-behind characters and tend to become a bit one-dimensional. AS the paragons of good in teh battle versus evil they are played as unable to associate with Evil. And I see how people would think that. However, my time on these boards have taught me a great deal about paladins and why they exist as a thing. HYou see, a Paladin is the foremost person to associate with Evil. It's their mission to make the world a better place and to take away the foothold Evil has in the world. So, instead of killing Evil people they should rather explore the option of conversion. He does this partly by being a good example of honour and goodness, in another way by showing mercy and to encourage goodness in others, even if they are card carrying evil. Please think of the fact that the evil PC here gave no offense (at least, that's how it seems), nor issued a challenge. He only sought to change the Paladin's attitude to enlist his aid or assistence in some matter. This shoudl never be a reason for the Paladin to draw arms and attack the PC, in fact that woudl cause the Paladin to fall since he just committed a dishonourable and unjust act counter to the principles of good and law that he is to uphold.

3- Now here is the real heart of the matter. Here both the DM and the PC are at fault. You see, the PC seems to want to cheat the game by abusing the diplomacy mechanic. Which is bad behaviour and should be adressed by the DM. The DM in this case is equally at fault since he Rule 0'd his way through the encounter and blatantly ignored the player's notions about the game, how it shoudl work and by forcing him into a course of action he did not plan for, was not intent to take up on and is quite frankly railoaded into a situation where his freedom of choice has been taken away (and this is a big no-no).

I may not have had decades of dnd experience, but during the short time of my existence and gaming career as well as social things happening I can say that the 'fun covenant' is the Rule that completely blows Rule 0 out of the water. As long as everyone is having fun the game is good. When people start to get inhibited in their fun or the balance shifts in some people having disproportionally more fun the others, the game will wither and die.

If you are curious, my version of the 'Fun Covenant' is as follows:


Thou shan't be a Richard
No really, don't
If slighted thou shall communicate this others present, most importantly the person who had slighted thou
Thou shall cunduct thyselves as reasonable and respectable adults
Thou shall remember Hanlon's Razor: "Mistake not for malice what could be explained by stupidity"



Pretty much this. (though that should read who had slighted thee :smallamused:) There are way better ways to handle the situation than this from the DM, especially applying reasonable adjustments to the DC or just not allowing it due to being too unreasonable (the you killed my son example is a good one of an implacable foe who will not care one bit how charming you are), or simply not falling for the Helpful=mind controlled mistake and have the character act as helpful as he can within their personality and obligations, etc (a king, for instance, will not give you his kingdom, no matter how high your diplo roll was)

And the player was being a jerk for trying to abuse diplomacy rules to get at will mind control. Really, no one takes that much diplomacy unless they want to abuse the diplo system (or what they think it does, at least). It involves a level of investment that precludes anything else (usually including a generally subpar race, 2 feats that are lousy--skill focus and negotiator, plus spending a lot of your gold allotment on +diplo items)

Also, not related to the quoted text: its not incongruous to expect people to put some effort into actually roleplaying the situation while still respecting skill ranks and rolls. Its what the game its about. We simulate things like battles with abstract numbers because we can't generally do these in RL (and to minutely describe them would take more time than combat already does). But you can roleplay social encounters. In fact, due to the subtle nature of such interactions, you have to. We can use numbers to abstract combat states, like prone condition, shaken condition, etc, but human socialization is much more complex than that.

None of this is to say that your skill allocations should be irrelevant (either by giving a charismatic player a pass or by punishing an uncharismatic player who chose to put ranks into a social skill), but a player or GM needs to have some idea what was just said in order to respond to what it is you just said. So, though the rolls can determine the end attitude, what was said will determine how the scene plays out, with the attitude as another underlying factor.

[OldTrees1]

I disagree. The player has a lot more control when its based on a skill check rather than having any relevance to their real life charisma or diplomatic ability. A character who stumbles over words will never get the benefits of a well spoken character the way youre doing it.

Um, incorrect? Stumbling is handled by roll vs DC in my resolution so a high diplomacy character would not suffer if the player had a stutter.

Perhaps an example would be clearer:

Player A: (stuttering)"I call upon his better nature to be above violence." Rolls 60.
Character A: [really elegant speech applauding the virtue of the individual and their ability to walk the higher path even in the face of the temptation of vengeance]

Player B: (stuttering)"[My character] says "I call upon your better nature to be above violence." " Rolls 60.
Character B: [really elegant speech applauding the virtue of the individual and their ability to walk the higher path even in the face of the temptation of vengeance]

[nyjastul69]

I can understand that interpretation, but it steals way too much of the Player's control for me to run with it. I prefer the Player deciding what they do (the argument & goal) and the DM deciding if it works(DC) than the DM deciding both(framing & DC).



I don't think my resolution relies on OOC social skills more than the minimum of thinking of something that could work (the same OOC requirement that permeates D&D). It is the IC social skill that determines success via my resolution.

I disagree. Asking a non-social type to state the argument and goal steals from the player I think. My 18 Cha Paladin is far above my ability to articulate an argument. As a player, all I should have to state is the goal. The DM sets the DC. The roll is my argument.

[OldTrees1]

I disagree. Asking a non-social type to state the argument and goal steals from the player I think. My 18 Cha Paladin is far above my ability to articulate an argument. As a player, all I should have to state is the goal. The DM sets the DC. The roll is my argument.

The roll articulates the argument that you state in accordance with your rolled result. So your 18 Cha Paladin can articulate your argument much better than you can(including using a more sophisticated version of the argument with less fallacies invoked and more rapport created). Yes this is a higher criteria than merely stating the goal but I have found players do not want the DM putting words in their character's mouths.

[nyjastul69]

The roll articulates the argument that you state in accordance with your rolled result. So your 18 Cha Paladin can articulate your argument much better than you can. Yes this is a higher criteria than merely stating the goal but I have found players do not want the DM putting words in their character's mouths.

I guess. I never want to state the argument in a game though. I won't do it well. My character, on the other hand, probably will. That's all I need. I don't even care what the argument is exactly.

[OldTrees1]

I guess. I never want to state the argument in a game though. I won't do it well. My character, on the other hand, probably will. That's all I need. I don't even care what the argument is exactly.
Why don't you care what your character uses as an argument?

If all you had to do was state the goal and roll then you might be faced with this:
PC: I try to convince the royal guard to let us pass. Rolls
DM: You promise the guard a share of your next adventure in exchange for letting you past.

You don't care about something like that?

[nyjastul69]

I am confused. You want your character to say a more sophisticated version of your argument than you can correct? If you don't provide an argument for the DM to imagine a more creative version of then you might run into this(some hyperbole intended):

If all you had to do was state the goal and roll then you might be faced with this:
PC: I try to convince the royal guard to let us pass. Rolls
DM: You promise the guard a share of your next adventure in exchange for letting you past.

No, I say I want to convince the guard to let us pass. *rolls successfully* The DM let's us pass. The reason is irrelevant.

[OldTrees1]

No, I try to convince the guard to let us pass. *rolls successfully* The DM let's us pass. The reason is irrelevant.

So you don't care if your purse is suddenly lighter as a result of the DM choosing your character used bribery instead of flattery or patriotism or some other string?

[nyjastul69]

So you don't care if your purse is suddenly lighter as a result of the DM choosing your character used bribery instead of flattery or patriotism or some other string?

I don't have any idea what your talking about. If I offered a bribe it might give me a circumstance bonus. Social skills in D&D have no monetary costs associated with their use. Why would my purse get lighter?

[NichG]

You had me nodding and agreeing in my head, all the way up until the last sentence. :smallbiggrin:

I have to ask: Do on-the-spot house rules "keep it interesting"? Do they "bring challenge to the game"? Or does inventing a rule to produce failure after a success was rolled "steal victory from the players"? On the surface, it seems as though the OP's example steals victory from the player. The player doesn't enjoy the on-the-spot ruling or find it interesting. And if there's a "challenge" here, the challenge is in trying to predict the arbitrary behavior of the DM -- it's not an in-game challenge since the PC had no opportunity to influence the outcome. The whole exchange boiled down to the DM saying "you encounter a paladin who attacks you no matter what you try to do".

Obviously it depends on the on-the-spot house rule and the details of the situation. Thats why I was saying, its not a simple cut-and-dry 'this is always good to do' or 'this is always bad to do'. In the OP's post, we have several ingredients and a lot of missing information about the context of the situation. We know that the PC has a high enough Diplomacy modifier to never fail any of the pre-epic fixed DCs. As presented, we know that the player is also persisting in trying to force the skill even when the GM communications 'this isn't working'. However, either of those could be hyperbole on the case of the poster.

If those aren't hyperbole, the former suggests that a component of the game is broken in a way that will stay broken if it is not addressed. Even if you just shrug and say 'okay, he charms this paladin', the second thing means that he's pretty single-minded about it and so is going to keep doing this on every single NPC. Furthermore, the persistence in trying to force it means that even if the GM is clever and figures out ways to make Diplomacy not dominate the situation, the player will be laser-focused on 'how can I make Diplomacy work here' rather than considering other options.

So that means that a lot of the potential to provide interesting resistance is removed (because the GM basically can't use NPC antagonists who speak with the PCs or this Diplomacy trick will come out again), and also even if the GM figures out legal ways within the system to get around that, that doesn't communicate to the player that 'this isn't a functional way for the game to be and so this ability won't be permitted to be as powerful as you want it to be' (in this case, by changing the challenge structure to be less vulnerable to this one trick). So the nice thing about using an on-the-spot house rule here is, if its a house rule its something you can state explicitly and then hold to. So the player will at least know that you're nerfing Diplomacy (possibly into the ground) and is more likely to not get as stuck on 'how can I make my Diplomacy apply in this situation?' in the future, compared to if you just silently changed the distribution of challenges in a fully RAW-legal way - more non-sentient enemies, etc - to make Diplomacy less overwhelming.

This really is an OOC issue (different expectations), and an on-the-spot house rule is more of an OOC tool than doing things like having all the NPCs be pre-dominated by their boss wizard with the order 'ignore attempts to be diplomatic' or not speaking a language or having invisible huge circumstance modifiers or attacking when anyone opens their mouth because they know about the 1 minute rule or things like that. Its not the only possible OOC tool (personally I favor 'hey, knock it off' as a first step), but its definitely something you shouldn't spurn outright.

[OldTrees1]

I don't have any idea what your talking about. If I offered a bribe it might give me a circumstance bonus. Social skills in D&D have no monetary costs associated with their use. Why would my purse get lighter?

Offering a bribe is one of the many ways one might try to convince someone. Since you didn't care which way you tried to convince the guard... Although it appears that you actually do care, you just want the DM to do the work and be held responsible for if they fail to read your mind correctly. Some DMs might put up with that but honestly I would not since it costs you next to nothing to think of an argument yourself for the DM to apply your roll to simulating.

[nyjastul69]

Offering a bribe is one of the many ways one might try to convince someone. Since you didn't care which way you tried to convince the guard... Although it appears that you actually do care, you just want the DM to do the work and be held responsible for if they fail to read your mind correctly. Some DMs might put up with that but honestly I would not since it costs you next to nothing to think of an argument yourself for the DM to apply your roll to simulating.

Not at all. No work for me. No work for the DM. I ask. I succeed. I go. Again, the reasons are irrelevant. I play a mostly 3rd person game. I suspect that you do not. I think that may be the root cause of this misunderstanding.

[Mendicant]

Obviously it depends on the on-the-spot house rule and the details of the situation. Thats why I was saying, its not a simple cut-and-dry 'this is always good to do' or 'this is always bad to do'. In the OP's post, we have several ingredients and a lot of missing information about the context of the situation. We know that the PC has a high enough Diplomacy modifier to never fail any of the pre-epic fixed DCs. As presented, we know that the player is also persisting in trying to force the skill even when the GM communications 'this isn't working'. However, either of those could be hyperbole on the case of the poster.

If those aren't hyperbole, the former suggests that a component of the game is broken in a way that will stay broken if it is not addressed. Even if you just shrug and say 'okay, he charms this paladin', the second thing means that he's pretty single-minded about it and so is going to keep doing this on every single NPC. Furthermore, the persistence in trying to force it means that even if the GM is clever and figures out ways to make Diplomacy not dominate the situation, the player will be laser-focused on 'how can I make Diplomacy work here' rather than considering other options.

So that means that a lot of the potential to provide interesting resistance is removed (because the GM basically can't use NPC antagonists who speak with the PCs or this Diplomacy trick will come out again), and also even if the GM figures out legal ways within the system to get around that, that doesn't communicate to the player that 'this isn't a functional way for the game to be and so this ability won't be permitted to be as powerful as you want it to be' (in this case, by changing the challenge structure to be less vulnerable to this one trick). So the nice thing about using an on-the-spot house rule here is, if its a house rule its something you can state explicitly and then hold to. So the player will at least know that you're nerfing Diplomacy (possibly into the ground) and is more likely to not get as stuck on 'how can I make my Diplomacy apply in this situation?' in the future, compared to if you just silently changed the distribution of challenges in a fully RAW-legal way - more non-sentient enemies, etc - to make Diplomacy less overwhelming.

This really is an OOC issue (different expectations), and an on-the-spot house rule is more of an OOC tool than doing things like having all the NPCs be pre-dominated by their boss wizard with the order 'ignore attempts to be diplomatic' or not speaking a language or having invisible huge circumstance modifiers or attacking when anyone opens their mouth because they know about the 1 minute rule or things like that. Its not the only possible OOC tool (personally I favor 'hey, knock it off' as a first step), but its definitely something you shouldn't spurn outright.

OOC interaction is far and away the best way to do this. That said, the snap rule is not really the same as saying "hey knock it off". The latter is directly addressing the problem at its source, and should be done after the particular situation that provoked it is resolved per the rules that were in place when everyone sat down. The former is retroactive rulemaking, which is a really bad habit to get into. It's firmly in the same camp as " you're only fighting zombies and vermin from here on out"--you're actively sabotaging a concept or build without giving proper warning or conferring with the affected player.

[OldTrees1]

Not at all. No work for me. No work for the DM. I ask. I succeed. I go. Again, the reasons are irrelevant. I play a mostly 3rd person game. I suspect that you do not. I think that may be the root cause of this misunderstanding.

3rd person game? I am not familiar with that term. I play at a table IRL if that answers your question.

You meet a guard. The DM does not know a way the guard could be convinced to let you pass.* You ask if you can make a diplomacy check to convince the guard to let you pass. The DM remembers that they shouldn't offer impossible checks so they need evidence of the check being possible before letting you roll. Under my system such evidence is provided. Under your system it is not. Now maybe these "3rd person games" avoid tricky social situations like these, but not all campaigns do*.

Furthermore your system has the DM have to guess what persuasive pressures your character expended to convince the guard. Most forms of persuasion have costs (monetary, political, social, promises, quests, favors...). So you are having your DM guess which of those if any you would be willing to have your character expend(and it sounds like you would be upset if they guessed wrong).

*I had an ingenious player come up with a way to intimidate a minion into cooperation despite the minion not needing to fear death or torture and having a family being held as blackmail by their boss. The player's articulation was a bit shaky(which didn't matter), the argument string + their roll made possible what I had thought was not possible from their position.

[Shackel]

There's a lot of talk about how the PC is in the wrong for trying to abuse the system, but there is a good point to be made that if you can roll a 54, even on a natural 20, your character is talking in terms of charisma beyond human comprehension. You could say that the paladin isn't taking wisely to your attempts to charm him, but someone who has a +34 to Diplomacy minimum probably doesn't sound like they're trying to charm him. They know precisely what to say, and, more importantly, precisely what to do.

Assuming the character has done anything but what would be required to make that paladin indifferent at least is, to me, just as invalidating as assuming your level 20, optimized fighter had a nat 20 beaten because you don't know exactly how your weapon managed to beat seven layers of defense. The DM is totally at fault in this situation, and there's countless ways to have the paladin be helpful or at least indifferent.

One of them is simply that the mithral-tongued devil somewhere along the lines subconsciously convinced the paladin that he was just on the wrong side of the road. A bad time in life, and if he gave him a couple weeks or so, he'll be back on the right path. The alignments are extremely binary when detected, after all. There's no difference between "he just robbed ten people into poverty to pay off his friend's loan" and "he just kidnapped and murdered one thousand people to make a tidy profit". It's just Neutral(or Chaotic, what have you) Evil.

[OldTrees1]

One of them is simply that the mithral-tongued devil somewhere along the lines subconsciously convinced the paladin that he was just on the wrong side of the road. A bad time in life, and if he gave him a couple weeks or so, he'll be back on the right path. The alignments are extremely binary when detected, after all. There's no difference between "he just robbed ten people into poverty to pay off his friend's loan" and "he just kidnapped and murdered one thousand people to make a tidy profit". It's just Neutral(or Chaotic, what have you) Evil.

Yeah, the "not all evil is the same" argument would be a good choice. I think that paragraph if verbally spoken to the Paladin might be an example of a 20 total. To do so subconsciously would be maybe a 30-40.

[nyjastul69]

3rd person game? I am not familiar with that term. I play at a table IRL if that answers your question.

You meet a guard. The DM does not know a way the guard could be convinced to let you pass.* You ask if you can make a diplomacy check to convince the guard to let you pass. The DM remembers that they shouldn't offer impossible checks so they need evidence of the check being possible before letting you roll. Under my system such evidence is provided. Under your system it is not. Now maybe these "3rd person games" avoid tricky social situations like these, but not all campaigns do*.

Furthermore your system has the DM have to guess what persuasive pressures your character expended to convince the guard. Most forms of persuasion have costs (monetary, political, social, promises, quests, favors...). So you are having your DM guess which of those if any you would be willing to have your character expend(and it sounds like you would be upset if they guessed wrong).

*I had an ingenious player come up with a way to intimidate a minion into cooperation despite the minion not needing to fear death or torture and having a family being held as blackmail by their boss. The player's articulation was a bit shaky(which didn't matter), the argument string + their roll made possible what I had thought was not possible from their position.

A third person game is one in which the player states the characters intent. That intent is played out through rolling dice. The result is usually given in a third person tense. I don't play in many games that require 1st person dialogue.

Please note that there are many first person interactions in the games I play. They just aren't the norm. It quite often depends on the the actual interaction. Sometimes a roll is all that is required. Sometimes a roll can't help you at all. I would never allow the BBEG to be your best bud because you rolled well. It may give you an advantage of some sort however.

[NichG]

OOC interaction is far and away the best way to do this. That said, the snap rule is not really the same as saying "hey knock it off". The latter is directly addressing the problem at its source, and should be done after the particular situation that provoked it is resolved per the rules that were in place when everyone sat down. The former is retroactive rulemaking, which is a really bad habit to get into. It's firmly in the same camp as " you're only fighting zombies and vermin from here on out"--you're actively sabotaging a concept or build without giving proper warning or conferring with the affected player.

The reason I like "hey, knock it off" is because it makes it really clear that this isn't a rules issue at all, its an issue about what kinds of things are appropriate during play. Its easy for a player to mentally hide behind 'well, I'm following the rules and he's breaking them' and come away from a situation like this thinking that they didn't do anything wrong, because no one actually told them why what they did was wrong. So saying "hey, knock it off" OOC is a direct way of saying 'I don't like what you're doing' without trying to make it about the rules of the game whatsoever.

If you say 'it doesn't work', someone who is fixated on the immediate situation will likely jump straight to 'but the rules say it does', because you didn't make it clear why it didn't work. But 'hey, knock it off' doesn't make any mention of the rules whatsoever, so it has less chance of going into an irrelevant rules debate that disguises the real issue.

The problem with 'hey, knock it off' is that for a lot of players that kind of nebulous social contract is too muddy. They'll second-guess themselves and constantly ask 'is this too much?' to the point where it interferes with their fun. That's where the spot-rulings can come in. If your players don't like having to second-guess themselves and hold themselves back like that, you as the GM can offer "you can build whatever you want or do whatever crazy stuff you want, but you have to be willing to let me say 'no' and replace it with a fixed version of the rules you're using if I think its too much, and you have to be willing to abide by that." Under that agreement, the players don't have to worry about 'will this break the game?' because they've agreed to let the GM fix it if that happens.

[OldTrees1]

A third person game is one in which the player states the characters intent. That intent is played out through rolling dice. The result is usually given in a third person tense. I don't play in many games that require 1st person dialogue.

Please note that there are many first person interactions in the games I play. They just aren't the norm. It quite often depends on the the actual interaction. Sometimes a roll is all that is required. Sometimes a roll can't help you at all. I would never allow the BBEG to be your best bud because you rolled well. It may give you an advantage of some sort however.

I don't think 1st person vs 3rd person makes a difference here since I can phrase any first person argument as a third person reference to an argument.

By allowing/requiring the players to give argument(even in 3rd person form) they can make rolls that at first I incorrectly thought a roll couldn't help them at all. Honestly if a player gave a good argument string for befriending the BBEG, I would let them if they made the DC. And honestly I kinda expect a player would come up with such an argument string as a joke and then consider if it made sense for the character to try.

[ShaneMRoth]

"Too powerful to be a small-time criminal..."; why? What makes a more powerful Evil character more evil than a lower level one?

"...and too smooth by half." That suggests as well that part of the problem here is that the player rolled too well.

The Detect Evil spell allows for varying levels of strength of an alignment aura. Faint, Moderate, Strong, Overpowering. Undead, Outsiders, Evil Clerics higher than 1st level, all detect for at least Moderate evil. A creature who detects for Faint evil is, at most, a 10 HD creature.

A paladin would infer that Moderate evil constitutes a serious threat.

As for too smooth by half... my interpretation of this (and I don't claim it to be anything other than that) is that when someone is that damn good at something, people notice.



...
PC: I roll a natural 20 (after re-rolling 4 times) to hit.

DM: You miss.

PC: But... I rolled a natural 20. That's an automatic hit. It says so in the rules.

DM: He dodged.

PC: Where in the rules does it say he can do that?

DM: It doesn't.



The mechanical difference between combat rolls and skill rolls is relevant to this comparison.

Your attack bonus could be +10 to +100 but a natural 1 always misses.

Skills are not subject to this. If your roll above the DC, you succeed. At a certain point, failure becomes impossible.

I doubt I'm saying anything you don't already know.




I think that a demon can at least buy some time by making a Diplomacy check.

If the Paladin knows he's dealing with a demon, I would not allow any amount of Diplomacy to change the NPC Paladin's attitude. That demon needs to be put down.



...
Some tasks are simply impossible, but the paladin is hostile, there's no reason diplomacy shouldn't work at all.

My ruling (which I don't claim to be anything more than my ruling) is that it is absolutely impossible for the Diplomacy skill to modify the attitude of a Paladin towards a person once that Paladin knows the person is evil. Even if the Diplomacy skill is at epic levels.

It is also my ruling that if someone holds you accountable for the murder of his family, the Diplomacy skill is not going to do anything to cause that person to forget or forgive.

It bears mention here, that I would assume that Diplomacy is possible unless I had a compelling, in context reason (such as these two examples) to rule that Diplomacy is simply not the right tool for the job.




Now, diplomacy, RAW, is pretty borked.

My position (and no one else's) is that Diplomacy doesn't lend itself to a strictly RAW read. The DM will always have to do the heavy lifting when deciding when Diplomacy is possible.

When it works, it should work in a manner described by the SRD. And when a character with a high Diplomacy skill bonus is able to bring that skill into play, that skill should work well.

But it is incumbent on the DM to decide when the Diplomacy skill is capable of changing someone else's attitude and when it simply is not. And as my examples illustrate, there are times when it is the DM's obligation to rule that the Diplomacy skill can't cut it. And this can't be predicted in advance for all, or even most, scenarios. The social variables are such that there is no game mechanic that will allow for that. The player can be entitled to some guarantee of the performance of this skill under all possible conditions or the player can be entitled to a functional game, but it is beyond the ability of the DM to offer both.

And I am of the opinion that this is a function of the original game mechanic. Rule Zero.

[nyjastul69]

I don't think 1st person vs 3rd person makes a difference here since I can phrase any first person argument as a third person reference to an argument.

By allowing/requiring the players to give argument(even in 3rd person form) they can make rolls that at first I incorrectly thought a roll couldn't help them at all. Honestly if a player gave a good argument string for befriending the BBEG, I would let them if they made the DC. And honestly I kinda expect a player would come up with such an argument string as a joke and then consider if it made sense for the character to try.

You keep making references to argument. Arguments are not required. There is no argument. There is only the roll of the die and the given result. Arguments need not apply.

Again, in certain cases arguments can have an effect.

Are you arguing just to argue?

[Story]

As for too smooth by half... my interpretation of this (and I don't claim it to be anything other than that) is that when someone is that damn good at something, people notice.

The whole point of being good is that they wouldn't notice.



If the Paladin knows he's dealing with a demon, I would not allow any amount of Diplomacy to change the NPC Paladin's attitude. That demon needs to be put down.


Even if the demon is also a Paladin?



My ruling (which I don't claim to be anything more than my ruling) is that it is absolutely impossible for the Diplomacy skill to modify the attitude of a Paladin towards a person once that Paladin knows the person is evil. Even if the Diplomacy skill is at epic levels.

It is also my ruling that if someone holds you accountable for the murder of his family, the Diplomacy skill is not going to do anything to cause that person to forget or forgive.


There's a Harry Potter fanfic where Voldemort convinces Harry to help him break Bellatrix Black out of Azkaban, and it makes perfect sense (admittedly, Harry doesn't know it's Voldemort). I think you're just failing to imagine sufficiently compelling arguments. Keep in mind that this kind of skill check is supposed to let you walk across clouds without magic.

[ShaneMRoth]

The whole point of being good is that they wouldn't notice.

This is an entirely valid interpretation. My interpretation is different, but if I were a player in your campaign, I would be so relieved that I was free from the burden of running a game that I'd gladly work within your framework.


Even if the demon is also a Paladin?

If the demon were a core class Paladin, he would not detect for evil. So, this changes the social dynamic completely. The Paladin wouldn't attack the demon under those circumstances. Further, upon learning that the demon was a fellow Paladin, I would automatically rule that the human Paladin was at least Friendly, if not Helpful to the demon.


There's a Harry Potter fanfic where Voldemort convinces Harry to help him break Bellatrix Black out of Azkaban, and it makes perfect sense (admittedly, Harry doesn't know it's Voldemort). I think you're just failing to imagine sufficiently compelling arguments. Keep in mind that this kind of skill check is supposed to let you walk across clouds without magic.

Yeah, if Harry knew he was dealing with Voldemort... I'd rule that Harry's attitude would not be subject to a Diplomacy skill check. Also, I am having a hard time with the notion of Harry as an NPC.

Voldemort would seem more likely to be an NPC than Harry. Would you allow Harry Potter to change Voldemort's attitude from Hostile to Helpful?

I wouldn't.

[KingSmitty]

No.. seems to be chaotic stupid instead.. or perhaps just stupid evil. Attacking someone unprovoked is certainly an evil act in itself.

Precisely this.

Murdering anyone who is evil is still an evil act, just throwing around Rule 0 like that is really bad form.
If the paladin was going to attack said evil doer when he was not defending himself...that violates his code of conduct, specifically the part about acting with honor, which he would not be doing in this case. Also, the code demands that said paladin would respect legitimate authority.Becoming Judge Dredd and assuming the death sentence without a trial would not be respectful at all for the law of the land, and would also cause all spellcasting and abilities to no longer function for this character.

[Sacrieur]

Precisely this.

Murdering anyone who is evil is still an evil act, just throwing around Rule 0 like that is really bad form.
If the paladin was going to attack said evil doer when he was not defending himself...that violates his code of conduct, specifically the part about acting with honor, which he would not be doing in this case. Also, the code demands that said paladin would respect legitimate authority.Becoming Judge Dredd and assuming the death sentence without a trial would not be respectful at all for the law of the land, and would also cause all spellcasting and abilities to no longer function for this character.

Paladins only lose their abilities if they commit evil acts, not if they commit chaotic or unlawful acts.

[Susano-wo]

@nyjastul69: But what you are describing there leaves no story. its disjointed, and I, if I were DM, would literally not be able to play that scene out. Wait, scratch that. I would not be able to play it out if that was how diplomacy worked. Since it is not, I could totally play out that scene. You would, assuming I thought a diplomacy roll was even possible, make the character friendly. Then the dialogue would determine what happened.

But, am I getting this right, that at the table(s) you play at people don't actually use dialogue? Like they describe their actions in the third person, like "[Character] uses diplomacy on [NPC](apperntly to convince them of X, Y, or Z). If that's true then...wow, I uh, I am glad that you enjoy your table (really, I am) but the things we are talking about are so different, I feel like one of us may as well be playing Parcheesi. Anything talking about dialogue is going to be irrelevant at your table, and what you seem to be describing is alien to the way I RP.

@Story:"Keep in mind that this kind of skill check is supposed to let you walk across clouds without magic." That's...one interpretation?:smallconfused: I see nothing in the rules that states that, or implies that. What I do see are repeated admonitions to use common sense when adjudicating checks, including giving penalties for especially difficult tasks, as well as determining whether or not a check is even possible.

[Andezzar]

Offering a bribe is one of the many ways one might try to convince someone. Since you didn't care which way you tried to convince the guard... Although it appears that you actually do care, you just want the DM to do the work and be held responsible for if they fail to read your mind correctly. Some DMs might put up with that but honestly I would not since it costs you next to nothing to think of an argument yourself for the DM to apply your roll to simulating.This would probably lead to very adversarial and drawn out gameplay, if the players have to expect that everything they don't mention will be used to their disadvantage. Sure asking for help in exchange for money is easier, but if the character asked for help without compensation you shouldn't retroactively enforce such a payment.



If the demon were a core class Paladin, he would not detect for evil. So, this changes the social dynamic completely. The Paladin wouldn't attack the demon under those circumstances. Further, upon learning that the demon was a fellow Paladin, I would automatically rule that the human Paladin was at least Friendly, if not Helpful to the demon.That is not RAW. A demon always is an [Evil][Chaotic] outsider, regardless of alignment or class, unless you can find a creature entry that says otherwise. So it pings as an evil/chaotic outsider on Detect Evil/Chaos. Due to the class the demon paladin would also ping on detect good as any other paladin. Somehow I thought that a succubus paladin would also ping as lawful, but I cannot find that rule at the moment.



Yeah, if Harry knew he was dealing with Voldemort... I'd rule that Harry's attitude would not be subject to a Diplomacy skill check. Also, I am having a hard time with the notion of Harry as an NPC.

Voldemort would seem more likely to be an NPC than Harry. Would you allow Harry Potter to change Voldemort's attitude from Hostile to Helpful?

I wouldn't.The problem here is the disconnect between the expectations of a story and which stories the rules actually support. In general terms some people expect Lord of the Rings, and the books where written with that kind of world in mind, whereas the rules actually support Tippyverse or a world where the Death Eaters had actually won much better than LotR.

[nyjastul69]

@nyjastul69: But what you are describing there leaves no story. its disjointed, and I, if I were DM, would literally not be able to play that scene out. Wait, scratch that. I would not be able to play it out if that was how diplomacy worked. Since it is not, I could totally play out that scene. You would, assuming I thought a diplomacy roll was even possible, make the character friendly. Then the dialogue would determine what happened.

But, am I getting this right, that at the table(s) you play at people don't actually use dialogue? Like they describe their actions in the third person, like "[Character] uses diplomacy on [NPC](apperntly to convince them of X, Y, or Z). If that's true then...wow, I uh, I am glad that you enjoy your table (really, I am) but the things we are talking about are so different, I feel like one of us may as well be playing Parcheesi. Anything talking about dialogue is going to be irrelevant at your table, and what you seem to be describing is alien to the way I RP.

@Story:"Keep in mind that this kind of skill check is supposed to let you walk across clouds without magic." That's...one interpretation?:smallconfused: I see nothing in the rules that states that, or implies that. What I do see are repeated admonitions to use common sense when adjudicating checks, including giving penalties for especially difficult tasks, as well as determining whether or not a check is even possible.

A third person narrative game has no less story than a first person narrative game. The story is the same. They only differ in the way they are told. We use dialogue. We just generally don't use first person dialogue. I don't care for amateur thespianism. I am not an actor. I'm a gamer. I hope that helps clarify my game style.

ETA: I will stress that this is a generality. There are times where characters must speak in a first person format. In these cases skill rolls are not usually used.

[Jay R]

The problem is the assumption many players make that the Diplomacy skill, unlike any other skill, can always be used successfully.

If there is no enemy that can be damaged by your sword, than no sword roll can affect anything.
"I rolled a 54!"
"It's a wraith, and you can't hit it."

If there is nothing present that your character can successfully climb, then no Climb roll can have any effect.
"I rolled a 54!"
"It's a 1000 foot frictionless pillar, and you can't climb it."

If there is no pickable pocket within reach, then no Pick Pocket roll can have any effect.
"I rolled a 54!"
"He's holding his pouch and looking in it, and you can't pick it."

Nobody has any problem with this. But when they get to the Diplomacy skill, they want it to be more magical than Dominate.
"I rolled a 54!"
"He's a paladin who knows you're evil and a liar, and you can't convince him."
"But I rolled a 54!"
"That only applies when the Diplomacy skill can be used."
"But I rolled a 54!"

[Socratov]

I disagree. Asking a non-social type to state the argument and goal steals from the player I think. My 18 Cha Paladin is far above my ability to articulate an argument. As a player, all I should have to state is the goal. The DM sets the DC. The roll is my argument.

And that's another reason why diplomacy is a bit broken. It's a roleplay heavy skill, if you choose it to be, which may penalise players in real life.

Also, I have the exact opposite problem (partly the reason why I mostly play bards and warlocks), some might say I'm too glib for my own good and at a certain moment I had all too much bonus to diplomacy and bluff so my DM, knowing my tendency to gab away with the gift of Blarney, forced me to roleplay what I rolled (wihtin reason) and kind of adressed the success and failure with that. Which comes back my point about not being a ****. This is really important since ignoring that rule will lead to bad feelings and a dead game.

[Segev]

The problem is the assumption many players make that the Diplomacy skill, unlike any other skill, can always be used successfully.

If there is no enemy that can be damaged by your sword, than no sword roll can affect anything.
"I rolled a 54!"
"It's a wraith, and you can't hit it."

If there is nothing present that your character can successfully climb, then no Climb roll can have any effect.
"I rolled a 54!"
"It's a 1000 foot frictionless pillar, and you can't climb it."

If there is no pickable pocket within reach, then no Pick Pocket roll can have any effect.
"I rolled a 54!"
"He's holding his pouch and looking in it, and you can't pick it."

Nobody has any problem with this. But when they get to the Diplomacy skill, they want it to be more magical than Dominate.
"I rolled a 54!"
"He's a paladin who knows you're evil and a liar, and you can't convince him."
"But I rolled a 54!"
"That only applies when the Diplomacy skill can be used."
"But I rolled a 54!"

Except, per the RAW, the analogous situation would not be the last one... it would be:

"I rolled a 54!"
"He doesn't understand a word you said, so your persuasive words had no effect."
"But I rolled a 54!"
"That only applies when the Diplomacy skill can be used; it is language-dependent, and you weren't speaking a language he understands."


THAT would work. So would "It's an animal; it is unmoved by rhetoric," or "It's a skeleton; there's nothing there to persuade."

"He's a Paladin" is not sufficient; the class has no feature that says he gets to ignore your skill checks. Interestingly, however, Fanatic attitude only makes them willing to die for your cause, not to fall for your cause. Even willing to die for you, they cannot be persuaded by Diplomacy alone to commit Evil (or possibly even Chaotic) acts, and certainly not to "grossly" violate their code of conduct.


But if you have a legitimate case why they shouldn't be killing you - no matter their reasons for wanting to - Diplomacy can potentially persuade them to listen to it. It has to be legit; as others have pointed out, a lie is a Bluff check. Combining Bluff and Diplomacy can convince the Paladin of something untrue and THEN persuade him based on that, though. Of course, now it's had at least one opposed roll (Bluff vs. Sense Motive), is taking two skill rolls, and requires the player of the "silver-tongued devil" to have at least a rudimentary plan at least as in depth as whether to charge or brace for a charge or use a ranged weapon.




The trouble with saying "yeah but physical combat is different because..." is that you're missing the point. Do you arbitrarily ignore and change the rules of physical combat because you want your NPC to be untouchable? Or is every ounce of character-building resource I invest in combat "safe," because it will always work as advertised? IF the latter, why would you punish those who invested in things other than combat? Do you feel that those who do anything but combat are not playing the game right? If so, tell your players the nature of your game before hand so they don't build the wrong character for it. If not, be aware that you're nonetheless encouraging intelligent and patient players to build nothing but combat if combat is the only thing whose rules won't arbitrarily change. Nobody likes being told they were playing a guessing game and they guessed wrong, so their character sucks more than if they'd built him differently.

[Vhaidara]

Also, to everyone making points about taking 1 minute to make a diplomacy check: 1 round is only a -10, which is NOTHING for 3.5. And that's only for novice Diplomancers who don't bind Naberius for his "no penalty for rushing, and feel free to take 10 whenever you want"

[Andezzar]

The problem is the assumption many players make that the Diplomacy skill, unlike any other skill, can always be used successfully.That is the thing with skill rolls, if your modifier is high enough, they are always successful. Changing the disposition of a character with a full-round action explicitly is something diplomacy can do.


If there is no enemy that can be damaged by your sword, than no sword roll can affect anything.
"I rolled a 54!"
"It's a wraith, and you can't hit it."That is an explicit restriction to attacks with mundane weapons. If you said that about a character wielding a ghost touch weapon, it would be just as wrong as saying you cannot use diplomacy on a paladin.


If there is nothing present that your character can successfully climb, then no Climb roll can have any effect.
"I rolled a 54!"
"It's a 1000 foot frictionless pillar, and you can't climb it."If the material really is frictionless, then I bag it and sell it. ;)
More seriously though if there is no paladin to use diplomacy on, you cannot use diplomacy. That is true, but contributes nothing to the discussion.
On the other hand there are explicit climb DCs for perfectly smooth surfaces (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#climb).


If there is no pickable pocket within reach, then no Pick Pocket roll can have any effect.
"I rolled a 54!"
"He's holding his pouch and looking in it, and you can't pick it."If there is a pocket it can be picked. The pickpocket rules do have problems, but by RAW a character looking at his pocket does not prevent the thief from taking something out of it. He could not take the whole pocket, but that again is an explicit restriction of the skill.


Nobody has any problem with this. But when they get to the Diplomacy skill, they want it to be more magical than Dominate.
"I rolled a 54!"
"He's a paladin who knows you're evil and a liar, and you can't convince him."
"But I rolled a 54!"
"That only applies when the Diplomacy skill can be used."
"But I rolled a 54!"While I agree diplomacy should not be Dominate, you shouldn't simply state that something does not work when it is clearly allowed by the rules.
Also the example said nothing about the paladin knowing that the evil character was lying. The only information the paladin had was that the diplomancer pinged as evil, which does not even necessarily mean that his alignment is evil (polymorphed good character, special snowflake non-evil devil etc)1.
The paladin should not be able to ignore the hastened diplomacy. Detect evil takes 3 rounds to find the devil, hastened diplomacy a full-round action.

While the result is truly fantastic, it is not much different to other skills with high DCs (balancing on clouds, climbing shear surfaces etc.).
What makes diplomacy so weird is that despite being a skill that interacts with other people, it uses flat DCs. Opposed checks would provide better verisimilitude, that however would just increase the minimum skill modifier needed to be able to get anyone you want to help.

1 If "silver tongued devil" even refers to a character that is or at least looks like a devil.

[Keltest]

That is the thing with skill rolls, if your modifier is high enough, they are always successful. Changing the disposition of a character with a full-round action explicitly is something diplomacy can do.

I believe when Jay said "used successfully" he meant "used at all". You will never be able to use diplomacy on someone you cannot communicate with, for example, and I could see a rather strong argument in support of the paladin being unwilling to communicate with you.

[KingSmitty]

Paladins only lose their abilities if they commit evil acts, not if they commit chaotic or unlawful acts.

actually no.

Under the "Ex-Paladins" part of the class description, "........ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

pretty clear its not just evil acts. This is why Paladins are so hard to play because each player has a different view of what concept they THINK paladins should adhere to instead of the actual rule.

[Sacrieur]

actually no.

Under the "Ex-Paladins" part of the class description, "........ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

pretty clear its not just evil acts. This is why Paladins are so hard to play because each player has a different view of what concept they THINK paladins should adhere to instead of the actual rule.

Right, they have to behave lawfully, but this doesn't mean they can't behave unlawfully. Given the dilemma of doing the good thing and doing the lawful thing, the paladin should always choose the good thing, regardless of whether or not it is lawful. However, they should always strive to do the lawful and good thing. Note that it doesn't say if you commit an unlawful act, just that you must respect legitimate authority.

But of course, that leaves leeway for what exactly is legitimate authority. I have a paladin in my campaign who believes the only legitimate authority is her god and all who get in the way of divine retribution are obstructing this authority.

We're getting off on a tangent so I'll get back to the main thread.

A paladin who detects someone is evil knows they've committed evil. The evidence is staring them right in the face. They may not kill them in cold blood, but they have every right to use zone of truth to force a confession out of them -- in fact they may even have a moral obligation to do so.

Using diplomacy to convince a paladin that you're not evil isn't really what would happen, and I think it's breaching into the bluff skill too much. Convincing a paladin that he has more important things to do than focusing on the fact you're evil would be diplomacy. Also, I do not believe a paladin would ever have a friendly attitude towards someone they think is evil. It's explicitly against their code to associate with such characters.

In summary I agree with most of what everyone said that invoking rule zero is a very bad thing and will only upset your players.

[Shackel]

To those saying a demon couldn't use diplomacy, once again, +34 minimum check is beyond human thinking. Chances are, that paladin was convinced that evil as he may be(presuming this is a PC), it would be best to remember that the tenants of evil do not prevent him from doing good, unlike the tenants of good preventing the paladin from doing evil. They can finish their squabble later, but unless the paladin is going to seriously risk the countless people who could be killed/harmed/tossed in another dimension from the failure state of whatever legendary(level 11+) adventure they're on, it would be best to let that demon do his good.

Or something along those lines. It is entirely the DM's fault for either not swapping out the normal Diplomacy, changing it or not planning his NPCs to have interaction when someone's swinging around a score that huge. Complain about how RAW is wrong or stupid all you wish, but the player, according to the system in use, rolled what was needed. The paladin is convinced because the character is that charismatic.

Rule 0 only goes so far before it becomes abuse. Being so hostile and, frankly, petty over it just makes it clear to your players that nothing they roll ever matters. That NPC might just happen to be invincible because... reasons, I don't think your measly spear could beat my awesome villain. That rocky, by RAW completely climbable cliff? Unclimbable. Because... uh, no one could do it, yeah. It's way too tall for you. What was that? You have a +35? I'm the DM, so you better shut up with all of those "rules" you keep referring to.

That's what I see it as.

[OldTrees1]

You keep making references to argument. Arguments are not required. There is no argument. There is only the roll of the die and the given result. Arguments need not apply.

Again, in certain cases arguments can have an effect.

Are you arguing just to argue?
No I am not arguing just to argue.

An argument(as in "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.") is the way the diplomancer character attempts to convince their target. Different arguments result in in different expectations from the target.

Your system requires the DM to supply the argument and punishes the DM (via your disapproval/discontent) if they supply an argument that you didn't like the consequences of.

My system requires the Player to supply the argument. Yes this means the player has to think about the situation and chose one of the viable arguments rather than an non viable argument. Just like in Bluff and Intimidate. The result is the Player putting words and social interaction decisions in the character's mouth rather than the DM.


This would probably lead to very adversarial and drawn out gameplay, if the players have to expect that everything they don't mention will be used to their disadvantage. Sure asking for help in exchange for money is easier, but if the character asked for help without compensation you shouldn't retroactively enforce such a payment.

Correction 1: Not everything a player leaves out is used to their disadvantage. Rather everthing that needs to be determined that the player leaves to the DM the DM has to fill in. Since the DM is fallible, they can fill in with something that the player did not want. The solution is for the player to specify details that they care about.

Correction 2: The character's player in question did not ask for help without compensation. They left that up to the DM because all they did was state "I want the guard to let us pass. I rolled a ___". I was highlighting that this problem(your negative reaction to the situation) is a direct result of the player forcing the DM to put the argument into the character's mouth rather than just improve the argument's articulation/implementation/form via the die result vs DC.

[Keltest]

No I am not arguing just to argue.

An argument(as in "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.") is the way the diplomancer character attempts to convince their target. Different arguments result in in different expectations from the target.

Your system requires the DM to supply the argument and punishes the DM (via your disapproval/discontent) if they supply an argument that you didn't like the consequences of.

My system requires the Player to supply the argument. Yes this means the player has to think about the situation and chose one of the viable arguments rather than an non viable argument. Just like in Bluff and Intimidate. The result is the Player putting words and social interaction decisions in the character's mouth rather than the DM.

And what happens when your player, not being an inhumanly persuasive diplomancer, is unable to come up with an adequate argument to represent what the character would be saying?

[OldTrees1]

And what happens when your player, not being an inhumanly persuasive diplomancer, is unable to come up with an adequate argument to represent what the character would be saying?

In which way is the argument inadequate?
Articulation? That is the die roll. It would have inhumanly good articulation.
Implementation? That is the die roll. It would have inhumanly good implementation.
Form? That is the die roll. The die roll will turn the naive form of an argument into the sophisticated form or even the inhumanly sophisticated form.

So the only thin left is direction. The argument "Paladin should let us go since we are evil and must be destroyed" would still fail to stop the Paladin's attack if the articulation/implementation/form were at inhuman levels. It would succeed at inhumanly convincing the Paladin that they need to attack you.

But I don't believe that even socially awkward players would be unable to come up with a direction when one exists since nobody here is complaining about Bluff. Even "it is in your best interests to not attack us"* could work in the Paladin example since the articulation/implementation/form is at "inhuman levels".

*A much lower roll might end up with this form(remember end form is the result of the die roll): "You are benefited when your motives are satisfied. Your motives are to increase the good in the world and decrease the evil. By attacking me you increase the resources of your enemies. Instead shouldn't you be focusing on how to learn about evildoers from us so that you are better at redeeming others you come across? For redemption in the only action that is an actual victory for your side." Remember that came from "The argument 'it is in your best interests to not attack us' + I rolled a 30." and that was merely an example of how the form would increase by the die roll. The articulation and implementation would also increase.

[Killer Angel]

Why do we all pretend to forget that modifiers to skills' rolls exist by RAW, and those are determined by the DM (see Page 65 of the Player's Handbook)?
You may roll 54 with diplomacy, but you're doing it in a single round. -10. The paladin knows you're evil (decect evil, or he saw you committing evil acts). Enjoy another -20, for a grand total of -30. You 54 is suddenly a 24, and the paladin is now only "unfriendly" and will arrest you.

You killed the paladin's son? that -30 is a -60 (because yes, it's epic level of difficulty).

[OldTrees1]

Why do we all pretend to forget that modifiers to skills' rolls exist by RAW, and those are determined by the DM (see Page 65 of the Player's Handbook)?
You may roll 54 with diplomacy, but you're doing it in a single round. -10. The paladin knows you're evil (decect evil, or he saw you committing evil acts). Enjoy another -20, for a grand total of -30. You 54 is suddenly a 24, and the paladin is now only "unfriendly" and will arrest you.

You killed the paladin's son? that -30 is a -60 (because yes, it's epic level of difficulty).

Wait, those were forgotten? I assumed everyone remembered the -2 to -20 rules in the DMG (pg 30).

[Kazyan]

Circumstance modifiers are those things you get from Marshals and masterwork tools; any other use of such things is a houserule and bringing it up is Oberoni Fallacy.

Am I doing this right?

[OldTrees1]

Circumstance modifiers are those things you get from Marshals and masterwork tools; any other use of such things is a houserule and bringing it up is Oberoni Fallacy.

Am I doing this right?

Huh?
If serious: pg 30 of the DMG.
If joking: sorry I missed the signal

[Kazyan]

Yes, joking. Phones make blue text cumbersome.

[Andezzar]

I believe when Jay said "used successfully" he meant "used at all". You will never be able to use diplomacy on someone you cannot communicate with, for example, and I could see a rather strong argument in support of the paladin being unwilling to communicate with you.How so? How did he know before three rounds of detect evil that the diplomancer is evil?


A paladin who detects someone is evil knows they've committed evil. The evidence is staring them right in the face. They may not kill them in cold blood, but they have every right to use zone of truth to force a confession out of them -- in fact they may even have a moral obligation to do so.He may know that the character has committed evil, but he a) does not know whether the character has already been punished for the evil he has committed and b) does not necessarily have the authority to punish him just for being evil. He has no evidence of actual wrongdoing. Again pinging on detect evil does not necessarily mean evil alignment.


Why do we all pretend to forget that modifiers to skills' rolls exist by RAW, and those are determined by the DM (see Page 65 of the Player's Handbook)?
You may roll 54 with diplomacy, but you're doing it in a single round. -10. The paladin knows you're evil (decect evil, or he saw you committing evil acts). Enjoy another -20, for a grand total of -30. You 54 is suddenly a 24, and the paladin is now only "unfriendly" and will arrest you.

You killed the paladin's son? that -30 is a -60 (because yes, it's epic level of difficulty).You may want to look at the wording of the rushed job and the OP again. The modifier applies to the die roll. i.e. diplomacy check=d20 + diplomacy modifier +situational modifiers (including those for a rushed job). The OP said diplomacy check=54 any applicable modifiers are already included.

[Segev]

The difficulty with the -2 to -20 penalties due to circumstance is that there is a lot that's subjective there. This isn't a problem, normally, but when faced with what seems to be an adversarial DM, the trust of the players in the DM's fairness is lost, and it starts to feel like a stealth "ha ha you though I'd let you actually use your character? Loser," game.

"The paladin knows you're evil!" is worth the full -20? Really? The additional -30 "circumstance" penalty for "you killed his son" is beyond the rules (other than "rule zero"). And is that really "different circumstances" than "knows you're evil?" Both amount to "he has every reason to not want to heed your blandishments."

Subjective rules are good when there's trust and cooperation between players and DM. But when you start with the tone illustrated by the opening post of this thread, such things become fig leaves to hide the DM's real intent to simply deny the player his mechanics. And we're back to, "You should just ban Diplomacy as a skill."

Because yes, it's within the rules for a DM to give the PCs enough -20 circumstance penalties that they'll auto-fail every skill check. It is not, however, playing "fair" or "doing it right." The DM is equally free to pit the party against monsters that are 20 CR over their level with immunities custom picked to negate every class feature and character ability the PCs have.

[Anlashok]

Frankly I'd say worrying over the minutiae of circumstance penalties and other modifiers is missing the point.

Because before we get to any of that we have a DM who doesn't even acknowledge his player made a roll, doesn't even attempt to justify or explain himself and then proceeds to mock his player for even trying to make a roll. Nevermind the whole 'my paladins are murderous psychopaths who will just murder people on sight if detect evil pings' thing.

Feels like we're way past the point of fuddling over circumstance modifiers there and wholly into "This DM is an *******" territory.

I don't even think the OP's argument of "Well he's a paladin and you're evil" even really applies given that the paladin is one round away from falling in that scenario.

[OldTrees1]

Frankly I'd say worrying over the minutiae of circumstance penalties and other modifiers is missing the point.

Because before we get to any of that we have a DM who doesn't even acknowledge his player made a roll, doesn't even attempt to justify or explain himself and then proceeds to mock his player for even trying to make a roll. Nevermind the whole 'my paladins are murderous psychopaths who will just murder people on sight if detect evil pings' thing.

Feels like we're way past the point of fuddling over circumstance modifiers there and wholly into "This DM is an *******" territory.

I don't even think the OP's argument of "Well he's a paladin and you're evil" even really applies given that the paladin is one round away from falling in that scenario.

I agree that worrying over minutiae is unproductive here. However I wonder if worrying over the specific example in the OP is also worrying over minutiae. We had 2 individuals with clashing positions (this roll is all I need) and (you can't do it even with a high roll). I think we all(or at least a majority) have found issue with at least one side and most have found issue with both sides. So I think the productive course forward would be to propose and discuss resolutions to the clash. However I have been doing that (by proposing a middle ground) and I don't know if progress has been made or not.

[Keltest]

How so? How did he know before three rounds of detect evil that the diplomancer is evil?

Presumably he used 3 of the 10 rounds the diplomancer took to use detect evil. The scenario in the OP does not specify, but it is possible.

[Story]

@Story:"Keep in mind that this kind of skill check is supposed to let you walk across clouds without magic." That's...one interpretation?:smallconfused: I see nothing in the rules that states that, or implies that. What I do see are repeated admonitions to use common sense when adjudicating checks, including giving penalties for especially difficult tasks, as well as determining whether or not a check is even possible.

It's hard to see what kind of common sense makes balancing across a cloud possible but not diplomancing a Paladin.



A paladin who detects someone is evil knows they've committed evil. The evidence is staring them right in the face. They may not kill them in cold blood, but they have every right to use zone of truth to force a confession out of them -- in fact they may even have a moral obligation to do so.


Pinging as evil doesn't necessarily even mean you are evil, let alone have committed evil acts. Besides, most towns have laws about that kind of thing, you can't just go around forcibly interrogating anyone you suspect of being evil.


The argument "Paladin should let us go since we are evil and must be destroyed" would still fail to stop the Paladin's attack if the articulation/implementation/form were at inhuman levels. It would succeed at inhumanly convincing the Paladin that they need to attack you.

Challenge accepted. The Paladin can't be sure of actually destroying us and any attack risks alerting our demonic overlords, so obviously they should help us get to Mount Doom instead.

[Sacrieur]

Pinging as evil doesn't necessarily even mean you are evil, let alone have committed evil acts. Besides, most towns have laws about that kind of thing, you can't just go around forcibly interrogating anyone you suspect of being evil.

Well then you have nothing to hide. I'd call an evil aura reasonable suspicion.

[Andezzar]

Well then you have nothing to hide. I'd call an evil aura reasonable suspicion.I find a creature that does not ping on any of the four detect alignment spells much more suspicious. There aren't that many true neutral creatures.

[OldTrees1]

Challenge accepted. The Paladin can't be sure of actually destroying us and any attack risks alerting our demonic overlords, so obviously they should help us get to Mount Doom instead.
That could work and with a high enough roll would work.

And that is why I like my system since it allows the DM to be surprised and corrected just like Story just surprised and corrected me.

[Brookshw]

And what happens when your player, not being an inhumanly persuasive diplomancer, is unable to come up with an adequate argument to represent what the character would be saying?

Maybe a few examples of arguments would help. If it doesn't have to ne any more spectacular than "its not fair to attack me now" as a statement to go along with the roll it seems trivial to debate and having some form of statement does add a benefit to the game in that it helps a dm frame the results of the diplomacized attitude.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe a few examples of arguments would help. If it doesn't have to ne any more spectacular than "its not fair to attack me now" as a statement to go along with the roll it seems trivial to debate and having some form of statement does add a benefit to the game in that it helps a dm frame the results of the diplomacized attitude.

Thank you. That is indeed the kind of statements/arguments that I would expect and that benefit is the reason why I would expect there being some form of statement(even if done in the 3rd person).

Some examples for the Paladin case:
"It is not fair to attack me now"
"I am out of your jurisdiction"
"Attacking me is not in your best interest"
"We must be destroyed and you can't be sure you can do it now/here"
"I have just made a bad decision recently, that is no reason to kill me"
...

[nyjastul69]

No I am not arguing just to argue.

An argument(as in "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.") is the way the diplomancer character attempts to convince their target. Different arguments result in in different expectations from the target.

Your system requires the DM to supply the argument and punishes the DM (via your disapproval/discontent) if they supply an argument that you didn't like the consequences of.

My system requires the Player to supply the argument. Yes this means the player has to think about the situation and chose one of the viable arguments rather than an non viable argument. Just like in Bluff and Intimidate. The result is the Player putting words and social interaction decisions in the character's mouth rather than the DM.



Correction 1: Not everything a player leaves out is used to their disadvantage. Rather everthing that needs to be determined that the player leaves to the DM the DM has to fill in. Since the DM is fallible, they can fill in with something that the player did not want. The solution is for the player to specify details that they care about.

Correction 2: The character's player in question did not ask for help without compensation. They left that up to the DM because all they did was state "I want the guard to let us pass. I rolled a ___". I was highlighting that this problem(your negative reaction to the situation) is a direct result of the player forcing the DM to put the argument into the character's mouth rather than just improve the argument's articulation/implementation/form via the die result vs DC.

Bluff and Intimidate require no argument as well. The reason is irrelevant. The result is what is important. A player should never be *forced* by the DM to articulate an argument. That's what the roll represents. We seem to have different notions about what a skill roll represents. The roll is not the articulation, its the argument.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The Detect Evil spell allows for varying levels of strength of an alignment aura. Faint, Moderate, Strong, Overpowering. Undead, Outsiders, Evil Clerics higher than 1st level, all detect for at least Moderate evil. A creature who detects for Faint evil is, at most, a 10 HD creature.

A paladin would infer that Moderate evil constitutes a serious threat.

As for too smooth by half... my interpretation of this (and I don't claim it to be anything other than that) is that when someone is that damn good at something, people notice.



Moderate evil: a level 2 Cleric. Also moderate evil: Moist von Lipwig. Also moderate evil: Xxyxx, the Soul Eater, from the Triad of Shadows. Detect evil doesn't really give that much information, unless the only thing that matters is "evil! kiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllll!".

As for the second... that's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. To me, punishing a player for being too good at something is antiethical to the implied contract of the game.

[OldTrees1]

Bluff and Intimidate require no argument as well. The reason is irrelevant. The result is what is important. A player should never be *forced* by the DM to articulate an argument. That's what the roll represents. We seem to have different notions about what a skill roll represents. The roll is not the articulation, its the argument.

If you don't tell me what you want the target to believe, you cannot roll bluff(which determines how well you are at getting them to believe it).

Player: "I walk up to the guard. Bluff roll of 5000."
DM: Ok, why did you roll bluff?

Player: "I walk up the the guard. Intimidate roll of 5000."
DM: "Ok, the guard is terrified of you."
Player: "Why isn't the guard doing what I wanted?"
DM: "You never said what you wanted. You merely rolled a die."

I can understand if you want to play your way, but I don't understand why you are so adamant against the player saying a single statement. It really is a trivial request that communicates what the player wanted to do and it is the die roll that determines how well it was done.

Here maybe brookshw explained it clearer:

Maybe a few examples of arguments would help. If it doesn't have to ne any more spectacular than "its not fair to attack me now" as a statement to go along with the roll it seems trivial to debate and having some form of statement does add a benefit to the game in that it helps a dm frame the results of the diplomacized attitude.

@nyjastul69
So rather than having the player say one of the following

Some examples for the Paladin case:
"It is not fair to attack me now"
"I am out of your jurisdiction"
"Attacking me is not in your best interest"
"We must be destroyed and you can't be sure you can do it now/here"
"I have just made a bad decision recently, that is no reason to kill me"
you are requiring the DM to choose for the player and suffer the player's wrath if the DM failed to read the player's mind?

[Segev]

The player, at a minimum, should be able to articulate the outcome he desires. A valid question for the DM to ask the player might be: "What do you expect the Paladin to do in response to your Diplomacy check?" It is reasonable to expect the player to be more specific than "be fanatical."

The DM is within his rights to say, "the Paladin is not going to fall on the ground and worship you as his new god, no matter your Diplomacy check." Diplomacy is not mind-control. It is, however, unreasonable to say that no positive interaction can occur between the Paladin and the PC if the PC can roll sufficiently high Diplomacy. Some measure of discussion between player and DM is more than appropriate; it is almost required. The player must come up with an outcome that is good enough for him without demanding mind-control level domination of the Paladin's actions.

Another way to approach it would be to ask the player towards what end or goal or cause he wishes the Paladin to become fanatical. Part of Diplomacy is not just persuading people, but reading them well enough to know what it is they want and helping align their view of matters with your goals.

So a high Diplomacy roll might entail the DM telling the player what the Paladin's goals are, and giving suggestions for levers to pull or areas to negotiate over. What would motivate the Paladin to fanaticism? The player, armed with that knowledge and his high roll, can then discuss (IC or OOC) the issue and use it to get a desirable outcome in behavior from the Paladin.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

An outcome and an argument aren't the same. An outcome is "I want to get into the city (which is under quarantine for reasons). I roll bluff." An argument is "I roll bluff to convince the guard that I'm a doctor (and can go into the quarantined city)."

[nyjastul69]

If you don't tell me what you want the target to believe, you cannot roll bluff(which determines how well you are at getting them to believe it).

Player: "I walk up to the guard. Bluff roll of 5000."
DM: Ok, why did you roll bluff?

Player: "I walk up the the guard. Intimidate roll of 5000."
DM: "Ok, the guard is terrified of you."
Player: "Why isn't the guard doing what I wanted?"
DM: "You never said what you wanted. You merely rolled a die."

I can understand if you want to play your way, but I don't understand why you are so adamant against the player saying a single statement. It really is a trivial request that communicates what the player wanted to do and it is the die roll that determines how well it was done.

Here maybe brookshw explained it clearer:


@nyjastul69
So rather than having the player say one of the following

you are requiring the DM to choose for the player and suffer the player's wrath if the DM failed to read the player's mind?

You are misrepresenting my position. I will say again, the player states the intent. The roll represents the argument. As a player I don't need to have any articulation of thought for diplomacy, bluff or intimidate to work. That is what the roll represents. The roll *is* my thought, not my articulation of the thought.

[Andezzar]

If you don't tell me what you want the target to believe, you cannot roll bluff(which determines how well you are at getting them to believe it).

Player: "I walk up to the guard. Bluff roll of 5000."
DM: Ok, why did you roll bluff?

Player: "I walk up the the guard. Intimidate roll of 5000."
DM: "Ok, the guard is terrified of you."
Player: "Why isn't the guard doing what I wanted?"
DM: "You never said what you wanted. You merely rolled a die."

I can understand if you want to play your way, but I don't understand why you are so adamant against the player saying a single statement. It really is a trivial request that communicates what the player wanted to do and it is the die roll that determines how well it was done.

Here maybe brookshw explained it clearer:


@nyjastul69
So rather than having the player say one of the following

you are requiring the DM to choose for the player and suffer the player's wrath if the DM failed to read the player's mind?You have it backwards. The roll is to make the paladin helpful. Once he is helpful you can ask him to do stuff for you. Without being helpful the paladin most likely won't do anything for the silver tongued devil.

Diplomacy has three uses:
-Change the attitude of an NPC
-Negotiate
-Argue an issue before a third party

Getting someone to do something is not (directly) part of the skill, but indirectly a helpful character will do a lot more for the diplomancer than a hostile one, negotiations can lead to one party being obligated to do something for another party and successfully arguing for something can also result in someone doing something

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

[Segev]

You are misrepresenting my position. I will say again, the player states the intent. The roll represents the argument. As a player I don't need to have any articulation of thought for diplomacy, bluff or intimidate to work. That is what the roll represents. The roll *is* my thought, not my articulation of the thought.

Er, I am not sure what you mean from this.

Leaving out your references to "the thought," I glean that you mean that the player must state intended result of his roll, but need not have any idea how the character actually accomplishes it other than "through diplomacy/bluff/intimidation." The roll represents how he expresses himself in a way that (if successful) persuades/dupes/scares the target into giving the intended result. I can agree with this.

When you say "I don't need to have any articulation of thought for diplomacy... The roll *is* my thought, not my articulation of the thought," that seems to fly in the face of this, however. The roll very much is the articulation of your thought. That's the whole point of the roll.

[nyjastul69]

An outcome and an argument aren't the same. An outcome is "I want to get into the city (which is under quarantine for reasons). I roll bluff." An argument is "I roll bluff to convince the guard that I'm a doctor (and can go into the quarantined city)."

I would argue that they are the same. The city is under quarantine. I want to get in. I roll a successful skill check. I'm now in the city. The reason/argument is irrelevant.

[Segev]

You have it backwards. The roll is to make the paladin helpful. Once he is helpful you can ask him to do stuff for you. Without being helpful the paladin most likely won't do anything for the silver tongued devil.

Diplomacy has three uses:
-Change the attitude of an NPC
-Negotiate
-Argue an issue before a third party

Getting someone to do something is not (directly) part of the skill, but indirectly a helpful character will do a lot more for the diplomancer than a hostile one, negotiations can lead to one party being obligated to do something for another party and successfully arguing for something can also result in someone doing something

This is a valid point. It is important, still, to point out that a fanatically helpful attitude is still not mind control; it spells out what he'll do, "up to dying" for your cause to help you out, but things outside that, or things he'd rather die than do, he still probably wouldn't do. You won't get him to betray his boon companions for you, unless the "betrayal" is pretty darned minor. You certainly won't get him to kill innocents on your behalf, nor even commit directly evil deeds; he would die before doing such. He might be eager to suggest alternatives that he is willing to do, however. He is, after all, fanatically helpful.

[Andezzar]

The thought is there:
Player- "My Diplomacy check is... 54. That should render him Helpful."The player successfully used the diplomacy skill to render the paladin helpful.


This is a valid point. It is important, still, to point out that a fanatically helpful attitude is still not mind control; it spells out what he'll do, "up to dying" for your cause to help you out, but things outside that, or things he'd rather die than do, he still probably wouldn't do. You won't get him to betray his boon companions for you, unless the "betrayal" is pretty darned minor. You certainly won't get him to kill innocents on your behalf, nor even commit directly evil deeds; he would die before doing such. He might be eager to suggest alternatives that he is willing to do, however. He is, after all, fanatically helpful.Of course not, and I think noone suggested something like that. It would not make any sense that the paladin would start murdering (yes it is as far as we know unlawful killing) the diplomancer after becoming helpful though.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I would argue that they are the same. The city is under quarantine. I want to get in. I roll a successful skill check. I'm now in the city. The reason is irrelevant.

Getting in is the outcome you want from the roll. The argument - that you're a doctor - is represented by the roll.

Brookshaw said
Maybe a few examples of arguments would help. If it doesn't have to ne any more spectacular than "its not fair to attack me now" as a statement to go along with the roll it seems trivial to debate and having some form of statement does add a benefit to the game in that it helps a dm frame the results of the diplomacized attitude.


I agree that the player needs to say something; what I think he needs is a stated outcome. Any argument can come after.

[OldTrees1]

You are misrepresenting my position. I will say again, the player states the intent. The roll represents the argument. As a player I don't need to have any articulation of thought for diplomacy, bluff or intimidate to work. That is what the roll represents. The roll *is* my thought, not my articulation of the thought.

But you have reacted negatively if the DM fills in a "wrong" argument. Think back to that list of statements I mentioned, a successful check will have subtle differences depending on which of those arguments you are forcing your DM to put in your character's mouth even with the same intent of "Make the paladin stop attacking me". Maybe the Paladin pacified but now hanging around to seek a better opportunity. Or maybe the Paladin is going to hang around trying to redeem you. Maybe the Paladin is going to seek someone with jurisdiction. Maybe the Paladin is just going to apologize and walk away. All of these are valid options for the DM to select from given your insistence on forcing the DM to choose for you. But you seem to care about which of these variations of the outcome happens. So now your DM is forced to read your mind to choose which of these you would be okay with without so much as a hint from you.

Can you see why I would not want to DM for such an anti-DM system? Nor would I, as a Player, want to have the DM decide for my character.


You have it backwards. The roll is to make the paladin helpful. Once he is helpful you can ask him to do stuff for you. Without being helpful the paladin most likely won't do anything for the silver tongued devil.

Diplomacy has three uses:
-Change the attitude of an NPC
-Negotiate
-Argue an issue before a third party

Getting someone to do something is not (directly) part of the skill, but indirectly a helpful character will do a lot more for the diplomancer than a hostile one, negotiations can lead to one party being obligated to do something for another party and successfully arguing for something can also result in someone doing something

All 3 uses can prompt action/inaction since the fine details of the attitude change is another way(is the helpful Paladin going to lock you up for your own good or are they going to assist you on reaching your destination?).


Sidenote: One thing I dislike about this forum is that it takes longer for me to write a response than it takes for 5-7 posts to appear.

[nyjastul69]

But you have reacted negatively if the DM fills in a "wrong" argument. Think back to that list of statements I mentioned, a successful check will have subtle differences depending on which of those arguments you are forcing your DM to put in your character's mouth even with the same intent of "Make the paladin stop attacking me". Maybe the Paladin pacified but now hanging around to seek a better opportunity. Or maybe the Paladin is going to hang around trying to redeem you. Maybe the Paladin is going to seek someone with jurisdiction. Maybe the Paladin is just going to apologize and walk away. All of these are valid options for the DM to select from given your insistence on forcing the DM to choose for you. But you seem to care about which of these variations of the outcome happens. So now your DM is forced to read your mind to choose which of these you would be okay with without so much as a hint from you.

Can you see why I would not want to DM for such an anti-DM system? Nor would I, as a Player, want to have the DM decide for my character.

The DM chooses nothing. The character states its intent. The DM sets a DC. The player does not need to know this DC. The character succeeds or does not succeeded. Again, the reason is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the outcome.

ETA: Why are you hung up about a player having to state a reason to use a skill?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

But you have reacted negatively if the DM fills in a "wrong" argument. Think back to that list of statements I mentioned, a successful check will have subtle differences depending on which of those arguments you are forcing your DM to put in your character's mouth even with the same intent of "Make the paladin stop attacking me". Maybe the Paladin pacified but now hanging around to seek a better opportunity. Or maybe the Paladin is going to hang around trying to redeem you. Maybe the Paladin is going to seek someone with jurisdiction. Maybe the Paladin is just going to apologize and walk away. All of these are valid options for the DM to select from given your insistence on forcing the DM to choose for you. But you seem to care about which of these variations of the outcome happens. So now your DM is forced to read your mind to choose which of these you would be okay with without so much as a hint from you.

Can you see why I would not want to DM for such an anti-DM system? Nor would I, as a Player, want to have the DM decide for my character.


I get what you're saying. As a DM I've generally gone something like reason -> roll -> argument, with the DM and player rollplaying out the encounter after its success or failure has been determined. That's not for everyone, there are definitely pitfalls and possible hazards to such a system. I only play with people I trust and try really hard to keep and build trust between player and DM, so it works for me. The mileage of others may vary.

[OldTrees1]

The DM chooses nothing. The character states its intent. The DM sets a DC. The player does not need to know this DC. If the check is succescull, no description is required. Again, the reason is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the outcome.

I do not understand. I clearly laid out how the part you want to player to leave out impacts the outcome even under a fixed intent and a fixed roll. I must assume you are playing a very simplified social situation where there is no variation. If you are using such a simplified social situation in order to skip that optional part of D&D, then I think we will never agree since the problem I avoid with my solution is manifested only when characters have nuanced social interactions.

[Andezzar]

All 3 uses can prompt action/inaction since the fine details of the attitude change is another way(is the helpful Paladin going to lock you up for your own good or are they going to assist you on reaching your destination?).As far as I can tell from the OP's example all the player wanted to achieve with the diplomacy roll was improve the paladin's attitude and stop him from attacking him. Attacking the PC is not one of the possible actions for a helpful NPC. Once there is no more threat of violence they can start negotiating how the paladin can help him. In those negotiations the silver tongued devil would need a goal (which would probably be to let him go unmolested). It does not necessarily require a rationale why this would be helpful, or why the paladin could reconcile this action with his beliefs.

[erok0809]

But you have reacted negatively if the DM fills in a "wrong" argument. Think back to that list of statements I mentioned, a successful check will have subtle differences depending on which of those arguments you are forcing your DM to put in your character's mouth even with the same intent of "Make the paladin stop attacking me". Maybe the Paladin pacified but now hanging around to seek a better opportunity. Or maybe the Paladin is going to hang around trying to redeem you. Maybe the Paladin is going to seek someone with jurisdiction. Maybe the Paladin is just going to apologize and walk away. All of these are valid options for the DM to select from given your insistence on forcing the DM to choose for you. But you seem to care about which of these variations of the outcome happens. So now your DM is forced to read your mind to choose which of these you would be okay with without so much as a hint from you.

Can you see why I would not want to DM for such an anti-DM system? Nor would I, as a Player, want to have the DM decide for my character.


What he seems to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the DM doesn't have to decide for the character, because the details of how it happened don't matter. If the roll says he succeeded, then he succeeded. What exactly was said and what exactly was done doesn't matter, you skip that part and go right to the result. It removes a lot of the storytelling from the game in the minor details, but seems perfectly valid.

An example, from what I can see, would be:

"I intimidate/bluff/diplomacy the guard to let me pass. I got a *number* on my intimidate/bluff/diplomacy roll."

"Okay, you successfully intimidate/bluff/diplomacy the guard. He lets you pass." OR "Okay, you failed. The guard does not let you pass."

What exactly was said to do the intimidate/bluff/diplomacy doesn't matter, the strength or weakness of the argument is represented by the number on the die. The result, getting past the guard, is the only thing that matters. As the player, there's no reason to put forth the argument, because the roll on the die does it for you. It is a pretty simple social thing, but that's fine for some people. Am I getting this correct?

[Keltest]

Thank you. That is indeed the kind of statements/arguments that I would expect and that benefit is the reason why I would expect there being some form of statement(even if done in the 3rd person).

Some examples for the Paladin case:
"It is not fair to attack me now"
"I am out of your jurisdiction"
"Attacking me is not in your best interest"
"We must be destroyed and you can't be sure you can do it now/here"
"I have just made a bad decision recently, that is no reason to kill me"
...

Then why even force them to work it out in the first place? Either youre giving statistical benefits/restrictions based on their arguments, which isn't at all fair to people who aren't charismatic or diplomatic, or you aren't in which case you've just forced someone to do something that makes them uncomfortable for no reason at all.

[Andezzar]

Am I getting this correct?I think so. And if the player successfully did that the DM should not attach additional strings to that result.

[OldTrees1]

I get what you're saying. As a DM I've generally gone something like reason -> roll -> argument, with the DM and player rollplaying out the encounter after its success or failure has been determined. That's not for everyone, there are definitely pitfalls and possible hazards to such a system. I only play with people I trust and try really hard to keep and build trust between player and DM, so it works for me. The mileage of others may vary.

As you have been describing your system I can see how it works. I was trying for a streamline player input -> dice -> DM conclusion system. You are using a player input -> dice -> DM information -> player & DM conclusion. Your system is more complex but creates much more finely honed social interaction. I think it puts more of a burden on the player's OOC social skills since you roleplay out the articulation/implementation/form while I leave it inside the die roll. But I do not think you punish the player at that part if their OOC skills fall short of their IC roll. The expectation of the performance just requires more effort on the player's OOC skills.

So I do think your system is a better system than mine, even if not everyone is up to the task. I will stick to my streamlined version since it fits my players and myself better.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The thought is there: The player successfully used the diplomacy skill to render the paladin helpful.
A roll of 54 does not automatically succeed - we don't know the DC. The DM is free to set the DC higher than 50, using situational modifiers. I referred to page 65 of the PHB before, and I'll quote it again: "In general, a task considered practically impossible has a DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more to the DC)."

You said earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19398881&postcount=106) that the roll already includes those modifiers, but that's not the case. The roll is entirely on the player's sheet, the DC is what the DM modifies here. After all, the player's ability to speak is not hampered - it's the target that's unusually stubborn.

[Keltest]

I do not understand. I clearly laid out how the part you want to player to leave out impacts the outcome even under a fixed intent and a fixed roll. I must assume you are playing a very simplified social situation where there is no variation. If you are using such a simplified social situation in order to skip that optional part of D&D, then I think we will never agree since the problem I avoid with my solution is manifested only when characters have nuanced social interactions.

The problem is in your scenario the DM has attached an arbitrary penalty to the PC for using their skill in the intended manner that has nothing to do with either the skill check or what had been expressed by the DM at that point. The DM doesn't get to decide that the player bribed the guard as part of their diplomacy action, because nothing about the diplomacy action involves bribery unless accepting a bribe is the stated desired outcome for the check.

The appropriate way to handle that would be to either add a positive modifier to the check (or negative if the guard is lawful and not corrupt), or to alter the DC required in a similar manner if the player indicated they would prefer to progress through bribery. The DM doesn't get to make that call.

[nyjastul69]

I do not understand. I clearly laid out how the part you want to player to leave out impacts the outcome even under a fixed intent and a fixed roll. I must assume you are playing a very simplified social situation where there is no variation. If you are using such a simplified social situation in order to skip that optional part of D&D, then I think we will never agree since the problem I avoid with my solution is manifested only when characters have nuanced social interactions.

You have not clearly laid out anything other than an opinion. What you laid out is your personal interpretation. It lies well outside of any rules discussion. I will state again, the check does not care why, it only cares if you are successful.

[OldTrees1]

What he seems to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the DM doesn't have to decide for the character, because the details of how it happened don't matter. If the roll says he succeeded, then he succeeded. What exactly was said and what exactly was done doesn't matter, you skip that part and go right to the result. It removes a lot of the storytelling from the game in the minor details, but seems perfectly valid.
I see. If the goal is to cut out a lot of the storytelling then that makes sense and is valid. When I made that post I was still assuming that had not been the goal. If that had not been the goal then those detail actually do matter as I had demonstrated several posts above.


Then why even force them to work it out in the first place? Either youre giving statistical benefits/restrictions based on their arguments, which isn't at all fair to people who aren't charismatic or diplomatic, or you aren't in which case you've just forced someone to do something that makes them uncomfortable for no reason at all.

1) Arguments with significant qualitative differences can result in conclusions with qualitative differences even if the intent and roll are kept constant. This is the result of treating NPCs as characters.
2) People who are not charismatic nor diplomatic are not punished under this system.
3) If someone is actually uncomfortable with saying "My character tries to convince the guy that it is not in his best interest to attack my character now. I rolled a 54" then I would be surprised and work with the player to find a solution (including potential removing social interactions from the campaign and running a hack and slash). But I have not encountered anyone uncomfortable with saying something as trivial as that.

TLDR: That would be the unstated 3rd option you left out Keltest.


Edit: And I see we have now reached the point in the thread where people stop reading for comprehension. Good day.

[Keltest]

1) Arguments with significant qualitative differences can result in conclusions with qualitative differences even if the intent and roll are kept constant. This is the result of treating NPCs as characters.
2) People who are not charismatic nor diplomatic are not punished under this system.
3) If someone is actually uncomfortable with saying "My character tries to convince the guy that it is not in his best interest to attack my character now. I rolled a 54" then I would be surprised and work with the player to find a solution (including potential removing social interactions from the campaign and running a hack and slash). But I have not encountered anyone uncomfortable with saying something as trivial as that.

TLDR: That would be the unstated 3rd option you left out Keltest.

That's not what I was talking about. "I convince him that he shouldn't attack me" is a goal, not a method of argument. Likewise "I convince him attacking me is a bad idea" is a goal, and would be an easier check than "I convince him that attacking me would bring down a rain of hellfire on himself and his family for up to 15 generations (if they live that long)."

Both are goals, not arguments.

If you reward people for picking reasonable goals, that's fine. That's not what it seemed like you were saying to me. I apologize if I have misunderstood you.

[nyjastul69]

I see. If the goal is to cut out a lot of the storytelling then that makes sense and is valid. When I made that post I was still assuming that had not been the goal. If that had not been the goal then those detail actually do matter as I had demonstrated several posts above.



1) Arguments with significant qualitative differences can result in conclusions with qualitative differences even if the intent and roll are kept constant. This is the result of treating NPCs as characters.
2) People who are not charismatic nor diplomatic are not punished under this system.
3) If someone is actually uncomfortable with saying "My character tries to convince the guy that it is not in his best interest to attack my character now. I rolled a 54" then I would be surprised and work with the player to find a solution (including potential removing social interactions from the campaign and running a hack and slash). But I have not encountered anyone uncomfortable with saying something as trivial as that.

TLDR: That would be the unstated 3rd option you left out Keltest.


Edit: And I see we have now reached the point in the thread where people stop reading for comprehension. Good day.

There is no storytelling lost. It's just a matter of how it is represented. Also, I'm a firm beleiver that the DM does not tell the story, the players do.

[Andezzar]

A roll of 54 does not automatically succeed - we don't know the DC. The DM is free to set the DC higher than 50, using situational modifiers. I referred to page 65 of the PHB before, and I'll quote it again: "In general, a task considered practically impossible has a DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more to the DC)."

You said earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19398881&postcount=106) that the roll already includes those modifiers, but that's not the case. The roll is entirely on the player's sheet, the DC is what the DM modifies here. After all, the player's ability to speak is not hampered - it's the target that's unusually stubborn.The DC for changing an NPC's attitude is delineated in the description of the diplomacy skill. Why should changing a paladin from hostile to helpful be inherently different to changing the attitude of any other hostile creature (especially evil ones)? Arbitrarily making one more difficult than the other makes no sense and only infuriates the players.

Secondly the examples on p. 65 all are actions that go above and beyond what is normally possible with a skill (opening a lock with a single kick, swimming up a waterfall etc.). Changing the attitude of an NPC is not above and beyond what the skill should be able to do. A paladin has no abilities that make him more difficult to influence.

Thirdly the OP's example never said that the roll of 54 failed. The DM totally ignored the successful diplomacy check and had the paladin continue attacking the PC.

BTW I meant any modifiers to the skill check i.e. for rushing the job, synergy bonuses etc.), not arbitrarily increasing the DC. Unless you rule 0ed the DC you need a 50 to get an NPC from hostile to helpless. With a roll of 54 that check succeeds. Period.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The DC for changing an NPC's attitude is delineated in the description of the diplomacy skill. Why should changing a paladin from hostile to helpful be inherently different to changing the attitude of any other hostile creature (especially evil ones)? Arbitrarily making one more difficult than the other makes no sense and only infuriates the players.

Secondly the examples on p. 65 all are actions that go above and beyond what is normally possible with a skill (opening a lock with a single kick, swimming up a waterfall etc.). Changing the attitude of an NPC is not above and beyond what the skill should be able to do. A paladin has no abilities that make him more difficult to influence.

Thirdly the OP's example never said that the roll of 54 failed. The DM totally ignored the successful diplomacy check and had the paladin continue attacking the PC.
Why should a hostile commoner be as easy to pacify as a hostile aristocrat? Why is everyone assigned the same DC? Diplomacy is the most boring skill if you use it like that.

Convincing a paladin, who has used detect evil, who has determined that you are evil*, that you should not be apprehended, is on the same level as opening a lock with a single kick. It's not beyond possibility that you succeed, but it's a lot less likely than convincing Mr. Common R. No-Name the Fourth This Week of the same thing. It would be very odd to use the same flat DC for every NPC, no matter how they are bound by rules in-universe. That's exactly what the DM's discretion is about, especially for a skill like diplomacy, which, as written, always does the same thing at the same DC. In my opinion, a DM not applying rule 0 to vary diplomacy DCs is not using the skill right, especially in a diplomacy-heavy game (variation is nice, and media training is a thing - some NPCs will be more resistant to M. Hobo running up and having a chat).

You are, of course, right in your third point. Ignoring a roll made - any roll - is bad. I also wrote that before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19395729&postcount=43): "If you decide that the task is practically impossible, you have to set the DC ahead of time (at your normal DC +20, +40 or higher, but at some point you should declare it impossible). In this situation, maybe you'd want to write the target number down, to show your player afterwards." As soon as the player announces they try to reason with the paladin, the DM must give a hint ('the paladin doesn't look too happy to talk') and assign a DC, before he sees the player's bonus or roll. Once the roll is made, it's too late to change the result.


*And not merely incidentally involved in a single evil act - the paladin will try to apprehend you either way, but respond differently to a diplomacy attempt.

[Andezzar]

Why should a hostile commoner be as easy to pacify as a hostile aristocrat? Why is everyone assigned the same DC? Diplomacy is the most boring skill if you use it like that.Changing the attitude of an NPC should be an opposed roll but unfortunately it is a set DC. The OP mentioned nothing about house rules.


Convincing a paladin, who has used detect evil, who has determined that you are evil*, that you should not be apprehended, is on the same level as opening a lock with a single kick.I disagree. Pinging on detect evil does not mean that the paladin has the duty or even the right to attack the PC. That is if the paladin even managed to get that information before the PC completed the diplomacy. Knowing who is evil requires three rounds, diplomacy can be done in one full-round action. If the mere ping gave a paladin the licence to kill, he would be allowed nay obligated to exterminate 50% of all random NPCs. Now if that wasn't silly.

We have no indication from the OP that the PC threatened the paladin in any way or that the paladin had any knowledge of the PC's wrongdoings beyond the ping.


It's not beyond possibility that you succeed, but it's a lot less likely than convincing Mr. Common R. No-Name the Fourth This Week of the same thing. It would be very odd to use the same flat DC for every NPC, no matter how they are bound by rules in-universe.If both were hellbent on killing the PC, I don't see why the DC should be different. If Mr. Common R. is not as hostile in the beginning, the PC would have it easier.

That's exactly what the DM's discretion is about, especially for a skill like diplomacy, which, as written, always does the same thing at the same DC.I see nothing wrong with applying the same rules to the same situation. That's how a game should work.


In my opinion, a DM not applying rule 0 to vary diplomacy DCs is not using the skill right, especially in a diplomacy-heavy game (variation is nice, and media training is a thing - some NPCs will be more resistant to M. Hobo running up and having a chat).That would be very sensible house rule, but such house rules would have to be established beforehand. The rules say that the ease of the attitude adjustment depends on the initial attitude but not on the type of NPC. If the player rolls 54 he should be able to expect a helpful NPC, whether that is a paladin, a red dragon or Mr Common R. that is just the way the game works. Changing that without prior notice is like this
Player: "So let's see, the gaming board indicates that the chasm is 10 ft wide, I am 20ft from the edge and have 30ft movement".
*rolls d20*
P: "14. that should be enough to cross the chasm."
DM: "You fall."
P: "The DC for such a jump is 10. I rolled a 14. Why isn't that enough to cross, let alone grab onto the ledge?"
DM: "It's Thursday."
P: :smallfurious:


You are, of course, right in your third point. Ignoring a roll made - any roll - is bad. I also wrote that before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19395729&postcount=43): "If you decide that the task is practically impossible, you have to set the DC ahead of time (at your normal DC +20, +40 or higher, but at some point you should declare it impossible). In this situation, maybe you'd want to write the target number down, to show your player afterwards." As soon as the player announces they try to reason with the paladin, the DM must give a hint ('the paladin doesn't look too happy to talk') and assign a DC, before he sees the player's bonus or roll. Once the roll is made, it's too late to change the result.Not looking too happy to talk is quite an understatement if the player expects a hostile paladin anyway. I would not deduce an increased DC for attempting something nearly impossible from that sentence.

[NichG]

You have not clearly laid out anything other than an opinion. What you laid out is your personal interpretation. It lies well outside of any rules discussion. I will state again, the check does not care why, it only cares if you are successful.

The rules absolutely do care. The system you're proposing is actually far, far more abstracted than D&D by RAW, because it reduces an arbitrary sequence of state variables to a single yes/no question, where the skills you're proposing to do that do not actually have the power to reduce all those state variables down even by RAW.

You can't, by RAW, roll a single attack roll to resolve an entire combat, because that's not what the rules for attack rolls do. You can't, by RAW, roll Diplomacy to get into a city because that's not what the rules for Diplomacy do. You can perhaps use it as part of a plan to get into a city, but it is not in-of-itself empowered to do that specific thing - Diplomacy is not a teleport spell.

[Andezzar]

You can however change a single NPC's attitude to helpful with diplomacy. Unless the DM arbitrarily changes the DC a roll of 50+ will do that to any NPC. That is explicitly in the rules.

[NichG]

You can however change a single NPC's attitude to helpful with diplomacy. Unless the DM arbitrarily changes the DC a roll of 50+ will do that to any NPC. That is explicitly in the rules.

That is different than the resolution method he was describing though, which comes to the point about how much detail the player needs to provide. 'The Guard is Helpful' doesn't equate to 'I am in the city'.

[Banjoman42]

I disagree. Pinging on detect evil does not mean that the paladin has the duty or even the right to attack the PC. That is if the paladin even managed to get that information before the PC completed the diplomacy. Knowing who is evil requires three rounds, diplomacy can be done in one full-round action. If the mere ping gave a paladin the licence to kill, he would be allowed nay obligated to exterminate 50% of all random NPCs. Now if that wasn't silly.



I think ExLibrisMortis's point was not justification for the paladin attacking the PC as much as a the DC for influencing the paladin would be higher to influence the paladin. It's perfectly reasonable to be unwilling to listen to someone if you are a champion of justice and there is a chance they are evil.

[Andezzar]

That is different than the resolution method he was describing though, which comes to the point about how much detail the player needs to provide. 'The Guard is Helpful' doesn't equate to 'I am in the city'.
No, but you will have a much easier time asking a helpful guard to let you in than a hostile guard. I can't find an instance where someone claimed that changing an NPC's attitude would directly cause the NPC to do something.

I think ExLibrisMortis's point was not justification for the paladin attacking the PC as much as a the DC for influencing the paladin would be higher to influence the paladin. It's perfectly reasonable to be unwilling to listen to someone if you are a champion of justice and there is a chance they are evil.The OP's example neither cleared up whether the paladin actually knew this, nor that the roll of 54 actually failed. On top of that it actually is not reasonable, as in there is no reason for making the paladin in particular unwilling to listen. The rules do not support such a decision any more than making each and every commoner the PC tires to influence the most obstinate person in the world and also increasing the DC to an arbitrarily high number instead of using the 50 as the rules say.

You may also want to look at the possible actions for a hostile NPC. They are limited to "Attack, interfere, berate, flee", that pretty strongly implies an unwillingness to talk. There is no reason to make the paladin's unwillingness greater than the unwillingness of any other hostile NPC.

[nyjastul69]

The rules absolutely do care. The system you're proposing is actually far, far more abstracted than D&D by RAW, because it reduces an arbitrary sequence of state variables to a single yes/no question, where the skills you're proposing to do that do not actually have the power to reduce all those state variables down even by RAW.

You can't, by RAW, roll a single attack roll to resolve an entire combat, because that's not what the rules for attack rolls do. You can't, by RAW, roll Diplomacy to get into a city because that's not what the rules for Diplomacy do. You can perhaps use it as part of a plan to get into a city, but it is not in-of-itself empowered to do that specific thing - Diplomacy is not a teleport spell.

I proposed no system. State variables? That isn't relevant at all. I never said diplomacy could teleport a creature. I can't make much sense of your post.

The diplomacy skill does not care about the argument. The roll *is* the argument. I state my intent to use the skill. The roll is successful or not. Can we agree on this? It seems that there are people that think in order for a character to use diplomacy the player must present an argument/reason. It really doesn't. It's fun, it's full of flavor, and it's 100% not required.

ETA: I'm begining to think that 3rd person gaming is an oddity.

[Banjoman42]

I proposed no system. State variables? That isn't relevant at all. I never said diplomacy could teleport a creature. I can't make much sense of your post.

The diplomacy skill does not care about the argument. The roll *is* the argument. I state my intent to use the skill. The roll is successful or not. Can we agree on this? It seems that there are people that think in order for a character to use diplomacy the player must present an argument/reason. That is not his the rules work.
It doesn't state anywhere that the player does/doesn't need to present an argument/reason. The player, IMO, should provide a argument/reason so that the NPC can respond in a non-immersion breaking way. If we reduce talking to just stating goals of checks and rolls, the game sort of dries up a bit whenever the PCs aren't smashing things.

[atemu1234]

Why are we forgetting a very important part of D&D?

All things can fall, or be convinced to do something different.

A paladin posed a significantly nuanced argument could decide to fall. Hell, even Angels fall, and they're literally made to represent the ideals of their deities!

And more importantly, not lying doesn't mean telling the truth. A diplomacy check can fool someone as much as a bluff check, and both can be undone.

[Flickerdart]

If we reduce talking to just stating goals of checks and rolls, the game sort of dries up a bit whenever the PCs aren't smashing things.
How is "I attack him with my axe, I rolled a 17" any different from "I convince him to step aside, I rolled a 17"?

[eggynack]

How is "I attack him with my axe, I rolled a 17" any different from "I convince him to step aside, I rolled a 17"?
I don't think there is much of one, and standard melee combat has always struck me as somewhat boring as a result, but there's a lot of difference between that and some of the more complicated combat based systems, like magic or maneuvers. Not saying I agree with the premise of the thread, as it strikes me as somewhat silly that a high diplomacy roll would somehow yield a worse result, or that a paladin is physically incapable of building any sort of relationship with unsavory elements, but simple roll/result stuff isn't all that much fun to me.

[LokeyITP]

Curious how Tippyverse handles Diplo. I really see no way to make it workable RAW.

Think about it, you don't need levels, good classes, items, skill ranks, nothing. Just some friends who aid another (which can be done in combat). You get those friends by using diplo until they're friendly, there's no consequences for failure beyond some dm may do something. How is that even workable?

[Telonius]

For the first scenario, here's my read on it. First off, I do take players' abilities into account if they have a real-life Charisma penalty but are playing a high-charisma character. While I could probably find a few people who could act the part of having a result of 54 (I do live near Washington DC) your average gamer just isn't capable of coming up with something that convincing. After a certain point, it just gets silly to expect someone to roleplay that out for real. Still, I'd ask the player to give me some sort of an idea what he's trying to get the Paladin to do or think. "Refrain from immediately killing me" would be a perfectly acceptable answer; I'd suggest a couple of options for that. ("Well, you could try to surrender, you could try to convince him that it's his duty to take you alive if possible, you could call for a parley...")

I'm going to assume that the Paladin thinks (for whatever reason) that it's his duty as a Paladin to attack you. Corrupting a Paladin who has a sword at your throat is Sauron-level manipulation. Having a result of 54 in Diplomacy should be able to do something - otherwise you've invalidated the one shtick that he's built his whole character around. But that something is not necessarily going to be letting you go with a smile and a wave. He's not going to abandon the beliefs he's dedicated his life to, just because he thinks you're a decent guy. At most, what you'd probably get would be an additional chance to surrender, free transit to a jail cell while you await trial, and an offer to investigate the matter further before the execution is carried out. Keep making those Diplomacy checks, and you might get somewhere with his loyalties, but he isn't going to throw away his whole life based on a rushed Diplomacy check. Even Sauron needed time to pull off something like that.


For Scenario 2, that's actually a bit more understandable, though it would probably involve Bluff as much as Diplomacy. I could see somebody making the most ridiculous apology convincing enough to get him to put down the pitchforks and torches.

It might get you just enough time to run away (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftt4f2H3GDs).

[nyjastul69]

How is "I attack him with my axe, I rolled a 17" any different from "I convince him to step aside, I rolled a 17"?

There is no difference. Well said.

[ShaneMRoth]

... Having a result of 54 in Diplomacy should be able to do something - otherwise you've invalidated the one shtick that he's built his whole character around. ...

This goes back to the saying that when you hand a man a hammer, all problems tend to look like nails.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being a master swordsman, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved by stabbing it is not invalidating his shtick.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being an arcane spellcaster, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved with spells it is not invalidating his shtick.

Ruling that some people's attitudes can't be adjusted by Diplomacy, by virtue of in-context circumstances, is no less appropriate than presenting non-combat scenario to an optimized fighter or a non-spell scenario to a wizard.

[Shackel]

This goes back to the saying that when you hand a man a hammer, all problems tend to look like nails.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being a master swordsman, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved by stabbing it is not invalidating his shtick.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being an arcane spellcaster, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved with spells it is not invalidating his shtick.

Ruling that some people's attitudes can't be adjusted by Diplomacy, by virtue of in-context circumstances, is no less appropriate than presenting non-combat scenario to an optimized fighter or a non-spell scenario to a wizard.

You could easily change this to say that ruling that some people just can't be hit by virtue of "in-context circumstances" over the mechanics of the game saying otherwise is no less appropriate. Even further, if a player builds his entire shtick around being an arcane spellcaster, suddenly ruling that this certain enemy is immune to magic, or suddenly ruling that AC just didn't matter on this corporeal enemy in the open because you said so without any kind of mechanical backing or, presumably, precedent is invalidating his shtick.

Because that means that any and every Diplomacy roll from then on out could be nullified with a shrug and, due to the hostility shown by their DM, likely will be whenever they don't want them to use it. Even when it would work with flying colors.

[Andezzar]

@Telonious: What the player tried to do does not have any goal beyond changing the attitude by RAW. Changing the attitude, does not make the target do anything, but it limits possible actions of the NPC. Attacking is possible for hostile NPCs it is not for helpful ones see the sidebar on p. 72 of the PHB. Imprisoning the silver tongued devil for his own good is stretching the ability to "Protect, back up, heal, aid" pretty far. It also goes against the grain of wishing the PC well which the lesser success of turning the paladin friendly would mean.


This goes back to the saying that when you hand a man a hammer, all problems tend to look like nails.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being a master swordsman, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved by stabbing it is not invalidating his shtick.True, but it is not the case here. Here it is a case of arbitrarily deciding that an equivalent situation cannot be solved in the usual manner. It's like fighting normal goblins without any indication for any special powers or gear and saying a natural 20 (or an attack roll that is way beyond any AC such a creature could have) will not hit or the hit won't do anything.


If a player builds his entire shtick around being an arcane spellcaster, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved with spells it is not invalidating his shtick.True, but see above. It's also much more difficult to find challenges that can't eb solved with spells than challenges that can't be solved by swinging a sword.


Ruling that some people's attitudes can't be adjusted by Diplomacy, by virtue of in-context circumstances, is no less appropriate than presenting non-combat scenario to an optimized fighter or a non-spell scenario to a wizard.No, it is something completely different. You arbitrarily deny someone the use of a skill instead of not providing a situation where the skill can be used. The PHB makes no distinction between different hostile non-mindless NPCs, and so the player should not expect the DM making such a distinction. A player on the other hand can expect that there are NPCs that are either mindless or don't share a common language with the PC. Or that some challenges don't involve NPCs at all (traps etc.)

[Extra Anchovies]

Ruling that some people's attitudes can't be adjusted by Diplomacy, by virtue of in-context circumstances, is no less appropriate than presenting non-combat scenario to an optimized fighter or a non-spell scenario to a wizard.

This isn't a good comparison.

Presenting a diplomacy-focused character with an (intelligent, sentient) NPC whose attitude cannot be influenced by Diplomacy is more like having a martial character encounter an enemy immune to weapon damage - not necessarily bad, but also something that should be used sparingly. The diplomacy equivalent to the martial's noncombat encounter is an encounter with a mindless enemy, or with an NPC who does not share a language with the diplomancer.

That isn't to say that every encounter should be solvable by diplomacy, but it should at least do something when non-combat interaction is called for. Changing someone's attitude to helpful doesn't mean they'll carry out your every whim. All it does is add "protect, back up, heal, aid" to the list of actions they may be willing to perform on the PC's behalf. What exactly that means is up to the person controlling the NPC - and that is where DM influence comes in. Not in whether a check can be made, not in whether the NPC's attitude is successfully altered, but in how the NPC responds after the attitude change. They may be no more willing to cooperate with the PC than they were before the Diplomacy check.

[Roga]

If I build a character focused on Sneak Attacking, yeah undead are going to stymie him sometimes.
If I build a spellcaster who focuses on magic missiles, a shield spell or a golem is going to rain on my parade.
The thing is, that's just how the mechanics work. Declaring an opponent immune to diplomacy simply because he's not inclined to talk is the same as saying they're immune to critical hits or have unbeatable spell resistance simply because they aren't in the mood to get hit.

You have a point with the hammer and nails, but that's not the argument in my eyes. Present the challenges in the rules. If this paladin has suspicions he can bewitch him with words if given the chance, have someone cast silence on something he can bring to the confrontation. You need to prevent diplomacy if that's the goal, not negate it by whim. If you want to house rule it your way, by all means do. Just inform the players beforehand. Doing it after the fact is just mean-spirited.

Edit: My point has beaten to the punch.

[Andezzar]

Well said, Roga.

[Telonius]

This goes back to the saying that when you hand a man a hammer, all problems tend to look like nails.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being a master swordsman, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved by stabbing it is not invalidating his shtick.

If a player builds his entire shtick around being an arcane spellcaster, occasionally presenting him with a challenge that can't be solved with spells it is not invalidating his shtick.

Ruling that some people's attitudes can't be adjusted by Diplomacy, by virtue of in-context circumstances, is no less appropriate than presenting non-combat scenario to an optimized fighter or a non-spell scenario to a wizard.

When a swordsman's sword doesn't work at all on a roll of 54, there's usually a good mechanical reason for it. The enemy has DR, or miss chance, or is incorporeal, or has a completely ridiculous AC, or it's actually an illusion. Those circumstances are all built into the rules. It's generally kosher to bring those situations up because a player has general knowledge about the conditions under which their preferred tactic will fail; and it's not going to fail all the time. It isn't just the DM deciding that Bob the Cabbage Salesman is immune to swords because plot, or sending nothing but undead against a party with a Rogue.

The problem with the social skills is that there isn't any written list of how a person can get immunity to Diplomacy checks. There are clearly situations where it's reasonable to say, "No, that's not going to happen," but just by the nature of the skill you would never be able to write them all down. So calibrating the player's expectations is a bit trickier. If the player can't tell when his tactic is not going to be a valid one, or he can't tell what he can achieve by a stratospheric roll, he's going to feel like he's being told "no" for no good reason.

[ShaneMRoth]

I kept the original post light on details for brevity.

If circumstances allow a Diplomacy check, then fairness requires that it works completely. If a PC can modify an NPC's attitude in any way, then he must be able to get the full range of attitude changes. All the way to Fanatic at Epic levels. Modifying the mechanic to limit the range of Diplomacy is a half measure.

One of the reasons that the Paladin in the original post is not responding to Diplomacy is because I have ruled that there is no amount of diplomacy will ever cause the Paladin to change his attitude towards a creature he knows is evil. (DM discretion is baked into this example.)

A Paladin who is knowingly helpful to an Evil person is at risk of a gross violation of his code of conduct. (Knowingly associating with evil.) No amount of Diplomacy is going to get an NPC Paladin to forget that. I will never allow a PC to get a Paladin NPC to fall from grace with any number of Diplomacy Checks. I'm not even going to set a DC for it.

In so far as the aggrieved father character is concerned, it is variation on the same theme. If I allow the father's attitude to be influenced by his son's murderer by Diplomacy to any degree, then I am obliged to allow the full range of attitude influence.

I am ruling this absolutely impossible with a mundane skill, not even 'practically' impossible. Not even at Epic levels. I'm not even going to set a DC for it. Not even a DC of 9,001.

Some people can't be reasoned with. Even in an epic fantasy setting.

Edit: And the unreasonable nature of Paladins is the stuff of legend in fantasy settings.

And yes, I'm ruling that this evil Diplomancer might be able to swim up a waterfall (DC:80) but he will never talk that Paladin into being helpful.

I don't consider these rulings to be arbitrary. These are rulings made in strict context.

[Extra Anchovies]

I kept the original post light on details for brevity.

If circumstances allow a Diplomacy check, then fairness requires that it works completely. If a PC can modify an NPC's attitude in any way, then he must be able to get the full range of attitude changes. All the way to Fanatic at Epic levels. Modifying the mechanic to limit the range of Diplomacy is a half measure.

One of the reasons that the Paladin in the original post is not responding to Diplomacy is because I have ruled that there is no amount of diplomacy will ever cause the Paladin to change his attitude towards a creature he knows is evil. (DM discretion is baked into this example.)

A Paladin who is knowingly helpful to an Evil person is at risk of a gross violation of his code of conduct. (Knowingly associating with evil.) No amount of Diplomacy is going to get an NPC Paladin to forget that. I will never allow a PC to get a Paladin NPC to fall from grace with any number of Diplomacy Checks. I'm not even going to set a DC for it.

In so far as the aggrieved father character is concerned, it is variation on the same theme. If I allow the father's attitude to be influenced by his son's murderer by Diplomacy to any degree, then I am obliged to allow the full range of attitude influence.

I am ruling this absolutely impossible with a mundane skill, not even 'practically' impossible. Not even at Epic levels. I'm not even going to set a DC for it. Not even a DC of 9,001.

Some people can't be reasoned with. Even in an epic fantasy setting.

Edit: And the unreasonable nature of Paladins is the stuff of legend in fantasy settings.

I don't consider these rulings to be arbitrary. These are rulings made in strict context.

That's as may be, but that's all your ruling. We don't play by your houserules on this forum, because your houserules are not the same as my houserules, or anyone else's for that matter. We play by the actual rules, the written rules, because none of us can safely assume that everyone else interprets or implements the rules in the same way as we do.

At this point I honestly have no idea what the point of this thread even is. You seem to have started it so that you can tell us we're all wrong because you have houserules.

[Curmudgeon]

Player- "...the rules say right here that I can influence the attitude of NPCs."
So, how would you resolve the encounter?
A PC can try to influence the attitude of an NPC with an unopposed Diplomacy check, but that's not guaranteed to be an available option. The NPC is free to instead oppose that check with their own Diplomacy check to negotiate instead of being influenced. Even if the PC gains the advantage, exactly what that entails is up to the DM. And that's how I'd resolve the encounter, by using the actual RAW rather than making up an unnecessary house rule.

[ShaneMRoth]

The NPC is free to instead oppose that check with their own Diplomacy check to negotiate instead of being influenced. Even if the PC gains the advantage, exactly what that entails is up to the DM. And that's how I'd resolve the encounter, by using the actual RAW rather than making up an unnecessary house rule.

I don't think that the mechanics of the Diplomacy skill provide for opposed checks when attempting to influence an NPC attitude.

[AvatarVecna]

I kept the original post light on details for brevity.

If circumstances allow a Diplomacy check, then fairness requires that it works completely. If a PC can modify an NPC's attitude in any way, then he must be able to get the full range of attitude changes. All the way to Fanatic at Epic levels. Modifying the mechanic to limit the range of Diplomacy is a half measure.

One of the reasons that the Paladin in the original post is not responding to Diplomacy is because I have ruled that there is no amount of diplomacy will ever cause the Paladin to change his attitude towards a creature he knows is evil. (DM discretion is baked into this example.)

A Paladin who is knowingly helpful to an Evil person is at risk of a gross violation of his code of conduct. (Knowingly associating with evil.) No amount of Diplomacy is going to get an NPC Paladin to forget that. I will never allow a PC to get a Paladin NPC to fall from grace with any number of Diplomacy Checks. I'm not even going to set a DC for it.

In so far as the aggrieved father character is concerned, it is variation on the same theme. If I allow the father's attitude to be influenced by his son's murderer by Diplomacy to any degree, then I am obliged to allow the full range of attitude influence.

I am ruling this absolutely impossible with a mundane skill, not even 'practically' impossible. Not even at Epic levels. I'm not even going to set a DC for it. Not even a DC of 9,001.

Some people can't be reasoned with. Even in an epic fantasy setting.

Edit: And the unreasonable nature of Paladins is the stuff of legend in fantasy settings.

I don't consider these rulings to be arbitrary. These are rulings made in strict context.

Now see, I wouldn't personally make Paladins beyond negotiation in my games, even from completely evil sources. Mostly, this is because Diplomacy is not Mind Control, and is primarily persuasive in nature: a PC only gets to make a Diplomacy check if the thing they were trying to accomplish is an attempt at honest persuasion, rather than deception or intimidation; even if the check is successful in turning a person from Hostile to Helpful, that only means that the person is treating you that way in regards to whatever it is you were using Diplomacy to accomplish. Helpful may make a person treat you as if you were their best friend in regards to that request, but that doesn't change the fact that there are something you wouldn't do, even for your best friend.

For example, imagine you were best friends with Superman Clark Kent since childhood, and you called him up one day in adult life asking if he would help you rob a bank; even if you clearly spelled out how easy it would be to get away with the robbery, how much money the two of you could make on this, how easy it would be to pull off, and how much this would mean to him as a friend, that doesn't change the fact that Superman is going to make sure you get caught, whether by calling the police, or by interfering himself. It sucks that his best friend turned to crime and all, but he's not going to sacrifice his morals to aid a friend in walking down the path of evil.

That being said, there are times when even a paladin, confronted by a remorseless EVIL person who is attempting to use Diplomacy on him, will hear him out; it all depends on the circumstances. Even if the vile villain succeeds on their check, the paladin isn't going to burn down the puppy orphanage just because some evil butthead told to do it really persuasively. However, if said person pleads with the paladin to do this thing that isn't evil at all, and is in fact pretty good (like funding the puppy orphanage to keep it from closing, because it's where the villain was raised when he was a puppy).

The fact of the matter is, there's very few beings in the world who are completely and remorselessly EVIL (with evils outsiders, undead, and certain other monsters being the exceptions), and most of those people have some measure of a moral code that guides them. Part of being a paladin is trying to help people better themselves, and granting requests like that which are wholy good in nature is the kind of thing a paladin should do, and should be able to do by the rules. I wouldn't houserule paladins to be immune to Evil Diplomancy because Diplomancy doesn't turn the paladin into the Evil Diplomancer's slave; instead, if the Evil Diplomancer was trying to request something reasonable and good, I'd adjust the paladin code to allow the paladin to do the Good thing without falling.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't think that the mechanics of the Diplomacy skill provide for opposed checks when attempting to influence an NPC attitude.
You've got that backwards, actually. You can change the attitudes of NPC with an unopposed check, but the NPC is free to oppose any check you make. Nowhere in the skill description is there stated any power to remove freedom of action from NPCs regarding their skill use.

[bekeleven]

The diplomacy skill does not care about the argument. The roll *is* the argument. I state my intent to use the skill. The roll is successful or not. Can we agree on this?
Rolling a diplomacy and saying "I social him" is the same as walking up to an enemy with six weapons on your belt and saying "I conflict him."

You don't have to swing the sword, and you don't have to argue well. But always state your goals and, if possible, a means to achieve it - no matter how unlikely it may be, your diplomancer can make a case.

[Extra Anchovies]

The fact of the matter is, there's very few beings in the world who are completely and remorselessly EVIL (with evil outsiders, undead, and certain other monsters being the exceptions)

Tell that to Eludecia (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) and the good Liches from Monsters of Faerun :smalltongue:

[ShaneMRoth]

...
Rolling a diplomacy and saying "I social him" is the same as walking up to an enemy with six weapons on your belt and saying "I combat him."
...

I prefer to say, "I Diplomacy the bejeezus out of him."

[NichG]

No, but you will have a much easier time asking a helpful guard to let you in than a hostile guard. I can't find an instance where someone claimed that changing an NPC's attitude would directly cause the NPC to do something.

The claim was actually even more extreme than that.

From previous posts:

I would argue that they are the same. The city is under quarantine. I want to get in. I roll a successful skill check. I'm now in the city. The reason/argument is irrelevant.


You have not clearly laid out anything other than an opinion. What you laid out is your personal interpretation. It lies well outside of any rules discussion. I will state again, the check does not care why, it only cares if you are successful.

Does my objection make sense now? This goes beyond 'the Diplomacy skill changes the NPC's state' to 'the Diplomacy skill is proposed to be the solution of an arbitrary abstract problem, a DC is assigned, and if the check beats the DC then the arbitrary abstract problem is resolved'. Its more like 4ed's skill challenges than how 3.5ed skills work.



I proposed no system. State variables? That isn't relevant at all. I never said diplomacy could teleport a creature. I can't make much sense of your post.

The diplomacy skill does not care about the argument. The roll *is* the argument. I state my intent to use the skill. The roll is successful or not. Can we agree on this? It seems that there are people that think in order for a character to use diplomacy the player must present an argument/reason. It really doesn't. It's fun, it's full of flavor, and it's 100% not required.

ETA: I'm begining to think that 3rd person gaming is an oddity.

If you don't present an argument or reason, you don't give the DM anything to use to allow for uses of the skill even one iota beyond what the book explicitly says it does, which is just to change an NPC's feelings towards the PC. So you can't just 'use Diplomacy to get into a city under quarantine', by RAW you would have to at minimum 'use Diplomacy to change the guard to Helpful, then given a Helpful guard you must request the guard to do something consistent with being in the state Helpful that also leads to you being inside the city'. E.g. if you never say the words 'please let me in', then by RAW the guard just stands there Helpfully and nothing progresses. Even by RAW, the player is the one responsible for making the connection between how making the guard Helpful solves the overall situation.

Now, if you make the argument 'the guard is the reason we can't enter the city; if the guard likes us enough, he'll agree sneak us in even though his job is to keep us out; therefore, if I use Diplomacy that should get us into the city' then you as a player are actually providing the reason/argument, and that can go ahead. But of course the DM might disagree 'even a guard who is best-buds with someone might not let them into a quarantined zone where they're likely to catch a deadly plague and die', and so on.

[Amphetryon]

Rolling a diplomacy and saying "I social him" is the same as walking up to an enemy with six weapons on your belt and saying "I conflict him."

You don't have to swing the sword, and you don't have to argue well. But always state your goals and, if possible, a means to achieve it - no matter how unlikely it may be, your diplomancer can make a case.

So, declaring the intent to attack, rolling the dice, and having the DM describe the outcome based on the roll is WrongBadFun?

[Killer Angel]

Frankly I'd say worrying over the minutiae of circumstance penalties and other modifiers is missing the point.


Anlashok is not wrong, but, leaving aside that for a moment:



You may want to look at the wording of the rushed job and the OP again. The modifier applies to the die roll. i.e. diplomacy check=d20 + diplomacy modifier +situational modifiers (including those for a rushed job). The OP said diplomacy check=54 any applicable modifiers are already included.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in the OP there's merely the player that declares a diplomacy check of 54, starting from a bonus if "at least 40". It is not said that applicable modifiers were included, and to me it seems they weren't.

[Boci]

So, declaring the intent to attack, rolling the dice, and having the DM describe the outcome based on the roll is WrongBadFun?

In some groups it is, like most play by post groups. At least in my experience.

[NichG]

So, declaring the intent to attack, rolling the dice, and having the DM describe the outcome based on the roll is WrongBadFun?

That would be a very odd fit for D&D, which has a much higher level of detail in its combat system. Its sort of like D&D but house-ruling it to replace most of the mechanics with the FATE system. You can do it, but it requires a lot of explanation when telling people about it to make it clear why you chose to use D&D as a base for re-creating the FATE system, rather than just playing FATE.

[Killer Angel]

What he seems to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the DM doesn't have to decide for the character, because the details of how it happened don't matter. If the roll says he succeeded, then he succeeded. What exactly was said and what exactly was done doesn't matter, you skip that part and go right to the result. It removes a lot of the storytelling from the game in the minor details, but seems perfectly valid.

An example, from what I can see, would be:

"I intimidate/bluff/diplomacy the guard to let me pass. I got a *number* on my intimidate/bluff/diplomacy roll."

"Okay, you successfully intimidate/bluff/diplomacy the guard. He lets you pass." OR "Okay, you failed. The guard does not let you pass."

What exactly was said to do the intimidate/bluff/diplomacy doesn't matter, the strength or weakness of the argument is represented by the number on the die. The result, getting past the guard, is the only thing that matters. As the player, there's no reason to put forth the argument, because the roll on the die does it for you. It is a pretty simple social thing, but that's fine for some people. Am I getting this correct?

You are correct, but I'm not sure is right.
What the pc says, is important. Look at the bluff skill: the modifiers depends exactly on what are you trying to "sell" (believable / unbelievable).
By RAW, you don't need it for diplomacy, but there's a difference between "the city is in quarantine, but I'm a doctor" (roll diplomacy), and "the city is in quarantine, but I'm a nice person" (roll diplomacy).



How is "I attack him with my axe, I rolled a 17" any different from "I convince him to step aside, I rolled a 17"?

but you should tell me how do you approach the enemy you want to attack, otherwise you could take also AoO.

[prufock]

My ruling (which I don't claim to be anything more than my ruling) is that it is absolutely impossible for the Diplomacy skill to modify the attitude of a Paladin towards a person once that Paladin knows the person is evil. Even if the Diplomacy skill is at epic levels.
And in my opinion, this is a poor ruling.

Expert negotiators are good at negotiating. Unless the paladin is a mindless construct, he has the ability to reason, even with evil creatures, and the whole point of diplomacy is reasoning with the other side. Even a raging barbarian should have the ability to see reason, if presented properly. An expert negotiator uses circumstances, leverage, or whatever other means he has at his disposal to get the other side to act accordingly. If you feel the need to grant a -20 penalty for a "practically impossible task" (quote from DMG), do so, but saying NO is bad DM manners.

As was stated before:

Post hoc banning is the worst thing a DM can do to a game.
Though I would amend this to say "one of the worst," but it's certainly un-fun - as evidenced by the player "sullenly" rolling initiative.

If you want to make a house rule, make a house rule - remove the "hostile" line from the diplomacy skill or add a "hatred" line (symmetrical to "fanatic"), and let your players know that before the game starts. This is far preferable to just using a fiat to say "no that doesn't work this time because I don't want it to work."


Ruling that some people's attitudes can't be adjusted by Diplomacy, by virtue of in-context circumstances, is no less appropriate than presenting non-combat scenario to an optimized fighter or a non-spell scenario to a wizard.
But that isn't what you're doing. You haven't presented a "non-negotiable scenario" any more than you've presented a non-combat or non-spell scenario. You've presented a scenario that should be subject to diplomacy, combat, or spells, and said "no". What you've done is equally as poor a choice as if, once the paladin engages combat, the diplomancer rolls an attack roll of 20 and you say "no that misses," or he casts a spell that is SR:No and Saving Throw:None and you say "no it doesn't work."

If you want to present challenges that can't be overcome by diplomacy, use legitimate ones. Mechanical traps can't reason, nor can mindless undead, vermin, animals, or constructs; nor can puzzles; nor can anyone with whom you can't communicate. There are a variety of valid reasons diplomacy can't work, just like there are a variety of scenarios that can't be overcome by combat or a spell.

[Ashtagon]

How is "I attack him with my axe, I rolled a 17" any different from "I convince him to step aside, I rolled a 17"?

That to me is fine. The problem is that the more problematic (ab)use of Diplomacy is "I diplomance him, I rolled a 17."

My personal rule is that I require the player to specify a hoped-for result of the social skill being used; I also generally do not allows any social skill to affect an NPC's overall attitude ever (it's a thing that happens as story and rp suggests). Merely saying "I use Diplomacy on him" is akin to saying "I use my BAB on him".

[Andezzar]

You've got that backwards, actually. You can change the attitudes of NPC with an unopposed check, but the NPC is free to oppose any check you make. Nowhere in the skill description is there stated any power to remove freedom of action from NPCs regarding their skill use.Where is that rule? or do you mean that the paladin could initiate negotiations while the silver tongued devil makes the attempt to change the paladin's attitude?


My personal rule is that I require the player to specify a hoped-for result of the social skill being used; I also generally do not allows any social skill to affect an NPC's overall attitude ever (it's a thing that happens as story and rp suggests). Merely saying "I use Diplomacy on him" is akin to saying "I use my BAB on him".That is what the player in the example did, albeit very curtly

Player- "My Diplomacy check is... 54. That should render him Helpful."

He uses the unopposed diplomacy check to influence the paladin's attitude. Negotiations and arguing before a third party (the other uses of the diplomacy skill) would require additional information from the player.

[Banjoman42]

How is "I attack him with my axe, I rolled a 17" any different from "I convince him to step aside, I rolled a 17"?

I'm not saying there is a big difference, but some explanation is required to keep the game going less like a game and more like a representation of something happening. For instance, if you hit with your axe, the DM might say "You slice through his chest with your axe". Likewise, if you say "I have business in the city and really need to get in" the gaurd might say "OK, if your business is that important, I'll let you in". I can't narrate that as a DM without you presenting some synopsis of your argument. I don't require it in detail, just a summary.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not saying there is a difference, but some explanation is required to keep the game going less like a game and more like a representation of something happening. For instance, if you hit with your axe, the DM might say "You slice through his chest with your axe". Likewise, if you say "I have business in the city and really need to get in" the gaurd might say "OK, if your business is that important, I'll let you in". I can't narrate that as a DM without you presenting some synopsis of your argument. I don't require it in detail, just a summary.
You said that without fluff, the game dries up when "the PCs aren't smashing things." I am merely wondering why you believe that rolling dice to smash things is different from rolling dice to talk.

[Banjoman42]

You said that without fluff, the game dries up when "the PCs aren't smashing things." I am merely wondering why you believe that rolling dice to smash things is different from rolling dice to talk.

Because it requires slightly more explanation. So yes, there is a slight difference. Otherwise, the only descriptions will come about with the attack rolls and what happens with them. I can't describe a response without something to respond to.

[Mendicant]

Because a combat encounter involves a lot of rolls and multiple tactical decisions. Diplomacy, as written, abstracts a full minute of conversation, arguments, jokes, compliments, brags etc, and it abstracts the actions of two characters instead of just one. It's incredibly boring.

Combat is the most interesting, mechanically deep part of the game: it's in six second slices, every player moves indepently, and there are a lot more interesting moving pieces to it.

If there was a "combat" skill that you rolled to decide an entire encounter in one go, the comparison would hold more water.

[Flickerdart]

If there was a "combat" skill that you rolled to decide an entire encounter in one go, the comparison would hold more water.
There is - it's called "spell resistance for your encounter-ending rocket tag spell." And you can make sure you don't even need to roll one. :smallamused:

[Shackel]

Out of curiosity, what do people think about the idea that, for specifically the act of improving someone's attitude, much description wouldn't be needed? Looking over the skill, if you don't list a purpose, that just seems to be the default: you're getting friendly with them, having them think more highly, etc.

At the least, I don't think that should require you to figure out everything about the NPC and sleeze your way to friendship OOC.

[Andezzar]

That's exactly hat the rules say. The premise that you do not need much description to improve the attitude is fine IMHO, but I#d prefer if there were more criteria than the initial attitude to judge how difficult this action is. Some people, while not unfriendly per se, are just not as interested in being befriended as others.

[Killer Angel]

You said that without fluff, the game dries up when "the PCs aren't smashing things." I am merely wondering why you believe that rolling dice to smash things is different from rolling dice to talk.

Smashing things requires explanations.
You attack with your axe enemy A.
Are you tring to avoid AoO from enemy's allies?
Are you trying to give flanking bonus to your rogue companion?
Should I suppose that enemy B needs only a 5' step to full routine you?
There are lots of tactical decisions that you, asa player, need to do and to explain to the DM, before that magical "I roll a 17!".

The same is for diplomacy. A speech is not required, but you should declare what do you want to obtain, and what is your main argument of persuasion. Then you roll the dice.

[Strigon]

The OP also ignores 2 important things, which go hand-in-hand.
1) Paladins are people, too. They get some pretty nice perks from their deity, and they've sworn to be good, but they aren't infallible, or immune to temptation.
2) 54 is a ridiculously high skill check. Maybe not impossible to reach, especially with the level of optimization around here, but still more than high enough to get an intelligent creature to listen to you. As a reference,
Practically Impossible Tasks
Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically
impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a
DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more
to the DC).
Practically impossible tasks are hard to delineate ahead of time.
They’re the accomplishments that represent incredible, almost
logic-defying skill and luck.
Now of course, it does go on to say that the difference between practically impossible and actually impossible is determined by the DM, but I don't think convincing a paladin not to murder you on the spot should be literally impossible.
That certainly implies to me that 54 is good enough for almost all purposes.

[Curmudgeon]

Where is that rule? or do you mean that the paladin could initiate negotiations while the silver tongued devil makes the attempt to change the paladin's attitude?
That's what it amounts to when the Paladin decides to oppose the silver tongued devil's check. From the WHAT CHARACTERS CAN DO rules (Player's Handbook, page 5):
Skill Checks
To make a skill check, roll a d20 and add your character’s skill modifier. Compare the result to the Difficulty Class (DC) of the task at hand.

An unopposed skill check’s success depends on your result compared to a DC set by the DM or the skill’s description (see Chapter 4).

An opposed skill check’s success depends on your result compared to the result of the character opposing your action. The opponent’s check might be made using the same skill or a different skill, as set forth in the skill’s description. The NPC Paladin gets to decide if they're opposing the silver tongued devil's action; the silver tongued devil's player doesn't have the option of making that decision for the NPC (i.e., the DM).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Going back to detect evil and an evil player making a diplomacy check, I'd like to remind everyone of this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html).

Detect evil isn't infallible. The information it gives is incomplete and unreliable. It's a pretty good argument, too, for the roll should be allowed to stand on its own. I remember how the spell works, I might be quick enough on my feet and convincing enough - for myself, out of character - to sell the "I am cursed to bear this eeeevil artifact until I can find a way to destroy it!" argument. Not everyone will be.

[Segev]

<Paladin> "Why is your strangely silent full-plate wearing bodyguard in lead-coated armor?"
<Necro--er, "Wizard"> "Cultural preference."

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There is - it's called "spell resistance for your encounter-ending rocket tag spell." And you can make sure you don't even need to roll one. :smallamused:

The exemplar is usually the basis for most diplomancer builds, and it doesn't come out earlier than level 11. By that time, casters are in the middle of or finishing classes like Incantrix or Shadowcraft Mage.

[Telonius]

That's what it amounts to when the Paladin decides to oppose the silver tongued devil's check. From the WHAT CHARACTERS CAN DO rules (Player's Handbook, page 5): The NPC Paladin gets to decide if they're opposing the silver tongued devil's action; the silver tongued devil's player doesn't have the option of making that decision for the NPC (i.e., the DM).

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm):


Based on the circumstances, your result must match or beat a particular number (a DC or the result of an opposed skill check) for the check to be successful...

Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number (set using the skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result on your skill check in order to succeed.

It's an either/or thing. If a DC is listed, there's no opposed check. Influencing an attitude has a listed DC, so it doesn't get an opposed check. Opposed skill checks are only an option in a given situation if it says they are in the skill description; you don't get to oppose somebody's Tumble check if they're trying to get through your square. For Diplomacy:


You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

As set forth in the skill's description, the opposed check is only for negotiations. The Paladin can choose to oppose any Diplomacy check made during negotiations if he wants to. But attitude influencing doesn't mention an opposed check, so it's unopposed, and based on DC alone.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.