Assigning a diplomacy check

[Kaleph]

Hallo everyone, has someone of you some experience with this houserule (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) by Rich Burlew? The fact is that, in our D&D Group, the outcome of a diplomacy check has been so far assigned arbitrarily by the DM, but we'd like to have more consistent and quantitative criteria instead.

DM: what is your Diplomacy modifier?
Pl: 1 Billion.
DM: Ok, roll.
Pl: I rolled a 10, plus 1 Billion as normal.
DM: Oh, a 10, that's an average roll for you; so you didn't influence the NPC that much.
Pl: And my +1 Billion modifier?
DM: I'm adding a malus, of course, since the check is tricky.
Pl: Of course.

The houserule seems to be a good starting point, but when I compare it with the equivalent Pathfinder "making a request" check, the logic (and the numbers) are similar, with the noticeable difference that here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) the HD of the NPC is added to the DC. Is the check too though?

I'll keep anyhow active the Pathfinder primary diplomacy's function, i.e. directly modifying the NPC's attitude, to avoid disfunctional behavior in game; if I am not mistaken, according to Rich Burlew's ruling the standard DC to order a coffee in a bar is 14 (15 + 1HD + 0Cha -2 since it's a deal for the barman), so a common man will need on average to visit three bars before getting his drink. A diplomacy check for a request to an NPC will be only needed for tasks incompatible with his attitude.


Edit: we play 3.5, but we consider importing PF rules.

[Elkad]

Sounds like your DM is ignoring your modifiers completely and just going on the die.

It would be no different if he said "this enemy takes a natural 15+ to hit, nevermind your bonuses".

At that point, you might as well not have character sheets at all.

[Kaleph]

Sounds like your DM is ignoring your modifiers completely and just going on the die.

It would be no different if he said "this enemy takes a natural 15+ to hit, nevermind your bonuses".

At that point, you might as well not have character sheets at all.

Well, that's actually the point - although the example I posted didn't reference to my current DM, as we are cycling through the role.
Anyhow the new master reported that he has troubles assigning diplomacy, since the rules don't work by the book, and we agreed that I will come up with a houserule; so, instead of inventing something completely new, I looked in the rule in the OP and in PF's update. As I said, the numbers are somehow similar, but the DC in PF doesn't count the HD of the NPC, thus resulting in a significantly lower difficulty already at medium levels in comparison with the other variant. Which DC is better?

[GreatDane]

My group has been using the Giant's Diplomacy houserules for a few years now. They're easy to understand and easy to use (especially since, as the Giant points out, the Relationship modifier is usually +0). It looks like your second question asks whether the DC is too high with the creature's HD added on, and the answer is no.

Real-life example: the PCs discover that a large band of trolls is planning to raid the nearby town. The characters start organizing the town watch, etc., and one player has the bright idea to recruit some local fey. They travel to a lake connected to the river on which the town is built, and treat with the nymph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nymph.htm) who calls the lake home. The gist of their proposal: "If you spot the trolls, rush down the river and let us know! We'll take care of the trolls so they can't bother you or foul up your pond."

The base DC of this check, under the Giant's rules, is 15 + 6 (the nymph's HD) + 3 (the nymph's Wis modifier) = 24. I reduce the DC by 2 for the Relationship component, since the PCs had peacefully interacted with her before ("positive acquaintance"). Nymphs don't really like to leave their watery homes, but a bunch of trolls is a nuisance, so I called the Risk-Reward component even (+0). That resulted in a Diplomacy DC of 22.

One of the PCs was a level 4 bard, so their Diplomacy modifier was 7 ranks + 4 Cha + 2 synergy = +13. The other PCs rolled to Aid Another, and so the check was made pretty handily.

[Kaleph]

My group has been using the Giant's Diplomacy houserules for a few years now. They're easy to understand and easy to use (especially since, as the Giant points out, the Relationship modifier is usually +0). It looks like your second question asks whether the DC is too high with the creature's HD added on, and the answer is no.

Real-life example: the PCs discover that a large band of trolls is planning to raid the nearby town. The characters start organizing the town watch, etc., and one player has the bright idea to recruit some local fey. They travel to a lake connected to the river on which the town is built, and treat with the nymph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nymph.htm) who calls the lake home. The gist of their proposal: "If you spot the trolls, rush down the river and let us know! We'll take care of the trolls so they can't bother you or foul up your pond."

The base DC of this check, under the Giant's rules, is 15 + 6 (the nymph's HD) + 3 (the nymph's Wis modifier) = 24. I reduce the DC by 2 for the Relationship component, since the PCs had peacefully interacted with her before ("positive acquaintance"). Nymphs don't really like to leave their watery homes, but a bunch of trolls is a nuisance, so I called the Risk-Reward component even (+0). That resulted in a Diplomacy DC of 22.

One of the PCs was a level 4 bard, so their Diplomacy modifier was 7 ranks + 4 Cha + 2 synergy = +13. The other PCs rolled to Aid Another, and so the check was made pretty handily.

Thank you; your examples looks also reasonable. The DC according to PF rules is also more complicated to calculate, in my eyes, and would probably be 19, so a bit too easy...

[D+1]

The fact is that, in our D&D Group, the outcome of a diplomacy check has been so far assigned arbitrarily by the DM, but we'd like to have more consistent and quantitative criteria instead.You mean like the sidebar on p72 which not only gives DC's but lists possible actions by the NPC according to what their attitude is (or what it's changed to)? I dislike the subversion of Diplomacy in 3rd Edition. It's too often been misused for simply replacing roleplaying interaction with the DM with a die roll. But if the DM is going to assign the outcome of that roll arbitrarily anyway, disregarding the effect it is supposed to have, then replacing the PH rules will accomplish nothing that simply adhering to the existing rules won't. The guidelines for what an NPC will do and thus how difficult it should be to change their attitude is already there - the DM just isn't using them. And it's incorrect that it has no way to oppose it. If the interaction is one of NEGOTIATION then it's not a check against a DC but an opposed roll.

Then there's the issue of how the adjustments to the roll can be piled on. Welcome to 3E. This is how it's MEANT to work. To borrow the example from the link: If a 2nd level bard has a 16 Charisma but then puts 5 ranks in Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Bluff (for a +2 synergy bonus), 5 ranks in Sense Motive (for a +2 synergy bonus), and 5 ranks of Knowledge (nobility) for a third +2 synergy bonus, then yes, a 2nd level bard has a +14 and only needs a 11 or better to succeed, but that character has spent 20 skill points to do that. Depending on that characters intelligence it wouldn't leave a lot of points to devote to their Performance skill as a bard, much less Search, Spot, Listen, Swim, Gather Information, Bluff, Ride, or anything else a PC might want to spend some skill points to be good at. He's a one-note Johnny. Let him play his one note. He's paying the dues for it.

I'd further add that this assumes 10 rounds of conversation to change anyone's attitude. If it's rushed to a single full-round action - such as trying to keep someone hostile from just killing you while you're busy trying to talk at them - is a -10 penalty. If the DM wants opponents to attack - they will. Diplomacy won't stop them because it won't have time to do so. If the PC rushes it AND still has a full-round in which to say something, that DC of 25 just became 35 and success is dramatically less likely to succeed until the PC is much higher level. Those synergy bonuses won't be getting any higher than they already are, but other buffs will be found and utilized.

I think it really comes down to whether the DM wants to allow Diplomacy to do what it was written to do in the first place. I've always tried to simply avoid it rearing its ugly head at all, although I've been fortunate to have players that aren't interested in TRYING to break the game - which is FAR, FAR too easy to do if you simply want to try. But when it has been used, then I've allowed it to be used (and abused) as written and haven't needed to resort to just ignoring its mechanics by arbitrarily ruling responses the way I want.

Worst case scenario: If it were me, I'd just add some standard penalties to the die roll or modifiers to the DC for the things that I feel the mechanic should account for - Charisma of the target, level/HD of the target, a variable to incorporate not just what the current attitude is but if they are inherently resistant to diplomatic influence (such as an NPC who is described as disliking people who talk too much), or the like. Or REMOVE some of those synergies, or rule that they won't apply - such as Knowledge (nobility) synergy not applying if you're NOT dealing directly with a noble, or Bluff synergy not applying if the PC is actually being truthful and above-board in all their remarks.

[King of Nowhere]

I am more worried about the DC being too low, especially against someone with few hit dice.
I mean, take a normal first level commoner, the DC to get him to do anything is 26, which is not that hard. Still a step up over a blank DC of 25 to become friendly, but you can still break the campaign world easily.

Still, it seems pretty reasonable. Just add the caveat that a particularly unfavorable deal may be reject no matter how good your diplomacy. Or that the target may accept a favorable deal without needing to roll.

Also, you should ban the glibness spell or other similar ways to get a +30 to diplomacy. that totally breaks the game, and it makes investing on the skill pointless

[Biggus]

There's this version, which builds on The Giant's but takes it a bit further:

https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html

[Kaleph]

Thank you for the additional insight; these are my considerations.


I am more worried about the DC being too low, especially against someone with few hit dice.
I mean, take a normal first level commoner, the DC to get him to do anything is 26, which is not that hard. Still a step up over a blank DC of 25 to become friendly, but you can still break the campaign world easily.

Actually it's only a 15 to become friendly, if he starts as indifferent, while DC 25 makes him helpful; but yes your example works anyhow: a DC 26 with the houserule corresponds approximately to a DC 25 in the PHB for a 1st level commoner with 0 Cha modifier. So the DC is still relatively low, as you said, which is realistic for me - if I have someone in the party with 20+ diplomacy modifier, I have no objection to him convincing a commoner to help. It's also not unbalanced, since a peasant won't prove too much helpful anyhow.


Still, it seems pretty reasonable. Just add the caveat that a particularly unfavorable deal may be reject no matter how good your diplomacy. Or that the target may accept a favorable deal without needing to roll.

Yes, I added the caveat already - basically the "possible actions" of the PHB are still valid, and requests in that range should be automatical successes; vice versa for tasks implying unacceptable risks. For everything else, you roll for a request as in the houserule.


Also, you should ban the glibness spell or other similar ways to get a +30 to diplomacy. that totally breaks the game, and it makes investing on the skill pointless
Sigh, I see the point. The problem is actually not glibness in this case, as it influences only bluff, but the infamous spells that boost any skill checks: divine insight and guidance of the avatar. I'll talk with the master to find a solution.


There's this version, which builds on The Giant's but takes it a bit further:

https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html
I had a look, and the additional uses of the skill seem not a decisive update; on the other hand the DC modifiers are adapted/improved. My idea is therefore to use the original houserule and, if we still don't like it, give this alternative version a try.

[Kaleph]

You mean like the sidebar on p72 which not only gives DC's but lists possible actions by the NPC according to what their attitude is (or what it's changed to)? I dislike the subversion of Diplomacy in 3rd Edition. It's too often been misused for simply replacing roleplaying interaction with the DM with a die roll. But if the DM is going to assign the outcome of that roll arbitrarily anyway, disregarding the effect it is supposed to have, then replacing the PH rules will accomplish nothing that simply adhering to the existing rules won't. The guidelines for what an NPC will do and thus how difficult it should be to change their attitude is already there - the DM just isn't using them. And it's incorrect that it has no way to oppose it. If the interaction is one of NEGOTIATION then it's not a check against a DC but an opposed roll.

Then there's the issue of how the adjustments to the roll can be piled on. Welcome to 3E. This is how it's MEANT to work. To borrow the example from the link: If a 2nd level bard has a 16 Charisma but then puts 5 ranks in Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Bluff (for a +2 synergy bonus), 5 ranks in Sense Motive (for a +2 synergy bonus), and 5 ranks of Knowledge (nobility) for a third +2 synergy bonus, then yes, a 2nd level bard has a +14 and only needs a 11 or better to succeed, but that character has spent 20 skill points to do that. Depending on that characters intelligence it wouldn't leave a lot of points to devote to their Performance skill as a bard, much less Search, Spot, Listen, Swim, Gather Information, Bluff, Ride, or anything else a PC might want to spend some skill points to be good at. He's a one-note Johnny. Let him play his one note. He's paying the dues for it.

I'd further add that this assumes 10 rounds of conversation to change anyone's attitude. If it's rushed to a single full-round action - such as trying to keep someone hostile from just killing you while you're busy trying to talk at them - is a -10 penalty. If the DM wants opponents to attack - they will. Diplomacy won't stop them because it won't have time to do so. If the PC rushes it AND still has a full-round in which to say something, that DC of 25 just became 35 and success is dramatically less likely to succeed until the PC is much higher level. Those synergy bonuses won't be getting any higher than they already are, but other buffs will be found and utilized.

I think it really comes down to whether the DM wants to allow Diplomacy to do what it was written to do in the first place. I've always tried to simply avoid it rearing its ugly head at all, although I've been fortunate to have players that aren't interested in TRYING to break the game - which is FAR, FAR too easy to do if you simply want to try. But when it has been used, then I've allowed it to be used (and abused) as written and haven't needed to resort to just ignoring its mechanics by arbitrarily ruling responses the way I want.

Ugh, you're seeing it more complicated as it is. Basically it's all about two questions:

Given the initial attitude of an NPC, which requests are not an automatical success/failure?
If the outcome of a request is not automatically determined by the attitude, which modifiers have to be applied to the DC?
Sometimes the DM wasn't really wanting (or capable) to assign a modifier, since looking at the "naked" result of the d20 was easier.
It looks that your reply is rather directed towards generic complaints against diplomacy rules as written, and not addressed to my specific question - which, I admit, I didn't provide enough background information for. Please consider that we are keeping the basic function of Diplomacy as it is (possibly adjusting just a bit the DC), and the houserule would be used for special requests only, i.e. those that are not an automatic success/failure according to Point 1.


Worst case scenario: If it were me, I'd just add some standard penalties to the die roll or modifiers to the DC for the things that I feel the mechanic should account for - Charisma of the target, level/HD of the target, a variable to incorporate not just what the current attitude is but if they are inherently resistant to diplomatic influence (such as an NPC who is described as disliking people who talk too much), or the like. Or REMOVE some of those synergies, or rule that they won't apply - such as Knowledge (nobility) synergy not applying if you're NOT dealing directly with a noble, or Bluff synergy not applying if the PC is actually being truthful and above-board in all their remarks.
Yes, you are mentioning some good houserules. Anyhow, some DM's are not confortable with assigning "standard penalties" on the fly, so they'd like to have written guidelines. The houserule I'm talking about seems to provide reasonable modifiers, I just wanted a confirmation.

[Segev]

While you have plenty of reason to use the Giant's alternate system, I want to point out that core 3.5 diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) rules give more structured DCs than your example DM is using. For basic negotiation, both parties roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the higher roll gets "advantage." This has no mechanical definition, but should generally indicate that the winner gets what he wants: a better price (or any price at all, if the other party was dubious about trading), a judgment call going his way, etc.

The general NPC attitude should tell you how far the NPC will put himself out for you. Doing things that are normally his job that he'd do for just about anybody whould be no-brainers unless he's actively hostile and looking for an excuse to screw you over. Doing minor favors might come from the above opposed Diplomacy check, while more major ones might require a Friendly or even Helpful demeanor.



Attitude
Meaning
Possible Actions


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


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


Indifferent
Doesn’t much care
Socially expected interaction


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


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



If the NPC is already in that attitude range, he probably will do things without needing Diplomacy checks that ask him the appropriate level. A shopkeep has a socially expected interaction of selling, even bartering (though the opposed Diplomacy checks of negotiation may kick in here). A coutier has a socially expected interaction of polite conversation and even some gossip and light banter when at a party. If he's Unfriendly, though, that courtier may turn snarky or give deliberately deceptive advice.

Improving NPC attitudes will push them to do more helpful (or less unhelpful) things. If it's unclear whether something is in the level the NPC's attitude is at, a simple opposed Diplomacy check to see if it goes the PC's way should handle most things.

There are hard DCs for all of this to fall back on. It isn't dysfunctional, though it can be a bit overpowered if the PC is blowing away all the rolls. But then...he's invested in doing so. He SHOULD be the guy everybody likes and does favors for. Sometimes in spite of themselves.

[King of Nowhere]

There's this version, which builds on The Giant's but takes it a bit further:

https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html

I like that it shifts the modifiers from relationship and favorable deal to be more important, from +/- 10 to +/- 15.

I also wonder, when two people are negotiating, if it would make sense for them to roll opposite diplomacy checks, with the winner managing to outtalk the other into giving a more favorable deal. It should not make a huge difference, but it may add to the flavor ("he starts by pointing out various risks you have neglected in your assessment, and making some very reasonable requests, and then somehow bit by bit he talked you in circles and ended up requesting considerably more money than you wanted to offer in the first place. And you yourself were forced to admit that mmost of his points were reasonable. Do you want to pay him extra, or do you want to call off the deal?")

[Kaleph]

While you have plenty of reason to use the Giant's alternate system, I want to point out that core 3.5 diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) rules give more structured DCs than your example DM is using. For basic negotiation, both parties roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the higher roll gets "advantage." This has no mechanical definition, but should generally indicate that the winner gets what he wants: a better price (or any price at all, if the other party was dubious about trading), a judgment call going his way, etc.
True, but I'd use opposed diplomacy checks only in those specific cases you are mentioning, e.g. bargaining, pleading a case, trying to influence a City council against a decision sponsored by your opponent, and the like. There are several reasons why I don't like the idea of opposed checks when someone is requesting a favour - something resembling some sort of saving throw would be more appropriate, in my opinion.


The general NPC attitude should tell you how far the NPC will put himself out for you. Doing things that are normally his job that he'd do for just about anybody whould be no-brainers unless he's actively hostile and looking for an excuse to screw you over. Doing minor favors might come from the above opposed Diplomacy check, while more major ones might require a Friendly or even Helpful demeanor.



Attitude
Meaning
Possible Actions


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


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


Indifferent
Doesn’t much care
Socially expected interaction


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


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



If the NPC is already in that attitude range, he probably will do things without needing Diplomacy checks that ask him the appropriate level. A shopkeep has a socially expected interaction of selling, even bartering (though the opposed Diplomacy checks of negotiation may kick in here). A coutier has a socially expected interaction of polite conversation and even some gossip and light banter when at a party. If he's Unfriendly, though, that courtier may turn snarky or give deliberately deceptive advice.

Improving NPC attitudes will push them to do more helpful (or less unhelpful) things. If it's unclear whether something is in the level the NPC's attitude is at, a simple opposed Diplomacy check to see if it goes the PC's way should handle most things.

There are hard DCs for all of this to fall back on. It isn't dysfunctional, though it can be a bit overpowered if the PC is blowing away all the rolls. But then...he's invested in doing so. He SHOULD be the guy everybody likes and does favors for. Sometimes in spite of themselves.
Please don't be misled by my OP: we know the rule, and we try to apply it, but there's still, say, a 20% of the cases where the DM feels that the standard check and the table are not enough or are flawed. If an NPC has a certain attitude and I have a request, he can possibly answer in three ways: yes, no, not sure. The first two cases mean that no diplomacy roll is needed, since the request is compatible with the possible actions listed in the table; in the third case the DM doesn't want to decide and relies on a roll. This is typical in D&D: in critical situations let the PCs roll, so that they have the feeling that they are influencing their destiny. But without a clear guideline to determine the DC, again the story ends with an arbitrary decision of the DM disguised as a check, which is what we wanted to prevent in the first place.

As I said, I don't like the idea of an opposed check: if I'm unconvinced of something, I don't need (also in real life) to justify my position with my eloquence: a simple "no" is already enough of an answer; so a reluctant NPC with no ranks in diplomacy but, say, a certain authority could almost as easily elude my request as a refined diplomat.

I mean, when you're trying to influence someone with intimidate you use its level to define the DC; can this approach work also for diplomacy? So I had this idea, that the DC should be something like 10 + HD + Wis.

Which is, if you think about it, similar to a saving throw (and also the math fits if you assume that PC and NPC are of the same level, since the HD value of the NPC is close to the PC's ranks in diplomacy, as an NPC's base ST modifier is on average similar to the max spell Level of the PC).

So, the giants's article already provided a ready-made rule that went into the direction I was looking for, that's why I was considering it as an add-on to the Standard diplomacy function (that, as I said, works in 80% of the cases).

The good thing with the giant's rule is that many are already using it, so I can get some feedback to understand if it really works as it looks like.

[Segev]

I agree: if you're pretty firmly against doing something, there's no need to rely on your eloquence to get you to stay firmly against it. But that's the situation where the DM knows the answer to the request for a favor is "no." In the one situation where you and I agree a roll is needed, I think the mistake being made is the assumption that the NPC is "against" doing the favor. The NPC is ambivalent. IF he were against it, the answer would just be "no." You're trying to persuade him, not to do something he's opposed to, but to do something he wouldn't necessarily mind doing, but might, maybe.

There are three ways I'd recommend handling this:

1) Opposed Diplomacy, if you're trying to sweeten the deal by offering a bribe or a favor of your own or flirting or guilt tripping or the like. This is essentially Negotiation, where the favor is becoming a "service" you're "paying for" and negotiating the price (anywhere from "free, because you feel bad" for a guilt trip to "in return for X amount of gold" for a bribe).
2) Diplomacy vs. Sense Motive, if you're trying to convince him it really isn't that big of a deal. This would not necessarily be him detecting you lying, but getting a feel for how badly you really want it and what it's worth to you, as well as if there's anything hidden. If the DM is ambivalent about the NPC's choice even with full knowledge of your sincerity, desire, and the costs you're aware of to the NPC, he should probably be using (1) or (3); this is for when the NPC is trying to make a value judgment about the PC asking the favor.
3) Diplomacy to adjust attitude. If the NPC is ambivalent at this attitude level, he probably would be cool with helping out as you ask if you could improve his attitude by one category. There are given DCs for this.

Of note, the only DM decision beyond "I've already decided he will/won't help" (which I agree is probably the most common situation) is whether the NPC's ambivalence arises from not having a good read on the PC or not. If not, (2) is the go-to, and the DM then judges based on the NPC's clearer read (or on the fact that your Diplomacy bamboozled him into liking you enough to help anyway). If so, or if knowing the full details really wouldn't matter to resolving his ambivalence, it's the player's choice to either offer a bribe, sob story, flirtation, or other favor-trading and turn it into a negotiation, or to just take the fact that the guy seems ambivalent as a sign it's time to make better friends and roll to improve attitude.


Again, not telling you not to use the Giant's rules. Just trying to help with the problem by pointing out a way to close the gap in the rules you're currently using to avoid having to make up arbitrary DCs.