static diplomacy?

[kaaskeizer]

so, yea, im running a high end high lvl D&D campaign and my current problem is this;
one of my elite players died a while ago, so he made a favored soul lvl 15, (stats are average, exept the total charisma being 42 allready after reading 3 stat tomes)
he maxed his diplomacy, and bought an item with a +10 competence bonus on diplomacy.

basically, his diplomacy is around +44 - 45 ish, and the D&D rules we used so far state http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Diplomacy_Skill

my question is, how and why the hell would a enrinyes, folower of tiamat, that detected that you have a huge aura of good and arent wearing any shackles ever become helpfull towards this meager good bahamut following favored soul in a society run by evil dragons, mindflayers and devils with just 1 roll?? its a evil slaver capital, and not for nothing!

why would the evil 10.000 year old red dragon stop chewing on his mount and companions, wich were batteling fiercely by a hasted diplomacy roll? (i didnt dig either as dm, i granted 1 atitude change per succesfull diplomacy, 1 maximum per minute. it pissed the favored soul player off.)

my problem is, my campaign will be runing towards lvl 20+ and devine rank of 1-5 eventually (its meant to do so)
if he has his diplomacy on +70 (wich he still could reach by having & collecting the right items) there would be no stopping him acording to these rules, even if i go and get a pissed off nerull, hextor, tiamat or wich other god ever. there would be no point in creating intelligent encounters or bosses, cause this guy would simply sway them to his side, the whole town if needed..

basically, my question would be; how do u guys deal with EXTREME DIPLOMACY?

[Gnaeus]

I think most folks think the diplomacy rules are broken, the epic ones that let you make people fanatics are more so, and ignore or rewrite them.

[Jormengand]

I think most folks think the diplomacy rules are broken, the epic ones that let you make people fanatics are more so, and ignore or rewrite them.

Check these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) rules out, for example.

[Necroticplague]

so, yea, im running a high end high lvl D&D campaign and my current problem is this;
one of my elite players died a while ago, so he made a favored soul lvl 15, (stats are average, exept the total charisma being 42 allready after reading 3 stat tomes).

basically, my question would be; how do u guys deal with EXTREME DIPLOMACY?

1. Multiple stat tomes don't stack. boni of the same type don't stack, and stat tombs provide inherent boni.

2. I deal with it by introducing creatures with fundamentally unhelpful definitions of friendship. For example, I once had a party go against a tribe of trolls. The were Diplomatized into friendship. However, given how trolls are very thick, and had regeneration, this tribe often took eating parts of each other as a friendly act (hey, it grows back painlessley in a minute or two, no big). Thus, even being BFFs with the party didn't stop them from trying to eat them (not realizing humans didn't grow back like that [except for the one troll-blooded human]).

[Doctor Despair]

If something is unfriendly or less, just make them always have to do a hasted diplomacy. Say the NPC didn't wait around ten minutes to listen.

If that is still a problem, check his languages known and start sending intelligent enemies that don't speak the same language as him.

If that doesn't work, word is getting around that this silver-tongued favored-soul is talking his way out of fights with grunts, so the higher-ups send enemies with earplugs.

If he gets telepathy, has max diplomacy, and what not, then have all enemies that you want to be fought be under the influence of Dominate X so that it doesn't MATTER if they like him...

... or put contingency shock collars on each enemy that zap them whenever the favored soul speaks so that they are enraged and attack regardless of how they feel.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Check these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) rules out, for example.

Personally, I'd be hesitant to rules which state that asking a stranger on the road for directions to someplace that is not a secret has a relatively high chance of starting a fight, and where an offer to trade a bit of dirty string for a castle has a non-zero chance of succeeding.

[Jormengand]

Personally, I'd be hesitant to rules which state that asking a stranger on the road for directions to someplace that is not a secret has a relatively high chance of starting a fight,

That's not what it says. It says "If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation." Emphasis mine.


and where an offer to trade a bit of dirty string for a castle has a non-zero chance of succeeding.

I'd agree with you on that one; it was a bad example to use.

[Âmesang]

I mentioned this in a similar thread, but my definition of a bad guy being "helpful" to the party is the simple act of letting them live. Doesn't mean the party won't be imprisoned or robbed, but I'm sure said bad guy is taking some sort of "risk" in letting the heroes live if the bigger bad guy ever finds out. Technically. :smallbiggrin: "If they catch us goofing off we get dead… or extra work!"

Granted, I'm also the type who'd prefer the die roll to be paired with the player actually saying something diplomatic; I'm not saying the player himself has to be perfectly silver-tongued and eloquent, just… say something! Anything!!

Rolling the die and leaving it at that is so boring… :smallsigh:

[Doctor Despair]

I mentioned this in a similar thread, but my definition of a bad guy being "helpful" to the party is the simple act of letting them live. Doesn't mean the party won't be imprisoned or robbed, but I'm sure said bad guy is taking some sort of "risk" in letting the heroes live if the bigger bad guy ever finds out. Technically. :smallbiggrin: "If they catch us goofing off we get dead… or extra work!"

That is another thing, of course. Naturally, at epic rules, fanatics are another matter entirely, but with only a +44 modifier, turning hostiles fanatic doesn't seem like an issue (only ~100 more to go... :smalltongue:)

[CharonsHelper]

Doesn't it take a full minute to do a Diplomacy check? Why are demons & dragons listening to him calmly for a full minute instead of killing and/or eating him?

[kaaskeizer]

Check these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) rules out, for example.

main thanks jormengand, the giants post is quite the way to go. for people that do not understand his post, only read the red part that shows exactly how he calculates every thing. (even performing diplomacy on a group) i think this will be how ill do it from now on =D

Necroticplague; ill also be using this, thanx XD

Doctor Despair nice solutions, but mainly counter able by tongues and dispel magic. (u should try to read the red part of the giants post)

CharonsHelper hasted diplomacy, rolls 17, the dragon is now helpfull

to all the others, thank you for being there and trying to help out =)

[CharonsHelper]

CharonsHelper hasted diplomacy, rolls 17, the dragon is now helpful

That's right - I've been playing Pathfinder - I forgot that the removal of that was one of the tweaks which Pathfinder made to the skill system.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

That's not what it says. It says "If the check fails by 10 or more, the Diplomacy is over; the subject will entertain no further deals, and may become hostile or take other steps to end the conversation." Emphasis mine.


It actually being a possibility qualifies, in my view, as a relatively high chance. If asking someone for simple directions is a challenge, there is something wrong with your diplomacy system. Also, there is the problem that people become harder to reason with as they grow wiser and more experienced, for some reason.

Actually, it's a problem of a lot of `social` systems in games that they treat any attempt at persuading or influencing someone as an attack to be resisted.

[MisterKaws]

You should be thankful he isn't a rogue exemplar arseplomancer...

[Jack_Simth]

Check these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) rules out, for example.

Those are broken in the other direction.

A 20th level Wizard has problems convincing his equal-level lover to give him the time of day.
Target is 20th, so base DC is 35. We assume +0 Wis, for now.
Intimate relationship for -10 to the DC. Down to 25.
Risk and reward: Zero on both ends of the scale, so +0.
It takes one full minute for the wizard to ask for the time, and he needs to wrack up a +15 Diplomacy modifier to be able to take ten. A +5 to even have a chance. Hope he's got some cross-class ranks....

A person has to be very diplomatic to be able to give a castle away, no strings attached, to a strong clerical order.
Suppose the best target is a Cleric-20, with a Wisdom modifier of +10. Base DC is 45.
Fantastic Deal: -10 (free castle): Now 35.
No relationship: +0, still 35.
You need a +15 modifier to have any chance, and a +25 to be able to take ten. To give away a castle.

The rule change helps with the diplomancer who is walking around with max skill ranks, a high charisma score, a bit of synergy, and a few miscallaneous bonuses from other places. However, if you try to apply it within the spirit of the rule ("I want a clear and concise mechanic for determining how people react to specific requests and negotiations") it makes social interaction for anyone who does NOT focus on diplomacy utterly untenable with their peers after a few levels (the above examples are just extreme ones to show the absurdity).

[Jormengand]

Those are broken in the other direction.

A 20th level Wizard has problems convincing his equal-level lover to give him the time of day.
Target is 20th, so base DC is 35. We assume +0 Wis, for now.
Intimate relationship for -10 to the DC. Down to 25.
Risk and reward: Zero on both ends of the scale, so +0.
It takes one full minute for the wizard to ask for the time, and he needs to wrack up a +15 Diplomacy modifier to be able to take ten. A +5 to even have a chance. Hope he's got some cross-class ranks....

A person has to be very diplomatic to be able to give a castle away, no strings attached, to a strong clerical order.
Suppose the best target is a Cleric-20, with a Wisdom modifier of +10. Base DC is 45.
Fantastic Deal: -10 (free castle): Now 35.
No relationship: +0, still 35.
You need a +15 modifier to have any chance, and a +25 to be able to take ten. To give away a castle.

The rule change helps with the diplomancer who is walking around with max skill ranks, a high charisma score, a bit of synergy, and a few miscallaneous bonuses from other places. However, if you try to apply it within the spirit of the rule ("I want a clear and concise mechanic for determining how people react to specific requests and negotiations") it makes social interaction for anyone who does NOT focus on diplomacy utterly untenable with their peers after a few levels (the above examples are just extreme ones to show the absurdity).

If you're even rolling for these, though, something's already gone wrong no matter what diplomacy system you're using. I'm not Rich, but I imagine he didn't expect people to use the rules to roll to give away a castle.

[Jack_Simth]

If you're even rolling for these, though, something's already gone wrong no matter what diplomacy system you're using. I'm not Rich, but I imagine he didn't expect people to use the rules to roll to give away a castle.
To quote, from the preamble to the fix, line item 3:
The "patch" for the last two complaints is often the belief that the DM should apply circumstance penalties as he sees fit. My problem with this is without any guide as to what those penalties should be, it basically boils down to the DM thinking, "Do I want to give them such a huge penalty that they can't succeed, or not?" But I rarely have a preference. I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly. It makes it very difficult to "wing" an adventure when there is no system for determining how to assess modifiers to this skill. Is that circumstance worth a -1? A -4? A -15? There's no guidelines given. 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.(Emphasis added)

In the examples of various modifier categories, he's got "A request for directions to someplace that is not a secret." "A lover or spouse." That's scenario one, the wizard-20 asking his equal-level lover for the time of day.

I'm really not stretching here. I'm just showing how it breaks in the opposite direction from the system it's intended to fix. At mid+ levels, it just ends up in with the same problem from the other direction for anyone except the diplomancer - the rolls quickly become impossible for everyone without a dedicated build, so if the DM decides it's worth a roll, you lose, and if the DM decides it's not worth a roll, you win; full stop. But that's something what Rich explicitly didn't want: "I don't decide whether I want someone to be persuadable, I want a rule system that lets me determine it randomly"

D&D DC's for it are too low for a dedicated diplomat to maintain versimilitude for most people, and Rich's DCs get high enough that it breaks from the other side. One might just dump the skill entirely, and RP it out... but that fails when you have the socially inept player attempting to run a master manipulator character, which is ALSO not a satisfactory result at many tables.

[Jeraa]

Doesn't it take a full minute to do a Diplomacy check? Why are demons & dragons listening to him calmly for a full minute instead of killing and/or eating him?

You can do a Diplomacy check as a full-round action if you take a -10 penalty to the check. Unless you are playing Pathfinder, which does not have that option.

[nedz]

You can do a Diplomacy check as a full-round action if you take a -10 penalty to the check. Unless you are playing Pathfinder, which does not have that option.

IIRC there is a Half-elf feat which reduced that to -5.

[Doctor Despair]

IIRC there is a Half-elf feat which reduced that to -5.

If you take a one-level dip in binder, the penalty is negated, and you can take ten on the check!

[Triskavanski]

Well, why would the enemy stop doing enemy things when hit with Charm Person?

[LokeyITP]

Because magic. There's usually the charmer's friends to beat down anyway.

I think diplomacy is much more breakable than Jack_Smith says, you can take over the continent with a village of commoner 1s with no wealth or build specific things as long as a housecat doesn't eat them after all.

Also helpful >>> fanatic. Helpful is forever, fanatic has several easy escape clauses.

[noob]

what I dislike with those (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) rules is that with 115 you can convince a level 40 priest with 90 wisdom and which only objective in its life is to kill you to give you everything you want in exchange for a candy bar.
115 is reached easily way before epic.

[Triskavanski]

what I dislike with those (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) rules is that with 115 you can convince a level 40 priest with 90 wisdom and which only objective in its life is to kill you to give you everything you want in exchange for a candy bar.
115 is reached easily way before epic.


Well, Prove a 115 is reached easily way before epic, i think is the first order of business there.
Cause for me, I'm of mind that a character who is capable of making epic level skill checks should have epic level results. Instead of like, hitting a cap where the skill becomes not very useful or even epic.

[noob]

Any artificer using some +20 items and the correct infusion for changing the kind of bonus can do this.

[Troacctid]

Well, Prove a 115 is reached easily way before epic, i think is the first order of business there.
Cause for me, I'm of mind that a character who is capable of making epic level skill checks should have epic level results. Instead of like, hitting a cap where the skill becomes not very useful or even epic.

An adult red dragon would give you her entire hoard in exchange for a bit of dirty string with a DC 56 check.

[Triskavanski]

I don't see where NPC just gives you stuff for nothing just because you can make a diplomacy check.

In fact, I see a particular line..


In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage.

Now call me crazy, but trading a bit of string for an entire horde would be a negotiation. At least thats how I'd rule it. Now maybe dragons have very crappy diplomacy to the point that such a huge bonus it would get from the unfairness of the trade doesn't matter much. Maybe they don't? Maybe I just don't see the special ability that beats all forms of magic.

[Florian]

Doesn't it take a full minute to do a Diplomacy check? Why are demons & dragons listening to him calmly for a full minute instead of killing and/or eating him?

This. Problem solved.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A person has to be very diplomatic to be able to give a castle away, no strings attached, to a strong clerical order.
Suppose the best target is a Cleric-20, with a Wisdom modifier of +10. Base DC is 45.
Fantastic Deal: -10 (free castle): Now 35.
No relationship: +0, still 35.
You need a +15 modifier to have any chance, and a +25 to be able to take ten. To give away a castle.

The rule change helps with the diplomancer who is walking around with max skill ranks, a high charisma score, a bit of synergy, and a few miscallaneous bonuses from other places. However, if you try to apply it within the spirit of the rule ("I want a clear and concise mechanic for determining how people react to specific requests and negotiations") it makes social interaction for anyone who does NOT focus on diplomacy utterly untenable with their peers after a few levels (the above examples are just extreme ones to show the absurdity).
To be fair, I would be very wary of anyone trying to give me a castle. Most likely, it'd be a listed monument with a million gp upkeep per year, or something like that. I like castles and all, but 'free' just means 'with a catch'.

[Jeraa]

This. Problem solved.

Problem not solved, because as I said before Diplomacy can be done as a full-round action by taking a -10 penalty on the check.

[ZamielVanWeber]

And hitting a 66 is not too hard if you are dedicating your entire build to it.

[Troacctid]

I don't see where NPC just gives you stuff for nothing just because you can make a diplomacy check.

In fact, I see a particular line..



Now call me crazy, but trading a bit of string for an entire horde would be a negotiation. At least thats how I'd rule it. Now maybe dragons have very crappy diplomacy to the point that such a huge bonus it would get from the unfairness of the trade doesn't matter much. Maybe they don't? Maybe I just don't see the special ability that beats all forms of magic.

The Giant's rules replace that function, though.

[nedz]

To be fair, I would be very wary of anyone trying to give me a castle. Most likely, it'd be a listed monument with a million gp upkeep per year, or something like that. I like castles and all, but 'free' just means 'with a catch'.

But people do routinely buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

That is more of a Bluff roll though - as is swapping your horde for some magic string.

[Jack_Simth]

To be fair, I would be very wary of anyone trying to give me a castle. Most likely, it'd be a listed monument with a million gp upkeep per year, or something like that. I like castles and all, but 'free' just means 'with a catch'.
The DC is higher if you're trying to give that same clerical order a single gold piece. Let's assume for the moment that the Clerical order is, oh, a bunch of Yondalla worshippers that have organized for the purpose of taking charitable donations to help the homeless. You're at one of their charity events, and trying to give them money so that they can better do the goal they have set for themselves. Calculate the DC using Rich's method, assuming that the representatives at the event are fairly high level.

[LokeyITP]

You'd be applying the Giant's rules in a type of game the Giant doesn't write for (RAW uber allez). Of course he didn't cover everything.

I don't see where NPC just gives you stuff for nothing just because you can make a diplomacy check.

In fact, I see a particular line..
I thought so too, but that's the boring, this is a waste of skill points part of the skill. The only thing that matters is those two tables of stupid easy to hit by a level 1 commoner + a few friends dcs, or the this breaks the game part of the skill (how hard is it to get almost any npc to helpful and what that means).

[Glimbur]

Diplomacy as written is broken.

The Giant's fix is one option, and people are enjoying poking at it. That's fun too.

I have an alternate idea: axe diplomacy, and use Sense Motive. What it does for you is gives you an idea of something the other party would want. This helps non-charismatic players play charismatic characters, which is the reason we don't just axe diplomacy and role-play it out. But it also prevents a lot of the issues with tying the skill roll directly to the resolution. You get helpful hints, but still need to put together a deal that's workable for both sides.

Make the DC's opposed by bluff for serious haggling, or scale based on level maybe with modifiers for how well known someone is or... I don't have time to put together a coherent suggestion for setting DC's.

Or, as has also been mentioned, use bluff to put together an unfair deal they agree to for just long enough.

[stack]

I would consider porting the social encounter system from RuleofCool's Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com) rpg. Take a bit to get the hang of, but worked in the instances I got to use them. It's free, though I believe future development has stopped.

[Crake]

You need to remember that "Helpful" is relative. That erinyes might see your current state and think to herself while being "helpful": Oh, I could help this poor mortal out, why don't I kill him, take his soul, and twist it into a loyal subject of mine, now he gets to enjoy an eternity by my side, oh, I'm such a nice person

[Jack_Simth]

You'd be applying the Giant's rules in a type of game the Giant doesn't write for (RAW uber allez). Of course he didn't cover everything.You realize I was picking examples for the calculations that were almost directly lifted from Rich's examples for DC modifiers, right?

The base DC (15 + target level + target wis mod) for an even deal with a complete stranger is too high for anyone who hasn't invested in it to have a meaningful chance of doing even basic social tasks after about level five or ten. The problem Rich is trying to address with that house rule isn't removed, it's turned on it's head. Instead of the specialist doing a no-save roll over of encounters... the party now specifically requires a specialist to do simple things like ask for directions to the town tavern (your basic commoner-1, when asked about a place that's not secret, by perfect strangers, no risk and no reward, is DC 16 - you're going to get a lot of failures if you don't have a specialist in the party, and then, the specialist will be the only person interacting with the NPC's).

The most common objection to pointing out that problem with Rich's rules is that you don't ask for rolls for simple stuff. But then, that just moves it into the realm of "if the DM thinks it doesn't matter, then it works; if the DM thinks it does matter, then it doesn't work" - but that is, essentially, his complaint # 3 with RAW diplomacy.

As I noted, though, there's no real solution that'll please everyone.

You need to remember that "Helpful" is relative. That erinyes might see your current state and think to herself while being "helpful": Oh, I could help this poor mortal out, why don't I kill him, take his soul, and twist it into a loyal subject of mine, now he gets to enjoy an eternity by my side, oh, I'm such a nice person
One of my favourite examples of this sort of thing is the prison scenario. PC diplomances the guard to Friendly. What happens next? My take:

LG guard: Takes a risk for the PCs: Pleads with his lord, putting his own reputation on the line for their sakes. Leaves them locked up, however.
CG guard: Takes a risk for the PCs: Slips them a set of lockpicks and the guard schedule, with a note about who is least observant, so they can get out on their own.
LE guard: Takes a risk for the PCs: Slips them the implements of honourable suicide according to his culture (he'll take a hit to his reputation if the prisoners entrusted to his care die on his watch)
CE guard: Takes a risk for the PCs: Slips them some easily-concealed weapons (daggers, usually) as well as a guard schedule with a note on who he likes the least.
NX or XN: Roll randomly between the appropriate LX/CX or XG/XE.
TN: Roll 1d4 and go with one of the extreme alignment options.

In all cases, the guard is taking risks to help the PCs. In all cases, they're in a better position than they were (most suicide implements can be used creatively). However, it's not a one-check solve, the specific results depend on the target (the target is not an automaton), and the rest of the party will still need to be involved in the final solution.

[LokeyITP]

Please reread the article. Again, that's not what the rules were designed for (and the dcs are still too low, but Rich probably doesn't let the easy boosts in his games).

[Triskavanski]

The Giant's rules replace that function, though.

To be fair, the Giant's rules also replaces accelerated diplomacy as well.

How about we just use the rules for Truespeak for Diplomacy rolls?

[Jormengand]

How about we just use the rules for Truespeak for Diplomacy rolls?

What, so it gets harder to make diplomacy checks the more you do it per day, and diplomacy is based on HD in an arbitrary way that kinda made sense for truespeak and makes no sense for diplomacy?

Also, you need to be level 17 to talk to more than one person at once. :smalltongue:

[Triskavanski]

Yep!

Well we could take it down a little. Each diplomacy check against the same target increases the DC of diplomacy per day, rather than all targets.

Then you can't use magic items to increase your diplomacy, Can't take 10 or 20, DC increases by CR x2.. and a number of other things

[Jack_Simth]

Please reread the article. Again, that's not what the rules were designed for (and the dcs are still too low, but Rich probably doesn't let the easy boosts in his games).
I've read the article a few times. Please be more specific and explicit in what you think I'm missing. If I haven't spotted it by now, the most likely case is that I'm interpreting something differently from you based on a different upbringing and a mildly different flavour of the English language due to regional dialects.

Sure, the intent was to fix the diplomancer. How he actually wrote the rule, though, was for all requests directed at NPCs. Which means it's a DC 16 diplomacy check to buy a beer for list price at a bar, assuming the barkeep is 1st level with a +0 Wisdom modifier. If, on the other hand, he's a 5th level Expert with a +1 Wisdom modifier, it's DC 21 (15 base, +5 level, +1 wis; perfect stranger, no risk, even trade +0), and you're going to need to have invested at least a little in diplomacy to legally buy a beer at a bar at normal prices.

The rule flips the problem on it's head. Rather than being too easy for the diplomancer to do the immersion-breaking stuff of turning that demon into your best bud, it's too hard for those not trained to do simple, everyday tasks - which is also immersion breaking, and still a problem.

The most common reaction of those who don't see what I mean is to point out that it's not intended for the 'easy' cases. However, that runs directly counter to Rich's item number 3 on his surveying the standard rule - he doesn't want to have to decide whether or not the NPC can be convinced, he wants a rule system to tell how hard it is. If it's an auto-pass for the things that the DM thinks doesn't matter, and an auto-failure for anyone but the dedicated if it does... then you've got the DM simply deciding whether or not it works in most cases... which is one of the things Rich specifically stated he didn't want.

[LokeyITP]

It's in the Building the Foundation section, point 1:

I only worry about characters who invest in Diplomacy. Sure, fighters will occasionally be stuck having to talk their way out of something...
There's probably some phrasing problems in our posts, and the Giant is fine defending himself when he wants to anyway :)

If there's an actually good diplomacy system (that is the catchall diplomacy is beyond just copy/pasting bluff which isn't too bad but has DM calls things in big letters too) somewhere that wouldn't bog up things horribly, I haven't heard of it. Granted I wouldn't want to mesh them with the listen check rules nobody uses either.

[Jack_Simth]

It's in the Building the Foundation section, point 1:

There's probably some phrasing problems in our posts, and the Giant is fine defending himself when he wants to anyway :)
As he says: The fighter will occasionally need to talk his way out of something. It's supposed to apply to the Fighter, too, and people who don't invest in it. He's just not worried about them. It still breaks immersion, just now in the other direction.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Couple of points about your barkeep example:
Take a barkeep in a village. He's a level 1 commoner with 10 or 11 wisdom. He knows the village people, and they know him. He's making a profit on beer, so selling beer is always a favourable action for him. The DC to buy a beer from him is 15 + 1 + 0 - 2 - 5 = 9. Everybody takes 10 on the check, but particularly surly villagers (with <8 charisma) might have trouble.

10 charisma non-villagers need 1 rank diplomacy to buy a beer by taking 10. That's okay if you're playing the 'suspicious commoner' trope.

There are still plenty of problems. One, it takes a minute to convince the barkeep to sell you a beer. Two, a high-wisdom barkeep doesn't sell more beer. Three, there is a huge difference between people who can take 10 (always get a beer) and people who need an 11 (get beer 50% of the time, never get beer again 5% of the time). Four, dwarves have a harder time buying alcohol than other races, even from other dwarves.


Edit: How about this: instead of adding character level and wisdom modifier to the DC directly, we add it to the modifier for unfavourable deals. For example, a 10th-level character with 20 wisdom might have a +10 modifier for 'unfavourable' and +20 for 'terrible' deals (using 10 + WIS + 1/2 level for 'terrible' and half that for 'unfavourable'), whereas a 1st-level character with 10 wisdom might have +5 (and +1 would be the minimum, even for people with 1 wisdom).

[Bobbybobby99]

While this doesn't help with the Giant's actual rules, you could always reduce the DC by 15 for anything 'everyday', such as making basic purchases and asking for directions and such. That pretty much works, from what I'm seeing.

[Misery Esquire]

...and people who need an 11 (get beer 50% of the time, never get beer again 5% of the time).

That's probably the fast-track version of solving their alcoholism, yes?

[Jack_Simth]

That's probably the fast-track version of solving their alcoholism, yes?
One of the big reasons people drank beer in ancient times:
Nobody knew anything about bacteria and things. Drinking water was chancy, however, as it was fairly well known that you're liable to have problems from the local well water.

Beer, on the other hand, was almost always safe. Why? Turns out one of the steps in beer making involves boiling things....

[Triskavanski]

Well that and the whole creating a big-ole frothy mug of poison.

[Jack_Simth]

Well that and the whole creating a big-ole frothy mug of poison.
Most historical beers had a much lower alcohol content than what you find on the shelves in the US.

[Calimehter]

DM-imposed circumstance modifiers are just as RAW as Diplomacy checks.

Simply apply enough modifiers to ensure that "stupid idea is stupid" doesn't succeed.

Repeat as necessary until it is no longer necessary.

Problem solved.

[Geddy2112]

DM-imposed circumstance modifiers are just as RAW as Diplomacy checks.

Simply apply enough modifiers to ensure that "stupid idea is stupid" doesn't succeed.

Repeat as necessary until it is no longer necessary.

Problem solved.

Likewise, apply modifiers in the opposite direction where some checks automatically succeed. Should players need to roll diplomacy to buy ale, or ask for basic and obvious directions, or any other mundane task that people just do? No, it should be a knee jerk-if a situation arises where these things don't succeed,it should let the Pc's know something is amiss.Perhaps the bartender lost his family in an orc raid, and won't serve half orc's. Perhaps the villagers are under the orders of a (insert evil leader) to not help visitors,or tell strangers about place X, so they lie and say they don't know or ignore them. In these cases a diplomacy check may be used, otherwise day to day interactions should auto pass.

How often do you have somebody refuse you service, or rudely tell you to shove off when you ask for directions? It happens sometimes, but unless you were rude or hostile "Hey NPc, give me directions to the temple or I will smash your filthy (racial slur) head in" then the problem is with them, not your failure to act along societal norms. As in real life,these should be the exception to NPc interaction, and not the rule (and always have a reason behind them).

[P.F.]

I've read the article a few times. Please be more specific and explicit in what you think I'm missing. If I haven't spotted it by now, the most likely case is that I'm interpreting something differently from you based on a different upbringing and a mildly different flavour of the English language due to regional dialects.

Sure, the intent was to fix the diplomancer. How he actually wrote the rule, though, was for all requests directed at NPCs. Which means it's a DC 16 diplomacy check to buy a beer for list price at a bar, assuming the barkeep is 1st level with a +0 Wisdom modifier. If, on the other hand, he's a 5th level Expert with a +1 Wisdom modifier, it's DC 21 (15 base, +5 level, +1 wis; perfect stranger, no risk, even trade +0), and you're going to need to have invested at least a little in diplomacy to legally buy a beer at a bar at normal prices.

The rule flips the problem on it's head. Rather than being too easy for the diplomancer to do the immersion-breaking stuff of turning that demon into your best bud, it's too hard for those not trained to do simple, everyday tasks - which is also immersion breaking, and still a problem.

The most common reaction of those who don't see what I mean is to point out that it's not intended for the 'easy' cases. However, that runs directly counter to Rich's item number 3 on his surveying the standard rule - he doesn't want to have to decide whether or not the NPC can be convinced, he wants a rule system to tell how hard it is. If it's an auto-pass for the things that the DM thinks doesn't matter, and an auto-failure for anyone but the dedicated if it does... then you've got the DM simply deciding whether or not it works in most cases... which is one of the things Rich specifically stated he didn't want.

I think the words we are interpreting differently are words like "persuade" and "negotiate" and "convince." I don't have to persuade the bartender to sell me a beer. He wants to sell it, I want to buy it, no one has to decide whether he is "persuadable" or not. Now if you want him to run you a tab, on the other hand ...

The diplomancy end of the diplomacy skill is what is sometimes described as "charming" people into making a deal they wouldn't otherwise agree to. In my games, this sort of thing would have long-term consequences: a clever character might end up with a 10% discount and leave the locals with the feeling that she's a really great person and a good friend to have. A less restrained character might get someone to agree to trade a castle for a bit of dirty string, but she had better capitalize on it fast because it probably won't take long after she's left for them to realize they've been swindled!

[Florian]

Most historical beers had a much lower alcohol content than what you find on the shelves in the US.

Not really true, tho. When you brew beer, you aim at 20+% volume alcohol for your "core beer" and then water it down later to reach the typical benchmarks, like 4,1% for a Pilsener.
Visit some old breweries or vineyards and you´ll notice that it all comes down to the yeast. Back then, the really good ones had cellars with a vast and stable yeast infection, the walls and ceilings nearly being completely black because of the yeast. That got into the beer and the fermenting process started.