PDA

View Full Version : How would you fix the stupid things in core?



Aquillion
2007-05-10, 10:31 PM
The other thread about stupid things in core gave me the idea for this one: If WoTC asked you to publish the next set of errata, how would you go about fixing stupid rules or loopholes in core?

Not talking about balance issues (we get enough "how to fix class X" threads already), but outright broken, nonfunctional, or stupidly-worded things.

Let's see, my fixes...

Eschew Materials: Doesn't function for any spell that requires a part of a specific creature, or for any spell with a material component that changes with the desired effect. (e.g. Major Creation, Ice Assassin.) Necessary to prevent exploits with those spells.

Drowning: Lowers you to 0 if you are above it. Duh.

...what else would you change?

Quietus
2007-05-10, 10:47 PM
The other thread about stupid things in core gave me the idea for this one: If WoTC asked you to publish the next set of errata, how would you go about fixing stupid rules or loopholes in core?

Not talking about balance issues (we get enough "how to fix class X" threads already), but outright broken, nonfunctional, or stupidly-worded things.

Let's see, my fixes...

Eschew Materials: Doesn't function for any spell that requires a part of a specific creature, or for any spell with a material component that changes with the desired effect. (e.g. Major Creation, Ice Assassin.) Necessary to prevent exploits with those spells.

Drowning: Lowers you to 0 if you are above it. Duh.

...what else would you change?

Minimum craft DC on all objects : 10.

Limit certain free actions to only 1/round, though these are already suggested in the books - things like Quick Mount shouldn't be allowed to be executed more than once per round.

Erk
2007-05-10, 11:42 PM
DM and players with a sense of logic and a willingness to "wing it" when a hole is found that just doesn't make sense.

A few house rules for things where "winging it" is insufficient, like Diplomacy borkenness.

Hamster_Ninja
2007-05-10, 11:46 PM
Drowning- On the first round of drowning your hitpoints are reduced to 0 or your current hitpoints, whichever is lower. (Seems more inline with the phrasing used for other things)

Erk
2007-05-10, 11:48 PM
Drowning- On the first round of drowning your hitpoints are reduced to 0 or your current hitpoints, whichever is lower. (Seems more inline with the phrasing used for other things)

technically by saying "reduced to zero" you are already saying "whichever is lower". You can't reduce -3 to zero: that isn't a reduction, it is an increase.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-11, 12:00 AM
Here's a mistake: making the standard casting time of a spell a stanrdard action instead of a full-round one.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-11, 12:11 AM
Here's a mistake: making the standard casting time of a spell a stanrdard action instead of a full-round one.
Dragons shouldn't be able to fly and cast spells at the same time?

Some kind of diplomacy fix is in order. Probably along the lines of the Giant's fix, but without the flaw that you can't convince your own mother to accept a free cookie, if she happens to be a high-epic level cleric. I'm not sure exactly how to make that work...

Dhavaer
2007-05-11, 12:13 AM
Some kind of diplomacy fix is in order. Probably along the lines of the Giant's fix, but without the flaw that you can't convince your own mother to accept a free cookie, if she happens to be a high-epic level cleric. I'm not sure exactly how to make that work...

You only need to make the check if they wouldn't normally accept the offer. You'd only need to roll Diplomacy if your mother was allergic to the biscuit.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-11, 12:18 AM
You only need to make the check if they wouldn't normally accept the offer. You'd only need to roll Diplomacy if your mother was allergic to the biscuit.
I am not convinced that that's right, but fine...you're trying to sell her the cookie for one copper piece. That's exactly the type of situation the rules are designed to cover. Again, impossible...high level and high wisdom characters refuse to buy anything at a fair price, unless there's a diplomancer of comparable level doing the marketing.

EDIT: I have a suggestion, actually. Make the target's level&wisdom contribute only to detrimental modifiers. That is: the base DC is just 15, and the DC increasing factors (optionally the zero factors, but not the decreasing ones) from relationship and deal quality be as printed plus (max level + max wis mod)/2.

Alternatively, add the level and wisdom modifier only if at least one of those factors is against you. I like the first version better though.

Jack Mann
2007-05-11, 01:31 AM
Or just specify that diplomacy checks are only necessary if the opposing party wouldn't otherwise accept the deal. I think that's the only part of the Giant's rules that are really in need of a fix.

TheOOB
2007-05-11, 01:38 AM
Like all rules in D&D, be they core or otherwise, you need to apply some common sense. I you don't think a check is needed, don't require a check. If you think a check is needed, but it should be easier/harder then normal, raise/lower the circumstance bonus/penalty.

Justin_Bacon
2007-05-11, 02:44 AM
You only need to make the check if they wouldn't normally accept the offer. You'd only need to roll Diplomacy if your mother was allergic to the biscuit.

Rich disagrees with you. One of the specific goals of his fix was to eliminate exactly this kind of DM fiat. To quote him from the Diplomacy essay: "I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. [...] In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Rich is to be commended for taking Diplomacy in the right direction and making the skill check task-based instead of relationship-based. But there are a few shortcomings, and this is the biggest of them.

I've posted my correction for this problem to these forums before. Formatting them for the forums is a pain, though, so I'm not going to do that again right now. Largely because I'm in the process of putting up an essay on my webpage regarding the Diplomacy skill. The first two parts are up now, the third part (which will be posted tomorrow) will discuss Rich's fix, and then the day after that I'll be posting my full rules for Diplomacy.

The short version though is to make the DC of the check entirely dependent on the relationship and the perceived quality of the deal. Get the HD/Wisdom out of there entirely. Use the HD/Wisdom mechanic, however, to set a DC for overcoming intransigence -- getting someone to listen to the deal you're proposing when they don't want to.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Serenity
2007-05-11, 07:59 AM
Implement BWL's Fighter and Fax's Paladin.

Indon
2007-05-11, 08:31 AM
There's no way I'd be able to get all the silliness and errors out of all the books, so...

I'd put in a sidebar on the same page that discusses 'rule zero' with the general message of "You will change this game. There is nothing wrong with that and it's what you should do. Feel no pressure that just because we actually write it down in a book, that you have to use it for some reason. Pick and choose what rules, feats, skills, equipment you want to use; after all, it's your game, we just print it."

Starbuck_II
2007-05-11, 10:40 AM
There's no way I'd be able to get all the silliness and errors out of all the books, so...

I'd put in a sidebar on the same page that discusses 'rule zero' with the general message of "You will change this game. There is nothing wrong with that and it's what you should do. Feel no pressure that just because we actually write it down in a book, that you have to use it for some reason. Pick and choose what rules, feats, skills, equipment you want to use; after all, it's your game, we just print it."

In version 3.5: there is no listed rule zero sidebar I believe. You are thinking of 3.0 I think.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-11, 10:46 AM
Implement BWL's Fighter and Fax's Paladin.

Thank you. //bows


In version 3.5: there is no listed rule zero sidebar I believe. You are thinking of 3.0 I think.

Rule 0 appears in the DMG.

ocato
2007-05-11, 11:25 AM
Well, you also have to look at his sliding bars for diplomacy.

A cookie for a copper is a cookie for a penny, pretty much, extremely good deal (-10 to the DC)

Momma loves her baby (-10 to the DC for previous relationship)

DC 15 + 10 (cleric level) + 6 (wisdom modifier)= 31. 31-10-10= 11. Getting momma to take the cookie = Easy Peezy

Theodoxus
2007-05-11, 11:30 AM
Thank you. //bows


Seconded for the Paladin (haven't read the Fighter proposal) :smalleek:

Rule errata I'd include:
"You may only gain one (1) attack per round by magical means, regardless of method."

Jayabalard
2007-05-11, 11:43 AM
Rich disagrees with you. One of the specific goals of his fix was to eliminate exactly this kind of DM fiat. Sure, he can be against it, and want to eliminate it... that doesn't mean that it becomes universally true that everyone feels that way, or that using rules is somehow better than using DM fiat, or that there is any particular virtue in randomness over story.

Certainly, some people will believe that, just like people will believe the opposite.

TO_Incognito
2007-05-11, 12:05 PM
Rich disagrees with you. One of the specific goals of his fix was to eliminate exactly this kind of DM fiat. To quote him from the Diplomacy essay: "I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. [...] In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Not requiring a diplomacy check to get your mother to accept a cookie isn't a DM fiat any more than not requiring a balance check for a character to walk through a door is. Rich's comment about DM control doesn't really seem to have anything to do with situations in which no one would have to be diplomatic anyway, he simply doesn't want a free DM decision when a diplomacy check really is merited.

I havn't yet found a practical loophole in Dhavaer's fix, and until I do I will keep it, as it is much simpler and easier to use than another complete mechanical change and no less practical. If you do have a practical situation which Dhavaer's solution doesn't address, then that might be a reason for another mechanical change, and I'd like to hear the situation.

Piccamo
2007-05-11, 12:13 PM
To fix some of the silliness of core I would make my own system filled with silliness thats compatible and loosely based on DnD...

Justin_Bacon
2007-05-11, 02:36 PM
Well, you also have to look at his sliding bars for diplomacy.

A cookie for a copper is a cookie for a penny, pretty much, extremely good deal (-10 to the DC)

Momma loves her baby (-10 to the DC for previous relationship)

DC 15 + 10 (cleric level) + 6 (wisdom modifier)= 31. 31-10-10= 11. Getting momma to take the cookie = Easy Peezy

To do a reality check on this, let's flip this around: The kid is asking for a treat instead of getting mommy to take the treat.

With your math, the average kid probably has a 50% chance of failure (or thereabouts). This sounds reasonable: When a kid asks for a treat, he gets his way about half the time. (More of the time if he's already a little sweetie; less of the time if he's an obnoxious brat.)

But, of course, this isn't a typical mommy we're talking about. So now let's run the numbers with a typical mommy (leaving the typical kid unchanged):

DC 15 + 1 (commoner mother's level) + 0 (commoner mother's Wisdom modifier) = 16. 16 - 10 (relationship) - 10 (quality of deal) = DC -6

So, using your assumptions about the quality of the deal, most mothers will never deny their child a cookie when the child asks for it.

Reality check? Clearly doesn't match reality. Something is wrong with your assumptions.

My guess is that you're mis-assessing the quality of the deal. But if we adjust that back to a reasonable range, then we're back to high-level mothers being cruel harpies who never give their children sweets.


Sure, he can be against it, and want to eliminate it... that doesn't mean that it becomes universally true that everyone feels that way, or that using rules is somehow better than using DM fiat, or that there is any particular virtue in randomness over story.

If you don't agree with Rich's reasons for fixing the rule in the first place, then why are you using his fix?

Besides, I find it patently ridiculous to say: "Well, this isn't a problem with the rule because I can simply choose to not use the rule whenever it doesn't make sense." You've already admitted that the rule doesn't work, why not fix it instead of pretending it's not broken because you can ignore the problem?

Basically, I agree with Rich: I want a rule that gives me meaningful guidance.


Not requiring a diplomacy check to get your mother to accept a cookie isn't a DM fiat any more than not requiring a balance check for a character to walk through a door is.

I'm curious to know what definition of "DM fiat" you're attempting to use here.

But that aside, the Balance skill isn't busted. I could theoretically assign a DC to such a check that would follow the existing guidelines for Balance checks (it would probably be a DC -10 check, much like the Listen check to hear a battle being fought within 10 feet). I could then look at the rules and discover that none of my PCs need to actually roll the dice for such a check (since they can take 10 and succeed).

Such an exercise is would be academic since anyone with commonsense already knows the answer. But if I feed the numbers into the system, I get back a sensible result.

If I feed the numbers into Rich's Diplomacy fix, unfortunately, I frequently get nonsense back out.

It's somewhat amusing to imagine a world where sayings like, "It's as hard as giving a cookie to a priest of Pelor." Are commonplace. But I'd rather have a rule that works.


I havn't yet found a practical loophole in Dhavaer's fix,

If "ignoring the rule whenever it doesn't make sense" is a "fix" in your mind, then I guess that'll work for you.

I wonder, though, if you try to apply this same logic to other situations: "Well, my brakes are making a horrible screeching noise whenever I hit the brake pedal. How could I fix this? I know, I'll simply ignore it. That'll do the trick."

I, on the other hand, prefer to get my brakes looked at. I also prefer to use rules that work.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

brian c
2007-05-11, 02:43 PM
To do a reality check on this, let's flip this around: The kid is asking for a treat instead of getting mommy to take the treat.

With your math, the average kid probably has a 50% chance of failure (or thereabouts). This sounds reasonable: When a kid asks for a treat, he gets his way about half the time. (More of the time if he's already a little sweetie; less of the time if he's an obnoxious brat.)

But, of course, this isn't a typical mommy we're talking about. So now let's run the numbers with a typical mommy (leaving the typical kid unchanged):

DC 15 + 1 (commoner mother's level) + 0 (commoner mother's Wisdom modifier) = 16. 16 - 10 (relationship) - 10 (quality of deal) = DC -6

So, using your assumptions about the quality of the deal, most mothers will never deny their child a cookie when the child asks for it.

Reality check? Clearly doesn't match reality. Something is wrong with your assumptions.

My guess is that you're mis-assessing the quality of the deal. But if we adjust that back to a reasonable range, then we're back to high-level mothers being cruel harpies who never give their children sweets.


Actually, one of his -10 modifiers was for the "good deal" of a cookie for only 1cp; I'd imagine that giving away a cookie for free (or having to buy it for the kid and then give it to them) would increase the DC instead. Say that's a +5 instead of -10 and you have a DC 11, a little less than half of the time success.

Justin_Bacon
2007-05-11, 03:48 PM
Actually, one of his -10 modifiers was for the "good deal" of a cookie for only 1cp; I'd imagine that giving away a cookie for free (or having to buy it for the kid and then give it to them) would increase the DC instead. Say that's a +5 instead of -10 and you have a DC 11, a little less than half of the time success.

Which results in the high-level mommy never giving her children cookies.

Which is why I said (in the message you were replying to): "But if we adjust that back to a reasonable range, then we're back to high-level mothers being cruel harpies who never give their children sweets."

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Indon
2007-05-11, 03:50 PM
Which results in the high-level mommy never giving her children cookies.


Well, a woman who can destroy armies with a wave of her hand/slaughter towns with her martial prowess/woo dragons with the very sound of her voice is probably going to have her child's health in mind!

brian c
2007-05-11, 04:09 PM
Which results in the high-level mommy never giving her children cookies.

Which is why I said (in the message you were replying to): "But if we adjust that back to a reasonable range, then we're back to high-level mothers being cruel harpies who never give their children sweets."

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

You were modeling typical results though, and I was replying to that. In terms of "average" people, the asking mommy for a cookie example works fine. If Mommy is an epic Warlord, well, she probably has a nanny to take care of you anyway.

Twilight Jack
2007-05-11, 04:34 PM
Actually, what happens in the cookie case is that the child can never convince his high-level Cleric mommy to give him a cookie. He will get cookies when she decides to give him one, but he's not going to talk her into it.

Erk
2007-05-11, 11:37 PM
Actually, what happens in the cookie case is that the child can never convince his high-level Cleric mommy to give him a cookie. He will get cookies when she decides to give him one, but he's not going to talk her into it.

QFT. Diplomacy is for changing the NPC's mind, not for getting them to do something they would already do.

The high level cleric mommy being immune to the child's diplomacy doesn't mean she's never going to have her own volition. Just that she's not a wishy-washy level 1 commoner swayed by her kid's little puppy-dog eyes... which makes sense, since she's hardcore.

Presumably, since s/he is supposed to control NPC actions, the DM knows what default action the NPC would "want" to do. If the PC's, unaware of the NPC's volition, make a diplomacy check to convince the NPC to do something s/he would already do anyway and fail, it would be rather silly to have the NPC not do what they were going to do because of it. Unless that's the NPC's character... my mom is certainly like that.

NPC thinks: "Mm, those cookies look good. I think I'll have one."
PC says: "Here ma'am! Have a cookie!" (rolls 1 on diplomacy. Crit failure with any set of rules, not just Rich's)
NPC: "No way jose! Keep your cookie!"

Maybe some folks like their rules to be utterly infallible and to replace all need for thinking. I say that is essentially impossible for a rule trying to describe human interaction.

Dhavaer
2007-05-11, 11:46 PM
(rolls 1 on diplomacy. Crit failure with any set of rules, not just Rich's)

1 and 20 are not auto-failure or success on skill rolls, and there are no criticals.

Erk
2007-05-12, 01:52 AM
1 and 20 are not auto-failure or success on skill rolls, and there are no criticals.
Woops, my bad. Just a common house rule I guess.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-05-12, 02:52 AM
Eschew Materials: Doesn't function for any spell that requires a part of a specific creature, or for any spell with a material component that changes with the desired effect. (e.g. Major Creation, Ice Assassin.) Necessary to prevent exploits with those spells.Exploits? What the crap? How is not using an unimportant component an exploit? If anything, it's spell pouches that are exploits, containing an infinite number of living spiders, crickets, bat poop, or theoretically anything for the creation spells.

JaronK
2007-05-12, 02:59 AM
Exploits? What the crap? How is not using an unimportant component an exploit? If anything, it's spell pouches that are exploits, containing an infinite number of living spiders, crickets, bat poop, or theoretically anything for the creation spells.

Actually, there are specific spells for which this would be a serious exploit. For example, Ice Assassin creates a fake version of any creature, and all you need is a small piece of that creature... such creatures include, for example, Kord or Pelor. With Exchew Materials, you can dodge that requirement and just create a god to fight on your side. The same trick works with Simacrulum.

JaronK

DaMullet
2007-05-12, 01:04 PM
Pardon me, but wouldn't you say the toenail of a GOD counts as an expensive component?

Khantalas
2007-05-12, 01:31 PM
Well, since it has no listed cost...

Come to think of it, even artifacts can be ignored through Eschew Materials.

Now where to find a spell that has an artifact as a material component... :smalltongue:

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-12, 02:19 PM
Well, since it has no listed cost...

Come to think of it, even artifacts can be ignored through Eschew Materials.

Now where to find a spell that has an artifact as a material component... :smalltongue:

No...just no. Thats just wrong.

Hopefully BoVD is banned from your games.

Aquillion
2007-05-12, 02:25 PM
Hmm, now that I look at the feat, actually...


You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as normal. Components with no listed cost are technically never covered by Eschew Materials, since they don't have a cost of 1 gp or less (you can't buy Pelor's toenail at all, ergo it doesn't cost 1 gp or less, ergo eschew materials doesn't let you ignore it.)

The actual wording people think of for that exploit is here:

A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
...which would, yes, imply that the cost of Pelor's toenail or an artifact for that artifact-consuming spell is negligible, and therefore that you have an unspecified but effectively unlimited number of them in your component pouch. (You could build a divine toenail golem!)

I suppose if you combine that interpretation with Eschew Materials, it lets you ignore Pelor's toenail (the cost of Palor's toenail is not given, ergo it is negligible, ergo eschew materials lets you ignore it), but you wouldn't need to, since you'd have Pelor's toenail already.

The real solution here is that spell descriptions need to make a distinction between "flavor" components like bat guano, and important ones like Pelor's toenail. Maybe any component you can assume is in your pouch could have (from component pouch) after it in the spell description, implying it's something any normal caster will carry in their pouch once they know the spell.

Hmm... are there any spells that require entire, whole human corpses as a component? Because that could be useful. Even better, a spell that requires a "willing sacrifice"--reach into your pouch and pull out as many hirelings as you need!

An even better trick: Open your spell component pouch and turn it upside-down while standing over a cliff. No matter how much falls out (and down the cliff, where you no longer have it), you can still "assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch" and, therefore, more keeps falling out. Continue until you have buried the entire world in bat guano, Pelor's toenail clippings, and unspecified artifacts.

EDIT: Oh, and the fix for that (not for the last paragraph, which is just silly). "Unless a cost is given for a commonly available material component, the cost is negligible."

And I know a lot of people have said that these things are just common-sense. This is true, yes, and naturally a DM needs common sense. The point is that the core books still shouldn't have things that defy basic logic and common sense. They should be as clear as possible to minimize confusion. Extensive explanations are bad, but when two or three words could make something much more tightly defined and eliminate a bunch of silliness, they should probably be there.

Khantalas
2007-05-12, 02:53 PM
No...just no. Thats just wrong.

Hopefully BoVD is banned from your games.

I am trying to see the reason for this, but no, it is not.

Should I be afraid?

(Then again, it has been a while since I've played D&D. Or anything else, for that matter.)

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-12, 03:10 PM
Apocalypse from the Sky is an incredibly powerful spell that requires an artifact as its material component. It is in the BoVD.

All creatures and objects within a 10 mile per CL radius take 10d6 points of damage of a type specified by the caster. Combine it with a rod of greater maximize and you will deal 60 damage to everyone in a 200 mile radius at CL 20.

And with Mastery of Shaping you can exclude yourself and any allies from the effect.

And then a Restoration spell negates the corruption cost of the spell.

Morty
2007-05-12, 03:19 PM
Well, 60 damage at CL 20 isn't much, so I wouldn't call it incredibly powerful, especially if you need an artifact to get it working. On the other hand, you can massacre a large city full of commoners...

JaronK
2007-05-12, 03:19 PM
Apocalypse from the Sky is an incredibly powerful spell that requires an artifact as its material component. It is in the BoVD.

All creatures and objects within a 10 mile per CL radius take 10d6 points of damage of a type specified by the caster. Combine it with a rod of greater maximize and you will deal 60 damage to everyone in a 200 mile radius at CL 20.

And with Mastery of Shaping you can exclude yourself and any allies from the effect.

And then a Restoration spell negates the corruption cost of the spell.

Rod of Maximize? Screw that. Born of the Three Thunders, Snowcasting, and Explosive Spell. Because it's not an appocalypse unless you need a caculator to figure out how many d6s of damage you do.

JaronK

TO_Incognito
2007-05-12, 03:31 PM
Use this skill to ask the local baron for assistance, to convince a band of thugs not to attack you, or to talk your way into someplace you aren't supposed to be.

Check: You can propose a trade or agreement to another creature with your words; a Diplomacy check can then persuade them that accepting it is a good idea.


I'm curious to know what definition of "DM fiat" you're attempting to use here.

But that aside, the Balance skill isn't busted. I could theoretically assign a DC to such a check that would follow the existing guidelines for Balance checks (it would probably be a DC -10 check, much like the Listen check to hear a battle being fought within 10 feet). I could then look at the rules and discover that none of my PCs need to actually roll the dice for such a check (since they can take 10 and succeed).

Such an exercise is would be academic since anyone with commonsense already knows the answer. But if I feed the numbers into the system, I get back a sensible result.

If I feed the numbers into Rich's Diplomacy fix, unfortunately, I frequently get nonsense back out.

I don't honestly know where you found this approach in the RAW; the books don't describe not requiring a Balance check when a character isn't Balancing as the result of an extremely low and hidden DC. The closest to a description of your approach I could find anywhere in the core rules was the sidebar on page 62 of the Player's Handbook, which says nothing about hidden negative difficulty classes behind every nearly action the characters take. It seems understood in the core rules that some actions don't require checks simply because they don't employ the use of a listed skill. I'm not taking action to maintain my Balance when I walk through a door, so no Balance check is made. What you see as a DM fiat is understood in the definition of a skill check.

If I'm not hiding, I don't make a hide check. If I'm not deciphering a script, I don't make a decipher script check. If I'm not "bullying," frightening," or "making a prisoner do what I want," I don't make an intimidate check. And, to use Rich's words, if I'm not "asking for assistance," "convincing," or "persuading," I would not make a diplomacy check (and not because there is some kind of hidden, negative DC). The idea of a person initionally inclined to say no is built into the definitions of the words "convince" and "persuade." Usually rules lawyers are right when they say common sense is not RAW, but not this time: the idea of only using the diplomacy check on people initially inclined to say no is built into the words "convince" and "persuade."


If "ignoring the rule whenever it doesn't make sense" is a "fix" in your mind, then I guess that'll work for you.

I wonder, though, if you try to apply this same logic to other situations: "Well, my brakes are making a horrible screeching noise whenever I hit the brake pedal. How could I fix this? I know, I'll simply ignore it. That'll do the trick."

Assuming you meant the screeching of brakes to represent Rich's diplomacy skill breaking down, I don't think the analogy you have there is accurate. Rich's diplomacy skill breaks down only when it is misapplied. I do like the brake analogy in general though, and I think it would be better to look at in terms of ignoring your brakes vs. ignoring the Diplomacy skill.

The difference between our situation with diplomacy and your situation with brakes is really what I outlined above. Ignoring your brakes when their use is not called for works fine. Ignoring them when they are called for does not work. Ignoring the Diplomacy skill when the skill is not called for works; ignoring it when it is needed does not work. I ignore the rules for spells with somatic component whenever no one is using such spells. Why would I ignore a rule? Because the rule simply has not come into play. Likewise, when no one is "convincing" or "persuading," I ignore the rules for the Diplomacy skill. Giving your mother a cookie does not involve persuasion, so the rule is no more called for in that situation than the rules for overland travel are called for in the middle of a dungeon crawl fight. We all ignore rules all the time, because they simply don't apply as per their definitions. Application of that same principle to diplomacy seems to be what the RAW assumes.


Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

I will look at your website, probably tomorrow; your rule variations are probably very mechanically sound.