Bonus Inflation

[mehs]

One of the things that I'm noticing is that, due to the prevalence of +40 skill bonuses, standard high rolls are discounted. 18? 23? **** rolls that you can't possibly expect to succeed. Even though rules guidelines say that should work in most circumstances. You get a 30 diplomacy? Doesn't work at all because the next guy over can auto force a 55 check result and turn any hostile creature friendly in a few seconds. Or even if there isn't anyone else with almost double your bonus, the dm just adjusts so that whatever your bonus is, the check is to roll a 15+

Is this an inaccurate assessment? Is there anyway to change it?

[Particle_Man]

Maybe put a cap on the sum of the bonuses? Nothing higher than X, no matter what?

[Ramza00]

One of the things that I'm noticing is that, due to the prevalence of +40 skill bonuses, standard high rolls are discounted. 18? 23? **** rolls that you can't possibly expect to succeed. Even though rules guidelines say that should work in most circumstances. You get a 30 diplomacy? Doesn't work at all because the next guy over can auto force a 55 check result and turn any hostile creature friendly in a few seconds. Or even if there isn't anyone else with almost double your bonus, the dm just adjusts so that whatever your bonus is, the check is to roll a 15+

Is this an inaccurate assessment? Is there anyway to change it?

How are you getting +40 skill bonuses? *

*I know of many ways but see the next part.

Yes there is math involved with a dice rolling game and after a certain point you have to be asking what is the purpose of the roll and what is assumed automatic success. The d20 system is designed where each HD is giving a +1 bonus, +1/2, +1/3 bonus depending on what type of check we are dealing with and anything more than +1 to HD you have to be mindful of or you just cause automatic success.

Likewise when doing rolls that are not against a fixed dc but instead two rolls battling it out once again numbers matter.

------

Skill DCs of 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, all the way to 100s are hard to hit but you have to design the game in a way that even if you hit them the game still works even if it works on easy mode. Thus be willing to not allow a pied piper or equivalent to just diplomacy their way out of all tension and so on.

[mehs]

I don't know, I'm not the one who made a character with a +40 skill bonus. We are about level 8 if that gives context.

[Maat Mons]

This is, to some extent, an inherent problem with numerical progression in games. Player numbers keep increasing. Either the numbers players need to attain in order to succeed also keep increasing, or things keep getting easier. Some game designers/GMs don’t want player characters to ever get too good at anything. The simple way to accomplish this would be to limit the rate of numerical progression. But some go the convoluted route of handing out big numbers so players feel powerful, and then finagling things behind the scenes to make sure players are not, in fact, powerful.

Personally, I don’t think there’s much point to any kind of progression unless you eventually become able to easily handle things that were once difficult for you. If all DCs scale to your level, that never happens. You don’t want to create a situation where a 1st-level character needs a DC 15 Survival check to find food in the woods, but a 20th-level character in the same woods instead needs a DC 35 check. That sort of thing makes leveling less of a progression, and more of a treadmill. High-level play isn’t supposed to be low-level play with bigger numbers. The sorts of things it takes to challenge you need to change, or else you haven’t really gotten anywhere.

[Particle_Man]

Another option is playing E6, or an E6 version of Pathfinder (basically no one gets above character level 6, except you keep getting feats every so often).

[TotallyNotEvil]

I mean, a +40 bonus really is pretty damn extraordinary at level 8.

Do I have characters with skills that high? Yeah, but only when it's their main schtik and at literally twice that level.

Let's figure out a baseline. At level 8, max ranks + proficiency totals +11. Let's say you have a pretty nice +5 mod to it, Skill Focus and, to round things out, a trait giving you a +1. And, finally, a nice item of +5 competence. That totals up to a +25- about two thirds of your friend's bonus, and I don't think anyone could say these conditions for the +25 don't represent someone pretty damn good at it.

A +40 at lv 8 really is breaking the bounds of the system, and these are wide bounds.

I'm a fan of martials doing nice things, too often someone that takes three high level feats can be accomplished with a lv 1~2 spell, and, supposedly, skills are where martials can level the playing field. Even if that so often isn't the case.

But there is such a thing as too much- perhaps it might be better to have a frank discussion with the DM about this.

Provided, of course, that they are warping the game with it. Like I saw someone say in the 5E board, "good design is when every character feels like they got away with something". People should be beyond others at their specialties.

That's not to say I don't get you- I have, and I am playing a game right now where I feel I might as well start leveling Basketweaving, because even on the skills which I maxed, someone, or even what felt like everyone else simply blows me out of the water. My main thing isn't skills, which makes it easier to live with, but I didn't expect even the realively niche stuff I maxed- exactly because I expected everyone to be better at mainstream- to be throughly overshadowed.

So yes, I agree with your point- you'd expect the Rogue to sneak better than the Ranger or the Archer Fighter, but the other two should at least be able to be relevant if they've been diligently maxing their Stealth. Especially if they have been doing some updating of it- learn in a buff spell, buying a simple item.

[Kurald Galain]

Is this an inaccurate assessment? Is there anyway to change it?
It is inaccurate that +40 skill bonuses are prevalent at level 8. They exist if you try hard enough, but they shouldn't be common (and indeed, as 5+ years of PFS experience tells me, they're not common), and a more reasonable number at that level is +20.

It is also inaccurate that standard high rolls should be discounted. See, your GM is making the mistake of tailoring his skill DCs to the strongest person in the group, meaning that everybody else automatically fails. What he should be doing (and what literally every printed adventure will make him do) is tailor the DCs to the average party, meaning that Mr. Plus Forty automatically succeeds.

And it's really not a problem if a character that invested heavily in a skill gets an automatic or near-automatic succes rate with that skill; that's what he's building his character for. You just need to rule that goals that are abjectly ridiculous (like convincing the king to give you his crown immediately) are not going to happen regardless of how high you roll.

[Akal Saris]

Ultimately it's up to the DM what the skill DCs are for any situation, and some DMs are more fair than others when it comes to allowing PCs' investments to actually matter. If a PC has +40 to Diplomacy, and the DM wants to challenge that PC, then the DC needs to be 50+, which by the normal skills guidelines is unlikely to ever happen.

The same thing happens in every probability-based system - it's a DM problem, not a system problem. In my last 5E game, one PC had jacked up his AC to around 28, so the DM gave every monster about +20 to hit, which meant that unless they rolled a 1, opponents automatically hit my AC 16 barbarian.

[Kurald Galain]

If a PC has +40 to Diplomacy, and the DM wants to challenge that PC, then the DC needs to be 50+, which by the normal skills guidelines is unlikely to ever happen.
I don't agree with that. "Challenge" doesn't mean "substantial chance of failure on every roll". If the GM wants to challenge that PC, then he needs to provide a situation that cannot be resolved solely by a diplomacy check.

You challenge characters with their weaknesses, not by arbitrarily negating their strengths.

[Akal Saris]

Yes, that's what a good DM would do. A bad DM will simply inflate the DC number.

[Gnaeus]

I mean, a +40 bonus really is pretty damn extraordinary at level 8.

Do I have characters with skills that high? Yeah, but only when it's their main schtik and at literally twice that level.

Let's figure out a baseline. At level 8, max ranks + proficiency totals +11. Let's say you have a pretty nice +5 mod to it, Skill Focus and, to round things out, a trait giving you a +1. And, finally, a nice item of +5 competence. That totals up to a +25- about two thirds of your friend's bonus, and I don't think anyone could say these conditions for the +25 don't represent someone pretty damn good at it.

A +40 at lv 8 really is breaking the bounds of the system, and these are wide bounds.

I'm a fan of martials doing nice things, too often someone that takes three high level feats can be accomplished with a lv 1~2 spell, and, supposedly, skills are where martials can level the playing field. Even if that so often isn't the case.

But there is such a thing as too much- perhaps it might be better to have a frank discussion with the DM about this.

Provided, of course, that they are warping the game with it. Like I saw someone say in the 5E board, "good design is when every character feels like they got away with something". People should be beyond others at their specialties.

That's not to say I don't get you- I have, and I am playing a game right now where I feel I might as well start leveling Basketweaving, because even on the skills which I maxed, someone, or even what felt like everyone else simply blows me out of the water. My main thing isn't skills, which makes it easier to live with, but I didn't expect even the realively niche stuff I maxed- exactly because I expected everyone to be better at mainstream- to be throughly overshadowed.

So yes, I agree with your point- you'd expect the Rogue to sneak better than the Ranger or the Archer Fighter, but the other two should at least be able to be relevant if they've been diligently maxing their Stealth. Especially if they have been doing some updating of it- learn in a buff spell, buying a simple item.

40 is a bit unusual at 8 to be sure. I'm pretty sure its possible. But 30 isn't difficult.

Assume a wizard (SAD class, caster, item crafter).
At 8 his int could reasonably be 26. Starting stat 20 (pretty doable in point buy), +2 level ups. +4 int Item (would be available even if he didn't craft it). Thats optimized, but not bizarrely so.
Scroll Scholar archetype (easily found in PFSRD. generally Meh. Not crazy good or bad).
He casts Heroism and Tears to Wine. He has SOMETHING giving a +1 cl. Thats some optimization, but nothing too difficult.
He has a book that counts as a MW tool.
8 ranks +3 class +8 int +4 archetype bonus +5 enhance +2 morale + 2 circumstance +2 aid another (familiar)=+34 knowledge and he hasn't really done anything unusual other than take a slightly odd archetype.

I would expect to see similar numbers from similarly buffed specialists (like a knowledge or sense motive from an inquisitor, bluff from a mesmerist, etc). Not that everyone has heroism and TtoW, but those could easily be provided by a party member.

[Jay R]

From my Rules for DMs:


30. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

This principle generalizes; it isn’t just for the moment they get it. If they have a skill at 40+ ranks, there should occasionally be an encounter for which that skill is devastatingly effective. There should also be encounters in which it is useless. That usually isn’t an encounter in which they need to roll a 61; it’s an encounter in which that skill does not work.

Another of my Rules:

28. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

a. Identify the loudest player and the pushiest player. You will never need to set up their moments; they will do so.
b. Identify the quietest player and the least active player. You will need to set up their moments every session, and make it impossible for the first two to take these moments over.

This principle also generalizes. Even if there is a PC with a skill with 40 ranks, it is the DM’s job to ensure that each player gets at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

[Tohron]

Here's the highest I got, starting with a Human Artificer 8 with Able Learner, Skill Focus in the skill in question, and 16 in the attribute it depends on:
+11 from ranks, +3 from Skill Focus, +2 from a masterwork tool, +6 from Skill Enhancement infusion, +3 from attribute, +1 from an attribute boost item, +13 from a Divine Insight item, +4 from an Improvisation item and about +15 from a skill boost item. That comes out to a +58 bonus, and spending a large chunk of WBL on crafting skill-boosting items.

To focus more on the topic of discussion, it is a basic effect of the d20 system that characters become increasingly useless at things they don't specialize in as the levels go up. Other commenters are correct that the DM should be setting DCs based on what they plausibly should be rather than what would challenge the most skilled character, but if the character wants to be challenged, then anything that would challenge them in that area would be hopeless for any of the other characters. It seems to me that the best solution for this problem is for challenges to give players many different ways to contribute. This is, of course, more work for the DM, but it does seem better than the alternatives.

[icefractal]

Other commenters are correct that the DM should be setting DCs based on what they plausibly should be rather than what would challenge the most skilled character, but if the character wants to be challenged, then anything that would challenge them in that area would be hopeless for any of the other characters. It seems to me that the best solution for this problem is for challenges to give players many different ways to contribute. This is, of course, more work for the DM, but it does seem better than the alternatives.I wouldn't even see it as a problem if sometimes a challenge is just for one person, if it's not consuming too much real-time.

Like if you have a team with a navy seal, an expert hacker, a veteran spy, and a nuclear physicist (sounds kind of action-movie-esque), it's normal and expected that some things are only do-able by one of them (or conversely, are trivial to one of them).

[Elvensilver]

One solution to the problem of having somebody with a very high bonus and other characters with a more reasonable one would be to have incremental successes. (a DC of 25 is a success, but you get a better result if you roll significantly higher, like a 30, 35, or 40)

Like, a barely passed knowledge check could reveal that your foe is a red dragon, evil and fiery, capable of magic, flight and natural attacks. For every 5 points over the skill DC, you get another item of information, such as number of attacks or damage resistances.
For a climb check, surpassing the DC by 5 might first allow you to have a hand free while climbing, then, increase your climbing speed, etc.

This way, people that are merely okay at something don't get penalized, but whoever improves a skill to sky-high levels can still reap the benefits.

[Kurald Galain]

For every 5 points over the skill DC, you get another item of information, such as number of attacks or damage resistances.
Knowledge checks do work like that, by the rules. It's a good point that more skills should have that granularity.

[mehs]

Here's the highest I got, starting with a Human Artificer 8 with Able Learner, Skill Focus in the skill in question, and 16 in the attribute it depends on:
+11 from ranks, +3 from Skill Focus, +2 from a masterwork tool, +6 from Skill Enhancement infusion, +3 from attribute, +1 from an attribute boost item, +13 from a Divine Insight item, +4 from an Improvisation item and about +15 from a skill boost item. That comes out to a +58 bonus, and spending a large chunk of WBL on crafting skill-boosting items.

To focus more on the topic of discussion, it is a basic effect of the d20 system that characters become increasingly useless at things they don't specialize in as the levels go up. Other commenters are correct that the DM should be setting DCs based on what they plausibly should be rather than what would challenge the most skilled character, but if the character wants to be challenged, then anything that would challenge them in that area would be hopeless for any of the other characters. It seems to me that the best solution for this problem is for challenges to give players many different ways to contribute. This is, of course, more work for the DM, but it does seem better than the alternatives.

Pathfinder dude. This thread is tagged with pathfinder. No 3.5.

The known stuff I know is they are a negotiator bard with a cloak of the diplomat.

What seems likely to me, is ranks 8, ability mode 7, class bonus 3, negotiator archetype bonus 4, magic item 5, trait 1, skill focus 3, secondary feat 2. Possibly instead of trait and secondary feat they have a thrush familiar somehow to get that 3.

The 40 was a generalization, the bonus in this case was a 35.

[spectralphoenix]

I'm a little confused as to what the problem here is. I mean, if the guy spent two feats, a devoted archetype, and a magic item towards maxing out a skill, I would expect him to be a lot better at it than someone who didn't do that stuff.

Now if the problem is social skills specifically, the answer is that the DM shouldn't treat it as mind control. No matter how good of a liar you are, you shouldn't actually be able to convince a guard that he's a yellow-footed rock wallaby. Similarly, no diplomat should be able to convince the BBEG to give up on his evil plan and turn himself in, any more than someone with +40 athletics can fly. Even if someone's overwhelmingly good at a skill, there should be plenty of situations where it won't solve the problem.

[Maat Mons]

Hmm, I'm sure we can hit a +40 Diplomacy mod on an 8th-level character…

Silver-Tongued Human
Halcyon Druid
Empathic Diplomat

+3 (class skill)
+8 (ranks)
+7 (Wis mod [because trait])
+2 (racial bonus)
+4 (Peacekeeper)
+4 (favored class bonus)
+5 (Ring of the Diplomat)
+2 (Owl’s Wisdom)

Well, that’s +35. Feats could get you the rest of the way. But honestly, I wouldn’t spend the feats. Halcyon Druid is a solid archetype independent of the fact that it boosts Diplomacy. Spending one trait and all your favored class bonuses isn’t that big a deal. Silver-Tongued Human is kind of nice for the 3-step shift. 5,000 gp and a 2nd-level spell slot are acceptable costs that this level. And a Druid was going to be pumping Wisdom anyway. But I feel 2 feats crosses the line into over-investment. I mean, +35 will probably get you your full 3-step increase most of the time anyway.

[King of Nowhere]

the problem is always deciding what counts as a dc 50 check, and what simply cannot be done.

for start, when people have high modifiers, they shouldn't roll most of the time. success should be assumed. i authomatically let my players getting away with favorable deals because two of them have 20+ diplomacy, and the wizard authomatically knows everting but the most obscure knowledge. i don't remember asking the rgue for an acrobacy check in a long while, though i would if he came up with some really crazy stunt.
a roll of 45 on knowledge(history) was rewarded with detailed background informations on a number of fairly minor wizards that participated in a war 100 years before - enough information to be useful for identifying one of them upon meeting, and know enough of his combat stile to prepare. just knowing that those wizards exhisted and are still alive today, though, was authomatic.
i asked a dc 50 spellcraft check to rearrange on the fly a highly complex magic ritual that the party just learned, to get some better outcomes. just performing such a ritual would have been worth a dc 25, but that was authomatic.
on the other hand, i don't let somebody mind control people with a diplomacy check. that enemy you're about to fight, you can't engage him with diplomacy; he's about to attack you, and he won't trust you anyway. you can't invent an improved version of fireball that's 2nd level and deals double damage; that's physically impossible. you can lie as much as you want, but faced with enough negative evidence most people still won't believe you. and if you get branded as an established liar, no matter how good your roll, it's gonna be impossible to get people to trust you completely just by sweet-talking them. you can forage in a barren desert with a dc 40, but no amount of boosts will let you forage in antarctica, because there's literally no food whatsoever there (maybe you can fish on the coast, so correction: you can't forage in inner anctartica)

so, the trick to offering a consistent experience is that. the characters have superhuman powers, but those powers also have limitations. figure out what the characters can, and cannot do.

and yes, there are some dm who just raise dcs as the party increases in power, so that for this high level party foraging in the forest is now dc 35, and then they get ambushed by level 15 bandits. that's bad dming, and nothing to discuss there

[Crake]

No matter how good of a liar you are, you shouldn't actually be able to convince a guard that he's a yellow-footed rock wallaby.

A good rule of thumb for bluff specifically is that if you succeed, the NPC believes YOU believe what you’re saying, not necessarily that they believe what you’re saying. They might instead just think you’re a lunatic.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm a little confused as to what the problem here is. I mean, if the guy spent two feats, a devoted archetype, and a magic item towards maxing out a skill, I would expect him to be a lot better at it than someone who didn't do that stuff.
Yes. So the problem appears to be that the GM sets DCs for this skill to give this guy a substantial chance of failure. Meaning that for this character it is as if he didn't do that stuff (because his success rate is the same regardless of how much he invests), and for the other characters these DCs are unattainable.

[Zombimode]

One of the things that I'm noticing is that, due to the prevalence of +40 skill bonuses, standard high rolls are discounted. 18? 23? **** rolls that you can't possibly expect to succeed. Even though rules guidelines say that should work in most circumstances. You get a 30 diplomacy? Doesn't work at all because the next guy over can auto force a 55 check result and turn any hostile creature friendly in a few seconds. Or even if there isn't anyone else with almost double your bonus, the dm just adjusts so that whatever your bonus is, the check is to roll a 15+

Is this an inaccurate assessment? Is there anyway to change it?

It seems to me that the problem is not high bonuses but your DM rubber banding the meaning of skill bonuses.

Which is, of course, against both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

In D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 Skill Check DCs are static. They have an in-universe meaning.

[Gnaeus]

Now if the problem is social skills specifically, the answer is that the DM shouldn't treat it as mind control. No matter how good of a liar you are, you shouldn't actually be able to convince a guard that he's a yellow-footed rock wallaby. Similarly, no diplomat should be able to convince the BBEG to give up on his evil plan and turn himself in, any more than someone with +40 athletics can fly. Even if someone's overwhelmingly good at a skill, there should be plenty of situations where it won't solve the problem.

I'm really not sure I agree with this. It feels very guy at the gym fallacy. The same kinds of stories that give us casters with 9th level spell effects have characters who can trick the devil or death into getting into a bag they can't get out of. Or legolas listening to the ground for a moment and determining how far away the orcs are and that they just sped up. Even totally mundane modern stories have characters who can routinely snow alert guards with a good fast talk. If Conman McBard wants to sneak into the palace, he should be able with his epic skill check to persuade the guard that he is the emperor's missing cousin, not that he is a crazy person who believes that and should be locked up

Not that I am aware of a good system for epic skills that implements this at all well. But if you have +40 athletics you should be crossing the forest by leaping treetop to treetop, running up walls, bouncing off water like crouching tiger hidden dragon.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm really not sure I agree with this. It feels very guy at the gym fallacy. The same kinds of stories that give us casters with 9th level spell effects have characters who can trick the devil or death into getting into a bag they can't get out of. Or legolas listening to the ground for a moment and determining how far away the orcs are and that they just sped up. Even totally mundane modern stories have characters who can routinely snow alert guards with a good fast talk. If Conman McBard wants to sneak into the palace, he should be able with his epic skill check to persuade the guard that he is the emperor's missing cousin, not that he is a crazy person who believes that and should be locked up

Not that I am aware of a good system for epic skills that implements this at all well. But if you have +40 athletics you should be crossing the forest by leaping treetop to treetop, running up walls, bouncing off water like crouching tiger hidden dragon.

and yet, even those 9th level spells are limited, and there's only so much you can do with them.
it's basic gaming and basic storytelling. every power must have limitation. if a power has no limitations, then the character is basically a god. the guy at the gym fallacy is when this principle is misapplied, in thinking that this fantasy world has the same limitations as the real one. it doesn't have to. mundane characters can do superhuman stuff. and yet, they must have limitations. even if it is fantasy, even if it is magic, it must have rules.
persuading the guards that you are someone important and they should let you in should work; at the very least, they'd call someone higher ranked to deal with the issue. persuading the guards that they are wallabies, not so much

[Gnaeus]

and yet, even those 9th level spells are limited, and there's only so much you can do with them.
it's basic gaming and basic storytelling. every power must have limitation. if a power has no limitations, then the character is basically a god. the guy at the gym fallacy is when this principle is misapplied, in thinking that this fantasy world has the same limitations as the real one. it doesn't have to. mundane characters can do superhuman stuff. and yet, they must have limitations. even if it is fantasy, even if it is magic, it must have rules.
persuading the guards that you are someone important and they should let you in should work; at the very least, they'd call someone higher ranked to deal with the issue. persuading the guards that they are wallabies, not so much

Yes, it must have rules. I said that. But your example is entirely guy at the gym again. Persuading a guard that you are important enough to call their boss is something any reasonably persuasive person would be expected to be able to do. Thats not even like a James Bond level bluff check. Its like a Jack Burton level bluff check. Its probably about a DC 15. So a person with a good cha could reasonably do it, James Bond could probably autosucceed. A DC 50 skill check should be stuff that James Bond cannot do on his best day under circumstances favorable to him. Maybe wallabies is not a great example. But definitely persuading the important person that the guards call in that you are a polymorphed elder wyrm red dragon who will trivially destroy the castle should be achievable, in a world in which such creatures exist, for someone who is superhumanly good at tricking people.

[Jack_Simth]

I'm really not sure I agree with this. It feels very guy at the gym fallacy. The same kinds of stories that give us casters with 9th level spell effects have characters who can trick the devil or death into getting into a bag they can't get out of. Or legolas listening to the ground for a moment and determining how far away the orcs are and that they just sped up. Even totally mundane modern stories have characters who can routinely snow alert guards with a good fast talk. If Conman McBard wants to sneak into the palace, he should be able with his epic skill check to persuade the guard that he is the emperor's missing cousin, not that he is a crazy person who believes that and should be locked up
Like many things, it is double-edged. Keep in mind, skill checks are much easier to increase than spell DC's, and stock creatures and NPCs generally don't have much in the way of defensive social skills... and even if they do, Diplomacy isn't opposed.

Diplomacy is unopposed, at will, and DCs are fixed. +68 is doable at 5th (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=9217166&postcount=4), which turns Hostile to Helpful on a 1. It's unlikely most characters will be that optimized, but at "just" +30, a Rushed check turns Hostile to Indifferent on a 5 (Roll of 5 + 30 mod -10 Rushed = 25).

If you let Diplomacy do basically anything, then a PC that's optimized it tends to walk past anything with a language. Bluff is similar, as almost nothing has actual ranks in Sense Motive. When one character is solving 75% or more of the encounters the exact same way, the game has broken down.

Meanwhile, everything has saves. There a generic defense, lots of ways to boost them. Charm Monster will defeat the stock CR 10 dragon in a standard action at 7th, but said Dragon likely has something like a 50-70% chance of making the save (stock Juvenile Red Dragon, CR 10, has a +12 Will save; 7th level Wizard probably has 18 base Int, +2 from race, +1 from level up, +4 Int from a headband, and maybe Greater Spell Focus for another +2 DC, for a DC of 23 at the high end at 7th, dragon needs an 11; 50% odds... but few folks will actually optimize save DC that hard in Enchantment, as it immunities become prevalent quickly). And the Wizard can pull that off a few times per day, max. And the Dragon can maybe have Protection From Good (casts as a Sorcerer 3, and it's a 1st level spell), or a Vest of Resistance, or the nonelite array with a 12 in wis, or the heroic array with a 14 in Wis, or.... so the party Fighter is likely to need to go toe to toe with it while the rogue flanks and the Cleric heals. That's how the game is designed. It's intended play.

[Ignimortis]

Yes, it must have rules. I said that. But your example is entirely guy at the gym again. Persuading a guard that you are important enough to call their boss is something any reasonably persuasive person would be expected to be able to do. Thats not even like a James Bond level bluff check. Its like a Jack Burton level bluff check. Its probably about a DC 15. So a person with a good cha could reasonably do it, James Bond could probably autosucceed. A DC 50 skill check should be stuff that James Bond cannot do on his best day under circumstances favorable to him. Maybe wallabies is not a great example. But definitely persuading the important person that the guards call in that you are a polymorphed elder wyrm red dragon who will trivially destroy the castle should be achievable, in a world in which such creatures exist, for someone who is superhumanly good at tricking people.

I agree with you on all your points, and wanna suggest something. At super high Bluff levels, you aren't really tricking the guard. You're tricking reality into believing that the guard, actually, is a wallaby, and this oversight should immediately be fixed. There's no reason that a +50 Bluff check can't do something a Limited Wish could do at level 13 (Baleful Polymorph being a what, level 5 spell to duplicate?). Make it a 1/day thing and it is really no issue at all. In fact, the actual question is, why is a character with +50 to Bluff even bothering with guards? It's not like guards are a problem at that level, or even worthwhile obstacles.

Really, that's why high-level play exists. Casters get to change their game entirely every 5 or so levels. Why shouldn't skills do that at around the same intervals?


Like many things, it is double-edged. Keep in mind, skill checks are much easier to increase than spell DC's, and stock creatures and NPCs generally don't have much in the way of defensive social skills... and even if they do, Diplomacy isn't opposed.

Diplomacy is unopposed, at will, and DCs are fixed. +68 is doable at 5th (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=9217166&postcount=4), which turns Hostile to Helpful on a 1. It's unlikely most characters will be that optimized, but at "just" +30, a Rushed check turns Hostile to Indifferent on a 5 (Roll of 5 + 30 mod -10 Rushed = 25).

If you let Diplomacy do basically anything, then a PC that's optimized it tends to walk past anything with a language. Bluff is similar, as almost nothing has actual ranks in Sense Motive. When one character is solving 75% or more of the encounters the exact same way, the game has broken down.
That's an issue with how easy skill bonuses to get (and with a couple skills like Diplomacy), but not with the general concept. What it actually needs is better skill design and better math, but the idea that skills can achieve the same final effect (if not the same way and not at the same cost) as spells should be core to any system with magic that isn't designed for "magic is the trump card for everything".

[Gnaeus]

Like many things, it is double-edged. Keep in mind, skill checks are much easier to increase than spell DC's, and stock creatures and NPCs generally don't have much in the way of defensive social skills... and even if they do, Diplomacy isn't opposed.

Diplomacy is unopposed, at will, and DCs are fixed. +68 is doable at 5th (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=9217166&postcount=4), which turns Hostile to Helpful on a 1. It's unlikely most characters will be that optimized, but at "just" +30, a Rushed check turns Hostile to Indifferent on a 5 (Roll of 5 + 30 mod -10 Rushed = 25).

If you let Diplomacy do basically anything, then a PC that's optimized it tends to walk past anything with a language. Bluff is similar, as almost nothing has actual ranks in Sense Motive. When one character is solving 75% or more of the encounters the exact same way, the game has broken down.

Meanwhile, everything has saves. There a generic defense, lots of ways to boost them. Charm Monster will defeat the stock CR 10 dragon in a standard action at 7th, but said Dragon likely has something like a 50-70% chance of making the save (stock Juvenile Red Dragon, CR 10, has a +12 Will save; 7th level Wizard probably has 18 base Int, +2 from race, +1 from level up, +4 Int from a headband, and maybe Greater Spell Focus for another +2 DC, for a DC of 23 at the high end at 7th, dragon needs an 11; 50% odds... but few folks will actually optimize save DC that hard in Enchantment, as it immunities become prevalent quickly). And the Wizard can pull that off a few times per day, max. And the Dragon can maybe have Protection From Good (casts as a Sorcerer 3, and it's a 1st level spell), or a Vest of Resistance, or the nonelite array with a 12 in wis, or the heroic array with a 14 in Wis, or.... so the party Fighter is likely to need to go toe to toe with it while the rogue flanks and the Cleric heals. That's how the game is designed. It's intended play.

Me: I don't know of a system that implements this well
You: The system doesn't implement this well.
Me: Thats why I said that.

Stuff about dragon. I mean thats true, but it isn't like throwing Charm Monster is approaching the wizards optimization edge. Its a casual thing that he can do several times per day better than the diplomacy specialist, unless you are using the epic diplomacy turn the dragon into a slave automatically rules which are admittedly borked. I mean in an actual fight, the fighter and rogue are irrelevant beside the wizards 14 HD skeletons and the cleric's commanded shadows and planar allies. And when the dragon is distracted the wizard can one shot it with a shivering touch. And then cast Charm monster until he succeeds if he feels a need, or skin it and turn it into a mount (which may require level 8 unless he can get a +1 cl from somewhere). The game is designed to have bards. with spells like glibness. Who are presumably supposed to be able to do something as cool as the wizard with their epic level skill checks. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a defense. I'm saying the answer shouldn't be that you can't do cooler things with superhuman social skills than would be expected of any used car salesman.

In a perfect world the DM would redesign the skill rules to some well balanced utopia incorporating varying levels of success. In a more realistic example, he should discuss it with players (both the skillmonkey and others) and come up with something awesome and appropriate to the table power level that lets the skillmonkey BE a supernaturally persuasive being without winning D&D, much like he should do with the shivering touch wizard and his 40+ HD of minions.

Look at the character you linked. He can generate absurdly high numbers. He can't do anything else. We agree he shouldn't be able to mind rape dragons with epic skill checks that permit no defense. I propose that he should be able to do things much cooler than convince guards that he believes something they know to be false. Persuading NPCs that the PCs are insane is something most parties I have been in lately seem to be able to accomplish trivially without rolling just by talking.

[Jack_Simth]

Me: I don't know of a system that implements this well
You: The system doesn't implement this well.
Me: Thats why I said that.

Stuff about dragon. I mean thats true, but it isn't like throwing Charm Monster is approaching the wizards optimization edge. Its a casual thing that he can do several times per day better than the diplomacy specialist, unless you are using the epic diplomacy turn the dragon into a slave automatically rules which are admittedly borked. I mean in an actual fight, the fighter and rogue are irrelevant beside the wizards 14 HD skeletons and the cleric's commanded shadows and planar allies. And when the dragon is distracted the wizard can one shot it with a shivering touch. And then cast Charm monster until he succeeds if he feels a need, or skin it and turn it into a mount (which may require level 8 unless he can get a +1 cl from somewhere). The game is designed to have bards. with spells like glibness. Who are presumably supposed to be able to do something as cool as the wizard with their epic level skill checks. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a defense. I'm saying the answer shouldn't be that you can't do cooler things with superhuman social skills than would be expected of any used car salesman.

In a perfect world the DM would redesign the skill rules to some well balanced utopia incorporating varying levels of success. In a more realistic example, he should discuss it with players (both the skillmonkey and others) and come up with something awesome and appropriate to the table power level that lets the skillmonkey BE a supernaturally persuasive being without winning D&D, much like he should do with the shivering touch wizard and his 40+ HD of minions.

Look at the character you linked. He can generate absurdly high numbers. He can't do anything else. We agree he shouldn't be able to mind rape dragons with epic skill checks that permit no defense. I propose that he should be able to do things much cooler than convince guards that he believes something they know to be false. Persuading NPCs that the PCs are insane is something most parties I have been in lately seem to be able to accomplish trivially without rolling just by talking.
SpectralPhoenix: There should be limits on what mundanes can do with skill (used the example of convincing the guard he's a small animal)
You: That's the guy at the gym fallacy. Let him get absurd results.
Me: There needs to be a limit for game balance reasons. You shouldn't play diplomacy as is.
You: Oh, the system needs to be revamped, that's what I said.
...
We appear to be misunderstanding each other.
From my reading of the conversation, you basically said it's OK to let bluff convince the guard he's a small animal instead of a guard.


One of the things that I'm noticing is that, due to the prevalence of +40 skill bonuses, standard high rolls are discounted. 18? 23? **** rolls that you can't possibly expect to succeed. Even though rules guidelines say that should work in most circumstances. You get a 30 diplomacy? Doesn't work at all because the next guy over can auto force a 55 check result and turn any hostile creature friendly in a few seconds. Or even if there isn't anyone else with almost double your bonus, the dm just adjusts so that whatever your bonus is, the check is to roll a 15+

Is this an inaccurate assessment? Is there anyway to change it?

It's an ooc problem. Basically, your table mate found a breakable mechanic, optimized the pc to break it with big numbers, and the dm is fighting back by way of rocketing the dc (match the big numbers) so that your table mate doesn't dominate the game trivially. You're caught in the crossfire.

The actual solution is to sit everyone down, have an adult conversation out of character about expected optimization, and rebuild characters to match (might mean tuning your table mate's character down, might mean tuning your character up, might be a mix of both, might be one or more of you tossing characters completely and making something unrelated).

If that doesn't work, find a new table.

[Maat Mons]

To go off on a bit of a tangent, one regard in which the spellcasting system is better designed than the skill system is that spell access is predictably tied to level, while skill bonuses are not. If someone is designing a 9th-level spell, they know they’re designing an ability for a 17th-level character to use against CR-17 foes. If someone is designing uses for skills, there’s little they can do to associate an effect with a level at which they think it should become possible. (This is completely separate from the issue of what effects should be achievable with skills in the first place.)

I think the Unchained skill unlocks system was onto something. Maybe it should be expanded to give new applications of skills at each of the levels where a full caster would gain a new level of spells. For the Bluff skill specifically, being able to convince people of absurd things could be gated behind a minimum number of skill ranks, instead of just assigning a large penalty. That would make it a high-level thing, rather than big-numbers thing.

[spectralphoenix]

I mean, the idea of using a skill to talk the universe into seeing things your way was basically the idea behind Truenamer, and Truenamer was terrible.

Maybe someone could come up with a game where defeating monsters through diplomacy was balanced and satisfying. Perhaps it could be just as detailed as regular combat, setting up strawmen to distract your opponent, sneaking fallacies past their defenses, and hammering home with pieces of evidence. But Pathfinder isn't that game. And yes, decently op wizards can trivialize an encounter with save or lose spells, but pretty much everyone I've seen regards that as a bug, not a feature. I'd be much more interested in a way to tone down spellcasting abuses than to give the players more ways to beat encounters with one roll.

[King of Nowhere]

Stuff about dragon. I mean thats true, but it isn't like throwing Charm Monster is approaching the wizards optimization edge. Its a casual thing that he can do several times per day better than the diplomacy specialist, unless you are using the epic diplomacy turn the dragon into a slave automatically rules which are admittedly borked. I mean in an actual fight, the fighter and rogue are irrelevant beside the wizards 14 HD skeletons and the cleric's commanded shadows and planar allies. And when the dragon is distracted the wizard can one shot it with a shivering touch.

that's akin to guy at the gum fallacy too. if the casters are playing at that level of optimizaton, then there's no way the party martials are "irrelevant besides a 14 hd skeleton". really, if they are similarly optimized as the casters, those rogue and fighter can reduce any enemy into a fine red mist in one round, with enough attacks left to also reduce the wizard summoned creatures to a fine red mist too. and if they are playing at that kind of optimization level, they are surely facing much stronger opponents, that have much better saving throws and AC. stuff that can pass those saving throw dcs on a reasonable roll, and that those 14 hd skeletons have no chance to hit anyway.
as for shivering touch, i never heard of anyone actually using it at their table with an assumption of competitive combat (if the campaign is supposed to be roflstomp, then i suppose someone is using it). if someone is using it, it's likely the optimization level is such that even localizing your enemy and getting close is a major accomplishment.

also, in the diplomacy vs charm there are other factors to be considered. for example, using diplomacy is generally risk-free. you try to persuade someone, you fail, nothing changed. if you try to charm person on the king or a dragon, what could possibly go wrong? also, there are lots of ways to protect oneself from charms. a simple protection from evil works already. while there's no such thing as a protection from diplomcy.

and so you should not put diplomacy against charm and decide what's stronger. they are very different skills, with very different usages, and very different risk/reward scenarios.

and that's besides the point. it was a thread about high skill bonuses and what they actually should do, how did it come to caster/martial balance again?

[Rynjin]

One of the things that I'm noticing is that, due to the prevalence of +40 skill bonuses, standard high rolls are discounted. 18? 23? **** rolls that you can't possibly expect to succeed. Even though rules guidelines say that should work in most circumstances. You get a 30 diplomacy? Doesn't work at all because the next guy over can auto force a 55 check result and turn any hostile creature friendly in a few seconds. Or even if there isn't anyone else with almost double your bonus, the dm just adjusts so that whatever your bonus is, the check is to roll a 15+

Is this an inaccurate assessment? Is there anyway to change it?

I'm surprised that in 34 posts nobody has pointed out that, yes, this is an inaccurate assessment. You cannot change a hostile person's attitude with Diplomacy in "only a few seconds. Period. For multiple reasons.


Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

...
Action Summary
Gather Information: Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work, searching for rumors and informants.
Influence Attitude: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction.
Make Request: Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request.
Suggest Course of Action: at least 1 minute of continuous interaction.

[Maat Mons]

If you use Unchained skills unlocks, it’s eventually possible to use Diplomacy in just one round without penalty. Authoritative Vestments let people with Channel Energy use Diplomacy as a Swift action. Monks can use Change of Heart to beat people into liking them, as long as the Monk didn’t start the fight.

[RandomPeasant]

that's akin to guy at the gum fallacy too. if the casters are playing at that level of optimizaton, then there's no way the party martials are "irrelevant besides a 14 hd skeleton". really, if they are similarly optimized as the casters, those rogue and fighter can reduce any enemy into a fine red mist in one round, with enough attacks left to also reduce the wizard summoned creatures to a fine red mist too.

Maybe the Rogue can. The ability to sneak attack at range and to UMD wands or scrolls to cover holes in the class's kit can get you pretty far (though, of course, that gets you into questions about comparative optimization). But the Fighter does not hold up well in an environment with a bunch of minions, because he can just be zoned out. It doesn't matter if the Ubercharger can redmist a skeleton, because there are like eight more of the things and he can only kill one per round with his charge, and he can't target the BBEG until he's cleared a path through them.


while there's no such thing as a protection from diplomcy.

Sure there is. You can just not be willing to do stuff. There are various people IRL towards which I am "friendly" or even "helpful" in game terms. And there's stuff I would do for those people (like let them crash on my couch while looking for a job). But there's also stuff I would not do for those people (like take up arms to help them fight a drug cartel), and would not be persuaded to do simply by greater positive feeling towards them.

[King of Nowhere]

Sure there is. You can just not be willing to do stuff. There are various people IRL towards which I am "friendly" or even "helpful" in game terms. And there's stuff I would do for those people (like let them crash on my couch while looking for a job). But there's also stuff I would not do for those people (like take up arms to help them fight a drug cartel), and would not be persuaded to do simply by greater positive feeling towards them.

yes, I've been pointing out just that a few posts before.
then gnaeus replied that this makes skill users too weak over magic users, and I countered with a few advantages diplomacy has over the use of compulsion magic.

do notice that charm person does not let you push someone too far either, and even dominate monster will give additional saving throws.

P.S. maybe someone supernaturally good at diplomacy could persuade you to help take up arms against a drug cartel? depends on your specific personality, i guess. in any case, it's not someting that can be done in a short time.


I'm surprised that in 34 posts nobody has pointed out that, yes, this is an inaccurate assessment. You cannot change a hostile person's attitude with Diplomacy in "only a few seconds. Period. For multiple reasons.

maybe pathfinder is different, but regular 3.5 adds that you can take a rushed check to make diplomacy in one round instead of one minute, at a -10 penalty. so no, it's not inaccurate

[Rynjin]

maybe pathfinder is different, but regular 3.5 adds that you can take a rushed check to make diplomacy in one round instead of one minute, at a -10 penalty. so no, it's not inaccurate

This is an explicitly tagged Pathfinder thread, so 3.5 rules don't apply.

Even being able to eat a -10 to do it faster, or using the Unchained Skill Unlock for Diplomacy doesn't change the first clause anyway. It just doesn't work at all if they're actively hostile and planning to hurt you.

[icefractal]

Enchantment spells are limited in a way skills aren't though. At a moderate level of optimization, the importance of defenses against such spells becomes obvious, and therefore the majority of characters who occupy positions of power will have as much defense in that area as they can afford.

By mid+ levels, this makes it very hard to successfully land one of those spells on the big players, and the response will be severe. Meanwhile, skills don't have a counter other than also boosting skills, and Bluff can be boosted at least as much as Sense Motive can. There is truth-enforcing magic, but there's also good reasons to refuse any magic cast on you, so avoiding it isn't inherently discrediting.

[Gnaeus]

SpectralPhoenix: There should be limits on what mundanes can do with skill (used the example of convincing the guard he's a small animal)
You: That's the guy at the gym fallacy. Let him get absurd results.
Me: There needs to be a limit for game balance reasons. You shouldn't play diplomacy as is.
You: Oh, the system needs to be revamped, that's what I said.
...
We appear to be misunderstanding each other.
From my reading of the conversation, you basically said it's OK to let bluff convince the guard he's a small animal instead of a guard.

So, the word you don't understand is conversation. If I were talking to SpectralPhoenix, you wouldn't be able to read it unless you were hacking us.

In the context of the conversation


Now if the problem is social skills specifically, the answer is that the DM shouldn't treat it as mind control. No matter how good of a liar you are, you shouldn't actually be able to convince a guard that he's a yellow-footed rock wallaby. Similarly, no diplomat should be able to convince the BBEG to give up on his evil plan and turn himself in, any more than someone with +40 athletics can fly. Even if someone's overwhelmingly good at a skill, there should be plenty of situations where it won't solve the problem.

A good rule of thumb for bluff specifically is that if you succeed, the NPC believes YOU believe what you’re saying, not necessarily that they believe what you’re saying. They might instead just think you’re a lunatic.

I'm really not sure I agree with this. It feels very guy at the gym fallacy. The same kinds of stories that give us casters with 9th level spell effects have characters who can trick the devil or death into getting into a bag they can't get out of. Or legolas listening to the ground for a moment and determining how far away the orcs are and that they just sped up. Even totally mundane modern stories have characters who can routinely snow alert guards with a good fast talk. If Conman McBard wants to sneak into the palace, he should be able with his epic skill check to persuade the guard that he is the emperor's missing cousin, not that he is a crazy person who believes that and should be locked up

Not that I am aware of a good system for epic skills that implements this at all well. But if you have +40 athletics you should be crossing the forest by leaping treetop to treetop, running up walls, bouncing off water like crouching tiger hidden dragon.

So, 1, I never used the Rock Wallaby example. I assumed that it was hyperbole and you latched onto it as a strawman. I actually responded to the acrobatics example.
2. Why should no diplomat be able to convince the BBEG to abandon his evil plan and turn himself in? Is police convincing people to turn themselves in not a thing that happens every day with normal non magical social skills?
3. And as the conversation continues, there are still people arguing that because a normal human can't persuade them to get off their couch, a skill check shouldn't be allowed to make them do things they otherwise wouldn't do.


yes, I've been pointing out just that a few posts before.
then gnaeus replied that this makes skill users too weak over magic users, and I countered with a few advantages diplomacy has over the use of compulsion magic.


No, he didn't. Jack Simth responded with an argument about how diplomacy is OP because a level 7 wizard can only roll a CR 10 dragon some of the time. Which I disproved.



and so you should not put diplomacy against charm and decide what's stronger. they are very different skills, with very different usages, and very different risk/reward scenarios.

Yeah, Jack. Don't do that again.



also, in the diplomacy vs charm there are other factors to be considered. for example, using diplomacy is generally risk-free. you try to persuade someone, you fail, nothing changed. if you try to charm person on the king or a dragon, what could possibly go wrong? also, there are lots of ways to protect oneself from charms. a simple protection from evil works already. while there's no such thing as a protection from diplomcy.

It does, however, go the other way also. If your social skill fails, you don't generally get to spam it until you succeed. There are plenty of ways to strip someone of their protections.

[Kurald Galain]

Not that I am aware of a good system for epic skills that implements this at all well.

I'd say the one that comes closest is Exalted.

[Ignimortis]

I'd say the one that comes closest is Exalted.

Man, I would love to play a game that actually does high levels like Exalted. Being good enough at bureaucracy to supercharge an entire city's productivity tenfold? Literally a thing in Exalted. Being good enough at survival to not require food or water or air to live? Sure. Being an athlete so legendary, you can leap a mountain range in a couple minutes? Also possible.

[Gnaeus]

I'd say the one that comes closest is Exalted.

Actually, my first thought would be FATE. In which you can have actual social combat making social attacks against social health levels. But any system in which you have baked in degrees of success is better for this.

[icefractal]

So the main problem I have with "Diplomacy can persuade anyone of anything" is not a realism one or even a balance one, it's an incentivized-behavior one.

If normal conversation can make you give up your life to someone silver-tongued enough, the rational thing to do is refuse to talk to people. Only communicate by indirect messages, treat anyone wanting to start a conversation with suspicion (except for those you strongly trust, but keep in mind that they could be swayed too). Not everyone has the resources to do this, but those who can really should.

And that sucks. I don't want a world where the PCs never even get to meet anyone important in person unless they're attacking them or have jumped through a dozen hoops to prove their trustworthiness. And where, unless they're given special immunity for being PCs, they really shouldn't be hearing anyone out either.

But magic ... does in fact work like that. Try to cast a spell, any spell, in a king's presence without explicit permission, and at best you'll be immediately tackled by the bodyguards, if not outright stabbed. Because with what magic can do, starting to cast is basically drawing a gun. I don't want a world where "talking" gets that reaction.

[Ignimortis]

So the main problem I have with "Diplomacy can persuade anyone of anything" is not a realism one or even a balance one, it's an incentivized-behavior one.

If normal conversation can make you give up your life to someone silver-tongued enough, the rational thing to do is refuse to talk to people. Only communicate by indirect messages, treat anyone wanting to start a conversation with suspicion (except for those you strongly trust, but keep in mind that they could be swayed too). Not everyone has the resources to do this, but those who can really should.

And that sucks. I don't want a world where the PCs never even get to meet anyone important in person unless they're attacking them or have jumped through a dozen hoops to prove their trustworthiness. And where, unless they're given special immunity for being PCs, they really shouldn't be hearing anyone out either.

But magic ... does in fact work like that. Try to cast a spell, any spell, in a king's presence without explicit permission, and at best you'll be immediately tackled by the bodyguards, if not outright stabbed. Because with what magic can do, starting to cast is basically drawing a gun. I don't want a world where "talking" gets that reaction.

If such abilities are gated behind being a legendary hero, I'm pretty sure nothing would change unless your setting is like FR and there are tons of level 15+ characters running around, which I've always found to be pretty unreal to begin with. The whole issue with skills can be circumvented by properly gating some checks instead of going "if you roll high enough, you do the thing without any prerequisites otherwise".

[RandomPeasant]

Even if your setting doesn't have a lot of legendary heroes, it presumably has various high-level social environments. Fixing things so you can't make the check to turn dudes Fanatical until Epic level fixes the problem where the king of Genericia won't take an audience with you in person, but you have the same issue with the Sultan of the City of Brass. Or you do something like declare that Epic level people have Epic levels of difficulty to persuade, which is its whole own can of worms.

But honestly, griping about the impact of Epic-level diplomacy is a little weird, because people don't even like the outputs of regular diplomacy. I think introducing some mechanism to do high-level things that are sort of like what survival or jump or heal do at low levels is a reasonable idea. But if you're going to do that with diplomacy, you need to present a vision of what diplomacy does at low levels that people like, and that's a pain point for RPGs in general.