Pathfinder how to handle high diplomacy

[Scottlang]

I have a bard in my group, yes mythic too (players got me to let them go mythic) and the bard is trying to use his diplomacy skill, which I think is +24 (he is a level 12 bard fighter, not sure of the combination) and with the mythic boost, he had attained a total of somewhere close to or over 60...and tried to get the character to stop and change sides... Or he had a bluff of the same role, and says the bard said something, rolls the bluff and boom... The NPC / bad guy buys right into it... How do I handle these situations...

[Gildedragon]

Use Rich's diplomacy rules, or The Alexandrian's tweaking of it

[PurpleSocks]

In case your lazy Rich's diplomacy rule is here.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2

I seriously recommend it, or just doing away with the skill entirely and rely on roleplay.

[Troacctid]

Rich's Persuasion is way more broken and abusable than standard Diplomacy. I would not use it if I were you.

What your player is trying to do is not something Diplomacy can do, as far as I'm aware. Diplomacy can be used to change an NPC's attitude towards the player. There's no function to change an NPC's alignment, or to make them do an exact thing you want them to do. In my experience, the most common response to a successful Diplomacy check against the Big Bad is something like, "Look, you seem like a cool guy. Ditch these losers you're rolling with and join my evil team. We can rule together (but I'm still in charge)."

[LeighTheDwarf]

I've got one bard with high diplomacy in a game I'm playing. Here are my tips for a game with such a character...

If you are playing the bard:
- Think about how your diplomatic abilities affect group goals and desires, and act in line with what the group wants. For instance, if Cleric Goodguy want to kill Joe Badguy, I'm not going to start making friends with Joe Badguy. If Thuck The Barbarian is having fun fighting the enemy, I'm going to start inspiring Thuck The Barbarian, not trying to turn these enemies to our side.
- Never try to force fellow PCs to roll off diplomacy with you. If you want to take the magic item, and your teammate wants it also, then attempting to use your social skills on a fellow PC to get the item will only make your fellow players (not just the PCs) mad at you (not just your character). You can't force a fellow player to roll off diplomacy with you if they don't want to. And trying will make you look like a jerk.


If you are DMing the game with the bard:
- Dice should only be rolling if the thing the player wants to do has a chance of succeeding. If the bard wants to, say, talk the king into giving up his kingdom to him, think about if that's actually a thing the king can be persuaded to do. If the bard is currently a virtual stranger to the king and the king has no reason to want to be rid of his kingdom, then he has as much reason to roll to see if he can talk the king into making him king as he has to roll to see if he can flap his arms and start flying. Sometimes you just have to say "that won't work."
- Think about the consequences that can come from using diplomacy. Let's say the bard befriends A and B, and A and B are enemies. He may be able to convince A and B to both like him, but that doesn't mean A will like B or B will like A. He'll then have to choose who to support in the conflict, when both are his friends.
- Introduce characters who are just as smart and charismatic as the bard. When trying to convince someone to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do, the bard might have to roll an opposed check against an NPC with just as high of diplomacy as him. Or returning to the example of the king...suppose the king knows (and the bard doesn't know) that a group of assassins are coming for the king tonight. He allows the bard to think his diplomacy has succeeded in convincing him to give up the kingdom, when really he's doing it so that the assassins will fight the bard rather than him.
- Don't allow the bard to roll social skills against other PCs. If he wants to convince Thuck The Barbarian to do X, Thuck The Barbarian's player needs to be on board with that. The actions of one PC should not come down to the dice roll of another PC. In fact, if the bard's player is trying to roll social skills against other PCs, you might have to talk to him out of game about how that kind of behavior is detrimental to the fun of other players.


If you are the fellow player of the bard:
- Make it known what you want and find fun. If the bard keeps making friends with everything and preventing any combat from happening, talk to him out of game. Tell him that you are disappointed to have every encounter end in befriending things. Work out an agreement with the bard's player that if you're attacking something or are about to attack it, he should inspire you in the combat rather than try to resolve things with diplomacy. If the bard wants to use diplomacy to befriend Joe Badguy, and Joe Badguy is your sworn enemy, you should say (in and out of character) that your character refuses to work with Joe Badguy.

[Azoth]

Also remember that in Pathfinder if he is trying to use diplomacy on someone it takes a full minute of him doing nothing but talking to even get a chance to roll. If swords are clashing and spells are flying, barring a few specific exceptions, he can't even roll for it.

[Pugwampy]

Why not just identify your NPC,s who might fall victim to diplomacy and give em a ridiculous high sense motive skill . I dont see a problem if this is out of combat roleplay .

The bard probably sacrificed alot of combat feats and skills to become the god of diplomacy .

[Psyren]

OP, try to remember that PF Diplomacy is significantly different than 3.5. The three main differences:

1) You cannot shift someone more than 2 attitudes without GM fiat. This means that a Hostile character cannot be made more than Indifferent without the GM's explicit aid, and an Unfriendly one cannot go above Friendly.

2) PF Diplomacy is "generally ineffective in combat" as well as when combat is imminent. If the bad guy has already attacked, the character's pleas for parley can fall on deaf ears no matter how charming they are. This also requires GM approval to waive. (There are also mythic abilities that let you end combat via Diplomacy long enough to attempt Diplomacy normally, but see #1.)

3) There is no category above Helpful (i.e. Fanatic does not exist.) So even if they pull off a +1000 Diplomacy check and you disregard rule #1, there are still some things that the target will simply not do for you. A helpful Big Bad won't abandon his plans for world domination for instance, though he might spare the PCs and give them a head start (think Tarquin and Elan.)

[Snowbluff]

Well being able to move 2 categories will basically end a conflict, because that moves them from hostile to indifferent.

How about if a guy is indifferent or friendly adter the diplomacy, the party has to negotiate a truce to avoid a fight in roleplay? So they make it so the guy is indifferent, but if there is still a reason to fight (ie, he's loyal to the BBEG), the party has to make whatever that reason not an issue. He may not hate you, but if you're in his way, he doesn't have an option.

[Psyren]

Well being able to move 2 categories will basically end a conflict, because that moves them from hostile to indifferent.

How about if a guy is indifferent or friendly adter the diplomacy, the party has to negotiate a truce to avoid a fight in roleplay? So they make it so the guy is indifferent, but if there is still a reason to fight (ie, he's loyal to the BBEG), the party has to make whatever that reason not an issue. He may not hate you, but if you're in his way, he doesn't have an option.

Well first, you can't do it in combat without fiat either, so you have to attempt this before the combat even starts to have a chance. If they've already opened things up with an attack, it's generally too late no matter how genial/silver-tongued you are.

Second, even if you can somehow do this in combat (or end the combat first and then diplomacy somehow), an end to hostilities does not at all mean the same thing as an end to conflict. Going back to the Tarquin example - just because he's indifferent to you, doesn't mean he won't stop grinding the innocent people in his empire under his bootheel, and a fight may be the only way to stop him. What you can do is give your party room to breathe/time to regroup.

The latter ties to your "roleplay a truce" example - but I just wanted to point out that in some cases, a truce may be impossible, or fleeting at best (Tarquin again.) Either way, the "Diplomancer" concept from 3.5 is easily shut down in PF.

[dascarletm]

Depending on why the two parties are fighting, having one side be friendly or indifferent towards the other may not end combat.

[D.M.Hentchel]

So I personally love my players using social skills and have dealt with a lot of similar characters from my 3.5 campaigns.

Ultimately it comes down to this: Lets say the wizard prepares a dominate person spell and uses on the BBEG (who fails his Will Save), would you say that seems unfair?

Of course not; the character invested resources into being able to do that. But wait, the BBEG could invest into a high will save or immunity to mind-affecting; of course.

See the example of diplomacy seems to me to represent consequence free interaction. But if not killing you would go against another characters diplomacy check it doesn't make sense for the second one to simply override the first one. So why not make it an opposed check? But being loyal to a religion or a guild could have a similar effect.

Also in the cases where interests directly conflict it should probably be an opposed diplomacy check to make the other party budge. If neither side can succeed the check by certain margin (depending on how significant the point of interest is).

The trick is to not flat-out deny it unless it makes sense that persuasion couldn't possible work (just try talking down a golem XD). If a player wants to be a social savant then let them; give them some encounters that play to their strengths, but then others that prove a challenge. A good way to make this whole thing feel more rewarding is to pile on circumstance bonuses and penalties (-4 because your invading his home, -10 for rushed, +4 for sparring his daughter, -2 for having weapons drawn, +10 because you are a part of his guild, +2 for role-play).

This method can lead to some really interesting adventures, where the party is trying to make the target more vulnerable to the persuasion checks. I once had a party go on an adventure to hunt down and eliminate the shadowy adviser that had corrupted the king.

As for using this on party members I once again turn to the wizard. In some play groups you are not allowed to attack the party. In which case you shouldn't be able to diplomacy the party; but if you would let the wizard use suggestion on a party member the allow a rogue to use diplomacy. If a player is abusing this then talk to them about it, after all players shouldn't be mean to other players, even if their characters are.