SKill check abuses

[Methabroax]

Hi,
I'm new to the boards but have read some of the 'that knowledge 20 check' and 'diplo-cheese' posts. Which skill check abuses are people refering to? In a broader question, what skill checks are most abused/abusive in 3.5? Why is Diplomacy so bad when the DM (in theory) controlls Roleplaying outcomes?

Thanks,
Methabroax

[BRC]

Because with a good diplomacy score, the following situation can occur without too much trouble.
NPC: You just slaughtered my family and my friends, took all their goods, and burned my town to the ground. Little did you know I am an epic-level wizard who retired and am now GOING TO KILL YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID.
PC: Hey it's cool man relax (makes DC 25 diplomacy check)
NPC: You know, when you put it like that, I'm kinda indifferent towrds you. I better do somthing about all those people you killed.

[Methabroax]

Isnt Diplomacy limited to a certain range of situations? like it can only modify an attitude one step or something? I cant imagine a DM thats awake letting that fly, maybe that's just me though.

I think I need to a take a closer look at the sample Diplomacy checks.

Thanks

[Zincorium]

Actually, to get to 'indifferent' from hostile is DC 25, and doing it in one round entails a -10 penalty. So it's not trivial for most characters, but it's fairly easy if you're concentrating on just that.

The real cheese is when you can make the 150 DC epic diplomacy check and convince a totally hostile monster to serve you for life.

Rich has a pretty good replacement in the 'gaming' section of the sidebar, check it out if you're actually seeing a problem in-game.

[BRC]

Isnt Diplomacy limited to a certain range of situations? like it can only modify an attitude one step or something? I cant imagine a DM thats awake letting that fly, maybe that's just me though.

Not according to RAW. if you look at the diplomacy entry in the SRD
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
The table gives you the DC's for getting it from step A to step B, with no limitations on how many steps you can move them. And of course these are laughibly low.

[Methabroax]

HAHAHAHAHAHA, Those DCs are hysterical. Do people use those numbers in their games? I guess i'm too old school, back before they had skill DCs, DMs used to just pull target numbers out of their butt and make people roll dice. I'm bad about not looking at the official DCs for difficulty. I wonder if 4th edition will continue in this vein?

What other skills have peculiar side effects that you guys have found?

Methabroax

[Sstoopidtallkid]

My epic-killer diplomancer, sticking to core.
Diplomacy 23
Bluff 5
Knowledge (N&R) 5
Sense Motive 5
Half-elf
Negotiator Feat
Skill Focus(diplomacy)
18 nat cha
5 cha from levels
6 cha (cloak of cha)
Luckstone
Tome of Leadership
Circlet of Persuasion
Leadership 32 (Aid Another)
Masterwork Clothes
G. Heroism (Bard C.)+59 to the check, +51 in an anti-magic field. I can turn someone from
Attack, interfere, berate, fleeto
Protect, back up, heal, aid with a full-round action. In an AMF, I have to roll a 9, otherwise they are just
Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
And that's an NPC class using 3 feats and less than 200k of the WBL. Diplomacy is broken.

[Patashu]

Diplomancy is why circumstance penalties exist.

EDIT: Hmm, the numbers look about right for characters who aren't very high level or totally intent on breaking diplomancy. I suppose the issue lies in the way it scales.

[Methabroax]

Besides Diplomacy, any other skills have such glaring issues?

[Seffbasilisk]

I'd say Survival.

Especially the food-gathering bit. I have a level 6 druid who has a +21 to survival. That means, every day he goes out to gather food, he never returns with less then enough to feed and water 7 people.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

RAW, diplomacy is a bit silly...now...the DM can and often will have much to say about how far you can push any NPC to do things against their nature or current mindset.

Cause...honestly...your DM might see diplomacy as the art of reaching undersanding and middle ground...if someone is hostile, they have a reason...and they will still have a reason afterwards unless yo find a way to placate them...that is what the roll is for yes...but what did you say/offer/do? That is the problem...did you know that they only wanted money? A share of a treasure? Convince them that you serve the same side? Convince them that you want to join up with them or vice versa...what 'deal' did you have to strike to change their attitude.

ANy DM I have ever had would make me come up with some reason that they should change their attitude (which woul modify the roll and set conditions for their change if it succeded) Guess that is why our games never used diplomacy 'cheese' much...no real way to 'cheese' if the DM is gonna make you accountable for what you say in a diplomacy check. :smalltongue:

[Nebo_]

Especially the food-gathering bit. I have a level 6 druid who has a +21 to survival. That means, every day he goes out to gather food, he never returns with less then enough to feed and water 7 people.

Because we all know that having enough food and water to live on in D&D is really overpowered. Geez, what next? Will people want their characters to be able to sleep? Bloody munchkins.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

Bluff is kinda broken...if you know they have crap for sense motive and your bluff is high enough, you can make people believe anything...at least for a round...high levels of bluff against low level people or those without sense motive is highly amusing.

[horseboy]

Because we all know that having enough food and water to live on in D&D is really overpowered. Geez, what next? Will people want their characters to be able to sleep? Bloody munchkins.
What's really fun is when you take tracking and can reliably break dc 50+ tracking rolls to find out pretty much everything that's walked by, ruining chances at surprise. Who needs divinations?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Bluff is kinda broken...if you know they have crap for sense motive and your bluff is high enough, you can make people believe anything...at least for a round...high levels of bluff against low level people or those without sense motive is highly amusing.Especially since Sense Motive is often a cross-class skill.
Any DM I have ever had would make me come up with some reason that they should change their attitude (which woul modify the roll and set conditions for their change if it succeded) Guess that is why our games never used diplomacy 'cheese' much...no real way to 'cheese' if the DM is gonna make you accountable for what you say in a diplomacy check. Oberroni.
Because we all know that having enough food and water to live on in D&D is really overpowered. Geez, what next? Will people want their characters to be able to sleep? Bloody munchkins.The problem lies more in the fact that the Druid can now feed 2 families. Alone. Every day. He's probably going to be feeding 12 people a day. At 6th level. Try to figure out what that does to the economy, especially if he starts training a couple others to do the same. Some things are more broken because of verisimilitude than playability.

Also, a fighter with a Wis penalty won't be able to hear the party most of the time. :smallconfused: I love WotC.

[its_all_ogre]

Also, a fighter with a Wis penalty won't be able to hear the party most of the time. :smallconfused: I love WotC.

now you're being silly.
if you said the fighter wouldn't hear the party rogue if he walks at half speed and has no armour penalty, then yeah .
but most pc's have not got a +4 total modifier compared to the fighters -1, and anyway what fighter doesn't have at least 1 rank in spot/listen anyway?

the problem i have is spot vs listen. both have a -1 penalty per 10 feet distance, so you're just as likely to hear a human 100 foot away trying ti sneak up on you as you are to spot them.
oddly you're more likely to hear a halfling than spot him!! (move silently +3 vs hide +5) (racial +2ms +1 dex, +4 hide, +1 dex)

[VanBuren]

Especially since Sense Motive is often a cross-class skill.Oberroni.The problem lies more in the fact that the Druid can now feed 2 families. Alone. Every day. He's probably going to be feeding 12 people a day. At 6th level. Try to figure out what that does to the economy, especially if he starts training a couple others to do the same. Some things are more broken because of verisimilitude than playability.

Also, a fighter with a Wis penalty won't be able to hear the party most of the time. :smallconfused: I love WotC.

Just because he can forage that much food doesn't mean he has to whenever he makes his roll, just that you can take up to that amount.

[Demons_eye]

Whats heal good for? Can you abuse heal also?

[its_all_ogre]

not much, although the heal check to avoid continuing poison damage is good at low levels, when the check is almost guaranteed to be better than a pcs fort save.

[Zincorium]

Whats heal good for? Can you abuse heal also?

Unfortunately, heal is one of those skills that, rather than scaling poorly as many skills do, gets rid of the problem by not scaling at all. Other than the poison/disease checks, which are problematic and subsumed by easily available cleric spells, all the checks have flat DCs, to where after 5th-6th level a wisdom based character with a healing kit doesn't actually need to keep putting points into it.

D20 modern is a bit better with the treat injury business, but then it doesn't have the crutch that is magical healing.

[Icewalker]

Hmm, I'll bet some people have house-ruled in some minor healing abilities from heal checks. That'd be interesting.

Also, epic uses of heal: cure light wounds!

[its_all_ogre]

i've heard of a prestige class that allows you to cure more hps with a spell based on your heal ranks, no idea what book it's from though.

[Sir Giacomo]

My epic-killer diplomancer, sticking to core.
Diplomacy 23
Bluff 5
Knowledge (N&R) 5
Sense Motive 5
Half-elf
Negotiator Feat
Skill Focus(diplomacy)
18 nat cha
5 cha from levels
6 cha (cloak of cha)
Luckstone
Tome of Leadership
Circlet of Persuasion
Leadership 32 (Aid Another)
Masterwork Clothes
G. Heroism (Bard C.)+59 to the check, +51 in an anti-magic field. I can turn someone fromto with a full-round action. In an AMF, I have to roll a 9, otherwise they are just
And that's an NPC class using 3 feats and less than 200k of the WBL. Diplomacy is broken.

Hmm. One question: how exactly are you going to keep at bay an npc/monster opponent who wishes to attack you at that level while doing a full-round action? Intermediate/swift action spells would work (though not available in core for a bard), but what could reliably stop a CR 20 opponent that way?
Apart from that, having such an option available by level 20 is not broken, it's merely powerful (other characters can do similar tricks, i.e. overcome an opponent in one round, without diplomacy).
Additionally, diplomacy does not confer a permanent status. The moment someone else again interacts with said npc, his/her attitude could change again. And it's not a charm, either - the moment the bard does not behave in a manner conducive to this new npc attitude, he has to do a full-round diplomacy check all over again.

- Giacomo

[HarmlessPenguin]

There is also the druid spell Heal Lorecall that, ironically, allows you to substitute your Heal ranks for your caster level when casting conjuration(healing) spells.

[Aquillion]

Hmm. One question: how exactly are you going to keep at bay an npc/monster opponent who wishes to attack you at that level while doing a full-round action? Intermediate/swift action spells would work (though not available in core for a bard), but what could reliably stop a CR 20 opponent that way?
Apart from that, having such an option available by level 20 is not broken, it's merely powerful (other characters can do similar tricks, i.e. overcome an opponent in one round, without diplomacy).
Additionally, diplomacy does not confer a permanent status. The moment someone else again interacts with said npc, his/her attitude could change again. And it's not a charm, either - the moment the bard does not behave in a manner conducive to this new npc attitude, he has to do a full-round diplomacy check all over again.Keep in mind:

Aside from a diplomacy check of its own, which is nearly without exception going to be worthlessly low, most monsters have virtually no defense against diplomacy (short of DM fiat, which has particular dangers as relates to diplomacy that I'll get to in a minute.) A Balor? No. Ancient Black Dragon? No. Elminster decides to kick my ass? No, he doesn't. If it has a language and I can speak it (and I always will using tongues, which I probably have permanently if I'm focused on diplomacy -- or polyglot if you don't want to rely on magic), and it doesn't have an equally absurd diplomacy score (which nothing will), I can make it stop with a full-round action (and, with an absurd build, make it my slave.) And things that aren't actively hostile, of course, are pretty easy for me to turn into my slave.

Now, of course, you say -- the DM would never allow it! And this is true, but it leads to one of the serious problems with diplomacy (not just the current implementation). If the DM is just going to roll some dice and then say 'well, whatever is logical, happens -- there's no way you could convince them of XYZ, but ABC makes sense...' Well, what's the point of all my diplomacy skills and charisma?

That sort of thing is part of the reason why charisma gets dumped so much. Yes, it's possible to account for it in a non-broken fashion, but it's very hard, and many many DMs just resolve diplomacy based on how the creature would "logically" act with barely any consideration for those fancy stats. It's just really tempting to do it that way... especially if the PCs say something smart or stupid, roleplaying-wise.

But those stats are there. You wouldn't generally interrupt a Barbarian and say "Ok, no, there's no way your leap attack does that much damage. We'll just say he gets a big nasty cut and ignore your power attack from here on out, ok?" You wouldn't generally force a player to LARP a sword-swing to see whether or not they hit an orc... but people have no trouble, basically, substituting RPing for diplomacy checks, and then wonder why nobody invests any skill points in diplomacy or their charisma score.

What I think the game needs is a diplomacy system where players have room to manuver -- where they have to pick a 'line of attack' when talking to creatures, and plan a strategy to convince them the same way they would in a melee fight -- and then use the dice to determine how well they can use their subtle 'weapons' (not just actual words, but facial expressions, mannerisms, etc) to follow through on that plan. That would attach the diplomacy system to something more real, and let people both play through conversations and use their skills in them.

With the current system, it feels all disconnected. That's the real root of all this... the diplomacy skill has no grounding in actual, well, diplomacy. It's too much of an abstraction, like having a single 'profession: combatant' skill that you use to resolve all fights in a single die-roll.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

There is also the druid spell Heal Lorecall that, ironically, allows you to substitute your Heal ranks for your caster level when casting conjuration(healing) spells.

that sounds really neat, until you realize that healing spells are typically (dice) +level and a skill is at max 3 levels above your level...so...a feat for a whopping 3 pts...Woo hoo! Toughness rears it's ugly head again. Neat at 1st level, gets worse as you go up...worthless when you hit cap.

maybe the conjure healing ones are different than the cure spells I am thinking of...

[SoD]

There is also the druid spell Heal Lorecall that, ironically, allows you to substitute your Heal ranks for your caster level when casting conjuration(healing) spells.

There's also a skill ability (or whatever they're called...from Complete Scoundrel) where, using heal to stabalise an unconcious character, also heals them 1d6 points of damage!

[Dan_Hemmens]

Hmm. One question: how exactly are you going to keep at bay an npc/monster opponent who wishes to attack you at that level while doing a full-round action?

You don't need to keep them at bay, you just need to survive. Nowhere does it say that you fail the Diplomacy check if you take damage.

[RebelRogue]

skill ability (or whatever they're called...from Complete Scoundrel)
Skill tricks. I really like that book a lot.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say Survival.

Especially the food-gathering bit. I have a level 6 druid who has a +21 to survival. That means, every day he goes out to gather food, he never returns with less then enough to feed and water 7 people.

Then again, a level 6 cleric can feed 18 people each day without even needing to go out and gather anything, and do that twice more if he really puts his mind to it.

[HarmlessPenguin]

that sounds really neat, until you realize that healing spells are typically (dice) +level and a skill is at max 3 levels above your level...so...a feat for a whopping 3 pts...Woo hoo! Toughness rears it's ugly head again. Neat at 1st level, gets worse as you go up...worthless when you hit cap.

maybe the conjure healing ones are different than the cure spells I am thinking of...

The bit you missed is that it's a spell(cleric/druid 2, ranger 1), not a feat. It lasts 10 min./lvl and does nothing on its own. If you have 5 or more ranks in healing you can also remove either dazed, dazzled, or faituged conditions when you cast a conjuration(healing) spell on someone. If you have 10 or mor ranks in heal you can also choose to remove exhausted, nauseated, or sickened. It also allows you to replace the caster level with your heal ranks if you want.

So yeah, still not great for the primary healing classes since it takes up a second level spell slot for the classes that it matters with, but it's something =P

[SoD]

What book's that in? Complete Divine, right?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Hmm. One question: how exactly are you going to keep at bay an npc/monster opponent who wishes to attack you at that level while doing a full-round action? Intermediate/swift action spells would work (though not available in core for a bard), but what could reliably stop a CR 20 opponent that way?
Apart from that, having such an option available by level 20 is not broken, it's merely powerful (other characters can do similar tricks, i.e. overcome an opponent in one round, without diplomacy).
Additionally, diplomacy does not confer a permanent status. The moment someone else again interacts with said npc, his/her attitude could change again. And it's not a charm, either - the moment the bard does not behave in a manner conducive to this new npc attitude, he has to do a full-round diplomacy check all over again.I was using an expert, not a bard, though a sorcerer who took 2 levels of half-elf paragon and 3 of human paragon could pull it off even better. The bard's a cohort, and not even strictly necessary if I only want to make someone friendly instead of helpful. All I have to do is survive one round, assuming he wins initiative. And there is no method by RAW for an NPC to change attitude after I leave, and even if there was, I can make the check again. I literally cannot fail the check at the DC they set. Even at level 12, I have a +36 to the check, (ignoring leadership, any magic items other than a +2 cha, and aid another) which means more than half the time I turn someone from hostile to friendly in one round. I have a 50% chance of one-shotting the BBEG, and there's nothing he can do about it. Not bad for a NPC.

[Kurald Galain]

Furthermore, it's quite possible to get more than +36 to the check... (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-371519)

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Furthermore, it's quite possible to get more than +36 to the check... (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-371519)I kept it core, as I assumed Giacomo would blame it on splatbooks if I didn't.

Edit:The current record is +212. You're out of date. :smalltongue:

[Zincorium]

I kept it core, as I assumed Giacomo would blame it on splatbooks if I didn't.

Edit:The current record is +212. You're out of date. :smalltongue:

the article Kurald Galain linked to listed the highest as +222 (it's the last build in the bunch).

222 > 212.

Therefore, unless there is something incorrect with the stat block, 212 cannot be the new record.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Sorry, just saw the title. I didn't look at the body other than to confirm it wasn't core.

[Sir Giacomo]

Hmmm, several thoughts on the diplomacy thing:

- while you will not be stopped from using the skill by taking damage during the full round, the DM will likely impose a circumstance penalty (-2) and raise the DC by 2, as per the rules. And even at level 12, an expert or bard (the d6 type) can get easily killed/knocked out in a round where they decide to do nothing else but diplomacy.
- the skill explicitly refers to the DMG as part of NPC rules. NPC as per the DMG do not include non-humanoid monsters. So no balor or ancient dragon talked into being your friends (although in many campaigns DM may houserule it to be possible, but certainly not in the parameters of the normal skill, or it could be too powerful under certain circumstances)
- even if you make a DC of 50 for getting someone from hostile to helpful (and we know that is beyond a level 12 core character to achieve with the -10 penalty for a one-round check), it means exactly that: that npc is now helpful, and not a slave. What that means from a chaotic evil BBEG npc facing you could well mean stuff that you will not like ("since you are my friend now, I'll sacrifice one of your friends in front of you because that is the greatest thing I can share with you...")
To get someone fanatical in 1 round, you'll need a roll of an 160, or even 164 (if hit during the round and the DM uses the normal roll modification leeway).
- and of course, at higher levels, a simple mind blank completely stops all diplomacy attempts.

Frankly, I do not see much BBEG defeat potential here.

- Giacomo

[Dan_Hemmens]

Hmmm, several thoughts on the diplomacy thing:

- while you will not be stopped from using the skill by taking damage during the full round, the DM will likely impose a circumstance penalty (-2) and raise the DC by 2, as per the rules. And even at level 12, an expert or bard (the d6 type) can get easily killed/knocked out in a round where they decide to do nothing else but diplomacy.

A -2 Circumstance penalty isn't that much of an issue.

Also, how exactly does "doing nothing else but diplomacy" make your character any more vulnerable than taking any other full-round action?


- the skill explicitly refers to the DMG as part of NPC rules. NPC as per the DMG do not include non-humanoid monsters. So no balor or ancient dragon talked into being your friends (although in many campaigns DM may houserule it to be possible, but certainly not in the parameters of the normal skill, or it could be too powerful under certain circumstances)

In 3.5, all monsters are considered NPCs.


- even if you make a DC of 50 for getting someone from hostile to helpful (and we know that is beyond a level 12 core character to achieve with the -10 penalty for a one-round check), it means exactly that: that npc is now helpful, and not a slave. What that means from a chaotic evil BBEG npc facing you could well mean stuff that you will not like ("since you are my friend now, I'll sacrifice one of your friends in front of you because that is the greatest thing I can share with you...")

And so you politely them not to. They're willing to take risks to help you, that certainly makes them willing to put off the pleasure of killing if it makes you uncomfortable.

That's the big problem with Diplomacy. It's not like a magical compulsion, it's genuine. They aren't going to notice you doing anything unusual to them, because you aren't. They just genuinely like you.

The point, as ever, is that while the DM can just rule that Diplomacy doesn't work, doing so negates the entire purpose of having the skill in the first place.


To get someone fanatical in 1 round, you'll need a roll of an 160, or even 164 (if hit during the round and the DM uses the normal roll modification leeway).

So you get them Friendly this round and Fanatical the round after.


- and of course, at higher levels, a simple mind blank completely stops all diplomacy attempts.

No, it doesn't. Mind Blank stops mind-affecting effects, diplomacy isn't game-mechanically mind-affecting (except for the Epic use). You literally persuade them to change their mind.


Frankly, I do not see much BBEG defeat potential here.

You can persuade the BBEG to change his mind, you can say "really, have you considered not being a BBEG" and he will listen to you. He'll try it out, just on your suggestion, because he will genuinely think it is a good idea.

Mind Blank doesn't stop it, nothing stops it. You give your target a genuine change of heart. That's the power of it. It isn't a spell that can be broken, or a curse you can shake off. It's the ability to actually reliably change another person's opinions. The only way to stop it from working like that is to use DM fiat to - essentially - render the entire skill meaningless.

[Kurald Galain]

- while you will not be stopped from using the skill by taking damage during the full round, the DM will likely impose a circumstance penalty (-2) and raise the DC by 2, as per the rules.
Irrelevant.



And even at level 12, an expert or bard (the d6 type) can get easily killed/knocked out in a round where they decide to do nothing else but diplomacy.
Not if he wins initiative. And not very likely, either.



- the skill explicitly refers to the DMG as part of NPC rules. NPC as per the DMG do not include non-humanoid monsters.
Nonsense.



- even if you make a DC of 50 for getting someone from hostile to helpful (and we know that is beyond a level 12 core character to achieve with the -10 penalty for a one-round check), it means exactly that: that npc is now helpful, and not a slave.
Surprisingly, if you look up "helpful" in the dictionary, you will find no mention of "sacrificing somebody's friends". Perhaps that's because "helpful" means something different?


- and of course, at higher levels, a simple mind blank completely stops all diplomacy attempts.
False.

[Dan_Hemmens]

False.

Interestingly, Epic Diplomacy does qualify as a mind-affecting effect, presumably because it has game mechanical effects. This actually makes the Epic skill much, much less useful than the pre-epic.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

- while you will not be stopped from using the skill by taking damage during the full round, the DM will likely impose a circumstance penalty (-2) and raise the DC by 2, as per the rules.You just raised the d20 roll to a 3 or better. Good job.
And even at level 12, an expert or bard (the d6 type) can get easily killed/knocked out in a round where they decide to do nothing else but diplomacy.If all my enemy has to do is spend a round unhindered to kill me, I'm pretty much dead anyways. A monk only has 12 more HP than I do, and I have 10k to spend and am only at 16 pt buy. Shove the rest into dex and con, take Improved Initiative, and buy some magic armor.
- even if you make a DC of 50 for getting someone from hostile to helpful (and we know that is beyond a level 12 core character to achieve with the -10 penalty for a one-round check), it means exactly that: that npc is now helpful, and not a slave. What that means from a chaotic evil BBEG npc facing you could well mean stuff that you will not like ("since you are my friend now, I'll sacrifice one of your friends in front of you because that is the greatest thing I can share with you...")Uh-huh. I really don't see how that qualifies as helpful.
To get someone fanatical in 1 round, you'll need a roll of an 160, or even 164 (if hit during the round and the DM uses the normal roll modification leeway).Who said anything about fanatical? I'll take Helpful(Will take risks to help you)(Protect, back up, heal, aid) any day.
- and of course, at higher levels, a simple mind blank completely stops all diplomacy attempts.Diplomacy isn't mind-affecting. The fanatic attitude is, but no such sentence is included in the diplomacy entry.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Incidentally, I just thought I'd pipe up and say that actually there is a middle path between "Diplomacy is Totally Broken" and "Diplomacy is Useless" which is relatively supported by RAW but does ultimately rely on a bit of DM common sense and non-wankery.

The key here is that the DM is never actually obliged to allow a player a skill check. RAW states that a player can generate a set amount of gold per week by making Profession skill checks, most people would accept that it's okay for the DM to say "no you can't do that, because you're on a boat in the middle of the sea, and nobody needs a good acupuncturist".

Diplomacy similarly *can* be adjudicated fairly and impartially, with the minimum of common sense, and without doing stupid stuff like "okay, now I will cut your head off out of friendship". All you have to do is require that the player provide a reasonable justification that the NPC target could have the required change of heart (just like you'd need a reasonable justification for how you make money performing or smithing if there's no obvious customers to pay you). You don't have to base everything on a player's speeches, just something along the lines of "yes, I killed your entire family, but right now it's more important that we work together against the BBEG" is actually - in my opinion - good enough.

As for taking down the BBEG: is it really so anticlimactic for the final confrontation to be resolved with a conversation instead of a swordfight? Heck, Fallout is justifiably praised for the fact that you can take out its BBEG by persuading it to destroy itself. Is there anything actually wrong with just plain talking down the villain?

[Sir Giacomo]

Why going to great lengths and giving non-RAW interpretations to prove a certain skill is broken? (see also my sig)

What IS a problem is that the diplomacy skill check npc attitudes (like helpful) are apparently not defined well enough (although I would have never jumped to the conclusion that turning to "helpful" status will defeat a BBEG).

So what we currently have:
- for a level 12 character, +2 to DC and -2 through circumstances can already mean quite a problem. Getting from hostile to friendly in 1 round needs thus a 64. Not possible until the very, very high levels. And not for a level 12 character. So no BBEG taking out here.
- the fanatic thing is completely blocked by a mind blank. Plus the DCs are too high if the npcs are not at least friendly to start with. And to get them friendly, you cannot use diplomacy checks (because they do not stack).
- "helpful" means just that. No slave and the npc is not even a friend of the pc, he/she is merely convinced by the pc (until something happens to change his attitude again, like behaviour/attacks by the pc) that it is in his/her best interest to protect, aid, heal. Helpful means the npc will take risk in pursuing these actions, but not anything life-threatening (that is reserved for "fanatic"). You can certainly prevent/delay combats with a 1-round action this way, but only by one opponent at a time.
- WHERE exactly does it say in the DMG that npc=monsters? The only passage where the DMG refers at all to the diplomacy skill (and that is the passage the PHB refers to) is when npcs are seen in the context of a city (p. 128). In the section on magical compulsion, pc and monsters are even distinguished in the text (p. 14). The only other non-PHB races listed for npc are those on pp.126-127, i.e. humanoid races.

- Giacomo

[Glyde]

I've found a good resolution to diplomancy. Make the players roleplay out the diplomacy check. I use how amazing their roll was as a bit of leeway in my decision (With diminishing returns, of course. +50 to diplomacy just won't fly with me too well.), but if they can't convince the lich to stop killing the invaders of it's sanctuary with any REAL diplomacy, then the check is void.

[Zincorium]

I've found a good resolution to diplomancy. Make the players roleplay out the diplomacy check. I use how amazing their roll was as a bit of leeway in my decision (With diminishing returns, of course. +50 to diplomacy just won't fly with me too well.), but if they can't convince the lich to stop killing the invaders of it's sanctuary with any REAL diplomacy, then the check is void.

So, what you're saying is, if a player puts more points into charisma and diplomacy than they have in real life, you're going to arbitrarily make those points not count if they aren't socially adept in person.

Characters are not the players. Maybe your bard IS more charismatic than Winston Churchill and Alexander the great combined while you can't convince your way out of a paper bag.

This, while I understand the motivations, is roughly equivalent to making someone describe exactly how they're swinging their sword or making the somatic gestures and then altering their attack roll or spell damage based on whether or not you as the DM like the results.

And it's just as unfair to the people who don't have those skills and want to play a good old fashioned escapist fantasy game where they don't have to.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

What IS a problem is that the diplomacy skill check npc attitudes (like helpful) are apparently not defined well enough True.
(although I would have never jumped to the conclusion that turning to "helpful" status will defeat a BBEG).How does someone suddenly being willing to take risks to aid you continue to be a problem? Even if they do hold a different view from you, you now have them liking you, and if they are willing to take risks to aid you, they're certainly willing to try not slaughtering that village.
So what we currently have:
- for a level 12 character, +2 to DC and -2 through circumstances can already mean quite a problem. Getting from hostile to friendly in 1 round needs thus a 64.No, getting from hostile to helpful in one round needs a 64. Getting from hostile to friendly only needs a 49, and leaves them wishing me well and offering limited aid.
- the fanatic thing is completely blocked by a mind blank. Plus the DCs are too high if the npcs are not at least friendly to start with. And to get them friendly, you cannot use diplomacy checks (because they do not stack).Again, who wants fanatics? I'll take helpful.
- "helpful" means just that. No slave and the npc is not even a friend of the pcThat's right, they're closer than a friend.
he/she is merely convinced by the pc (until something happens to change his attitude again, like behaviour/attacks by the pc) that it is in his/her best interest to protect, aid, heal.And how does that equate "continue to fight"?
Helpful means the npc will take risk in pursuing these actions, but not anything life-threatening (that is reserved for "fanatic").But they will take risks.
You can certainly prevent/delay combats with a 1-round action this way, but only by one opponent at a time.No, I can make one opponent stop fighting, then focus on a second. Since I'm clearly trying to stop the fight, and my allies are merely defending themselves, the former enemy isn't likely to suddenly hate me again.

[Sir Giacomo]

I've found a good resolution to diplomancy. Make the players roleplay out the diplomacy check. I use how amazing their roll was as a bit of leeway in my decision (With diminishing returns, of course. +50 to diplomacy just won't fly with me too well.), but if they can't convince the lich to stop killing the invaders of it's sanctuary with any REAL diplomacy, then the check is void.

That's probably too harsh.
Basically in the lich example, a 64 diplomacy check would turn it from hostile to helpful. That means the lich will help the characters to leave its sanctuary (teleport them away, for instance). But every round they remain there, another diplomacy check is needed because the action of even BEING in that sanctuary is a hostile act vs that lich.
So yes, a highly suspenseful situation could ensue where the party's bard/cleric/rogue/monk sweettalks the lich into remaining helpful (non-attacking), but notice that the lich will only be helpful towards that pc, and noone else. As a DM I would rule it will consider not attacking the allies of the pc it is helpful towards, but any hostile act of the others would necessitate another round of a diplomacy check, and that time only the pc with the diplomacy check would not be attacked.

- Giacomo

[Wraith]

Broken interpretations of Skill Checks, you say?

Hmm... One springs to mind, but the source is.... worrying, to say the least. The following link provides a very unusual yet still legal (RAW) interpretation of a skill check, but be forewarned that it is NSFW.

Hell, it's pretty damn NSFH (Not Safe For Humanity) too, but if you can stomach it, then it's one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time :smalltongue:

>DC > Escape Artist DC 80: Extremely tight space
>This is the DC for getting through a space when one’s head shouldn’t even be able to fit; this can be as small as 2 inches square for Medium-size creatures. Halve this limit for each size category less than Medium-size; double it for each size category greater than Medium-size. If the space is long, such as in a chimney, multiple checks may be called for. (http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=921167&x=extremely+tight+space)


...I suppose the horrors of Time Stop just got a bit more bizarre.

Be afraid.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

That's probably too harsh.
Basically in the lich example, a 64 diplomacy check would turn it from hostile to helpful. That means the lich will help the characters to leave its sanctuary (teleport them away, for instance). But every round they remain there, another diplomacy check is needed because the action of even BEING in that sanctuary is a hostile act vs that lich.:smallconfused: How is that considered hostile? You're buddies now. He probably would invite you to dinner, not send you away.

So yes, a highly suspenseful situation could ensue where the party's bard/cleric/rogue/monk sweettalks the lich into remaining helpful (non-attacking), but notice that the lich will only be helpful towards that pc, and noone else.Yes, but now you've stopped the battle, and can discuss why it's doing whatever evil it's doing and try to convince it to stop.
As a DM I would rule it will consider not attacking the allies of the pc it is helpful towards, but any hostile act of the others would necessitate another round of a diplomacy check, and that time only the pc with the diplomacy check would not be attacked.Of course. That's why parties should plan out strategies in advance, and try not to mess with each other.

[Sir Giacomo]

True.How does someone suddenly being willing to take risks to aid you continue to be a problem? Even if they do hold a different view from you, you now have them liking you, and if they are willing to take risks to aid you, they're certainly willing to try not slaughtering that village.

But they do, if they want to. Taking risks to be helpful towards the pc who used diplomacy only extends to that pc. It does not mean it follow the orders of that pc or that it will change its entire plans.
And note: either of us are using interpretations of the RAW here, only I got the feeling that my interpretation is closer to the RAI.


No, getting from hostile to helpful in one round needs a 64. Getting from hostile to friendly only needs a 49, and leaves them wishing me well and offering limited aid.

Which apparently is even more limited than "helpful". Certainly not enough to stop them from fighting your friends, but they'll stop attacking you (even reducing them to unfriendly will do that).


That's right, they're closer than a friend.

No, they are not, or the skill would say so. That is just your interpretation. Charm person will get someoe to consider you as their friend. But not diplomacy.


No, I can make one opponent stop fighting, then focus on a second. Since I'm clearly trying to stop the fight, and my allies are merely defending themselves, the former enemy isn't likely to suddenly hate me again.

True, but in the two full rounds you have to also win over the second of the enemies, said enemy could attack you (while the others apparently are only defending themselves). Even a "helpful" first diplomacie'd opponent would possibly not go against his buddy, since he only takes "risks" to help you and does not go against its nature (which even from a 9th level spell - dominate monster - necessitates new saving throws).

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

:smallconfused: How is that considered hostile? You're buddies now. He probably would invite you to dinner, not send you away.

Whenever you do something that is hostile against the npc you have diplomaci'd you change the status again to hostile. Staying in the sanctuary of a lich that hates all life is such an action.

And once again, "helpful" is not "buddies". It is up to the DM to decide what "helpful" means from an undead spellcaster.

- Giacomo

[Sstoopidtallkid]

No, they are not, or the skill would say so. That is just your interpretation. Charm person will get someone to consider you as their friend. But not diplomacy.Friendly is only a DC 35.
True, but in the two full rounds you have to also win over the second of the enemies, said enemy could attack you (while the others apparently are only defending themselves). Even a "helpful" first diplomacie'd opponent would possibly not go against his buddyNo, All I need to do is keep him out of the battle, while I check against the second opponent. If we're facing a mob, then I change strategies.
since he only takes "risks" to help you and does not go against its nature (which even from a 9th level spell - dominate monster - necessitates new saving throws).And this is better than the spell. Dominated creatures won't take many risks without a new save. This has no mechanics for a new save.

[Lappy9000]

*Sigh*

I have a bard player who's using his ridiculiously-high bluff skill to convince a rich noble that a rowboat is an airship. And then selling it to him.

I'm allowing it, 'cause it's freakin' awesome.

[Sir Giacomo]

Friendly is only a DC 35.

I may be mistaken here as a non-native speaker. But if you are "friendly" to someone it does not mean you are his/her friend.

- Giacomo

[Zincorium]

I may be mistaken here as a non-native speaker. But if you are "friendly" to someone it does not mean you are his/her friend.

- Giacomo

Er, friendly means you treat someone as a friend. Even if they actually aren't. It's an attitude whereas 'friend' is a relationship.

So while you are partially correct, in that it is possible to be friendly to someone who isn't your friend, it's semantically meaningless in this situation.

If someone is friendly, they will respect your opinions and wish to help rather than harm you. Anything else is just the DM not using the same words the players are.

To put it another way, how in a not-intentionally-twisted-for-the-sake-of-argument way would someone who is friendly treat you?

[horseboy]

As for taking down the BBEG: is it really so anticlimactic for the final confrontation to be resolved with a conversation instead of a swordfight? Heck, Fallout is justifiably praised for the fact that you can take out its BBEG by persuading it to destroy itself. Is there anything actually wrong with just plain talking down the villain?Because sometimes the BBEG really just needs a hug and a comforting shoulder to cry on.

[Anon-a-mouse]

Bluff is kinda broken...if you know they have crap for sense motive and your bluff is high enough, you can make people believe anything...at least for a round...high levels of bluff against low level people or those without sense motive is highly amusing.

Bluff checks are not broken. Because (unlike diplomacy) the bluff check is opposed, it only really works to extremes on NPCs with lower level than you or a wisdom stat lower than your charisma. And it is entirely realistic for a good liar to be able to convince a commoner of something "way out there, almost too incredible to consider", to use the words of the diplomacy rule. There are people in the real world who make money by pretending to be able to talk to the dead. A PC chr based skills specialist should be able to convince a level 1 commoner of almost anything. In fact, the rules would be broken if he couldn't.

[Chronos]

Hmm. One question: how exactly are you going to keep at bay an npc/monster opponent who wishes to attack you at that level while doing a full-round action?One way around it is to use a bard as your class instead of Expert, and to use a Perform: Oratory check to Fascinate the target or targets (as per Bardic Music). Then, you use your oration to make the Diplomacy check. Actually, Fascinate is a broken skill usage itself, since the save DC is equal to your skill check, which can get much higher than save bonuses can.

Since this thread is about skill abuses in general, not just Diplomacy, another one is Use Magic Device on staves. UMD allows you to emulate a caster level for purposes of using a magic item, and staves use your own caster level instead of the staff's own, if yours is higher. So you get a staff with something like Holy Word in it, that depends strongly on caster level, and make a UMD check to emulate a caster level in the hundreds.

Oh, and the DC 30 Knowledge check mentioned in the OP is to know of the existence of a demon named Pazuzu, found in (I think) Forgotten Realms. If you say his name three times, he'll appear and grant you wishes (in exchange for your alignment shifting towards Chaotic Evil). While abusive enough by itself, it's usually mentioned in context as being the first step towards becoming Pun-Pun.

[Sofaking]

Perhaps it is better to look at it this way. You may change the NPCs attitude towards you but you do not change his alignment. He may be willing to help you but would that trump his nature? If he is CE he may be willing to help you but what would prevent him from turning on anyone? Ask yourself how many times you have been helpfull towards an NPC and then later turn on them or used them to your advantage (In an evil game)? What really prevents an evil person from turning on their friends? Others have argued that it is not a supernatural affect so what makes this helpful or friendly state more powerful than the person's nature?

[Toliudar]

Further the crappiness of Heal - I've had a houserule in which a DC 15 heal check has the same effect as cure minor wounds. It's hard enough that at low levels it makes some investment in the skill worthwhile, and at mid-levels stops being a significant event. I'm looking at another houserule that a DC 20-ish check doubles the healing rate for overnight rest.

[Sofaking]

Further the crappiness of Heal - I've had a houserule in which a DC 15 heal check has the same effect as cure minor wounds. It's hard enough that at low levels it makes some investment in the skill worthwhile, and at mid-levels stops being a significant event. I'm looking at another houserule that a DC 20-ish check doubles the healing rate for overnight rest.

Is this usable once per day or what?

[Roderick_BR]

Also, a fighter with a Wis penalty won't be able to hear the party most of the time. :smallconfused: I love WotC.
Indeed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html)


No one pointed tumble yet? Not really abusable, only silly. With a DC 15, you avoid attacks of opportunities caused by moving into threatened areas. No matter the base attack bonus or final melee attack bonuses of the people you are tumbling. The Knight class from PHB2 does have an ability that adds his level to the check DC, but it should work for all.
It should be hard to tumble past Sir Anchoves, the world's best swordsman in the word, than it is to tumble past Joe, the dagger stabber that just came out of the fighter's academy.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Perhaps it is better to look at it this way. You may change the NPCs attitude towards you but you do not change his alignment. He may be willing to help you but would that trump his nature? If he is CE he may be willing to help you but what would prevent him from turning on anyone? Ask yourself how many times you have been helpfull towards an NPC and then later turn on them or used them to your advantage (In an evil game)? What really prevents an evil person from turning on their friends? Others have argued that it is not a supernatural affect so what makes this helpful or friendly state more powerful than the person's nature?

The problem is that in game terms being "helpful" towards somebody genuinely means "wanting to help them" not "thinking it would be useful to help them in the short term".

[Dan_Hemmens]

No one pointed tumble yet? Not really abusable, only silly. With a DC 15, you avoid attacks of opportunities caused by moving into threatened areas. No matter the base attack bonus or final melee attack bonuses of the people you are tumbling. The Knight class from PHB2 does have an ability that adds his level to the check DC, but it should work for all.
It should be hard to tumble past Sir Anchoves, the world's best swordsman in the word, than it is to tumble past Joe, the dagger stabber that just came out of the fighter's academy.

Actually, I think that's relatively sensible. The higher your level, the more damage a single attack is going to deal you, so the more important it is to avoid AoOs.

At low levels, if you try to tumble past Joe the Dagger Stabber and fail, no harm no foul, he'll probably miss you anyway, and for Pete's sake he only has a dagger.

At high levels, if you try to tumble past Sir Anchoves and fail, you're probably screwed.

[UserClone]

Actually, I think he is referring to the fact that by mid levels (low levels if you're really trying), you can easily have a +14 to tumble, and therefore never fail, with Knights being the one (possible) exception. Of course, the drawback no one seems to ever mention when discussing tumbling past enemies is that you can only move 10-15 ft, depending on your race's base speed. (Well, okay, 20 if you are an unusual 1-level dip non-pounce Barbarian)

[Anon-a-mouse]

It could be argued that the diplomacy skill isn't all that broken.

"You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party."

It doesn't actually say when you can do it. It doesn't say you can't use it on an enemy charging at you with a sword, bit it doesn't say you can either. To say 'you can do this particular thing' is not equivilent to saying 'you can always do this particular thing'.

The decipher script skill...

"You can decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form. The base DC is 20 for the simplest messages, 25 for standard texts, and 30 or higher for intricate, exotic, or very old writing."

... doesn't actually specify that you must have seen the message you are deciphering. To say that diplomacy can be used in battle by the RaW but decipher script can't be used on a text you've never seen seems like the worst kind of double think.

[Toliudar]

Is this usable once per day or what?

Once per encounter.

[Toliudar]

It doesn't actually say when you can do it. It doesn't say you can't use it on an enemy charging at you with a sword, bit it doesn't say you can either. To say 'you can do this particular thing' is not equivilent to saying 'you can always do this particular thing'.

The decipher script skill doesn't actually specify that you must have seen the message you are deciphering. To say that diplomacy can be used in battle by the RaW but decipher script can't be used on a text you've never seen seems like the worst kind of double think.

Forcing every skill to list the situations in which it can seems ludicrously difficult, and a non-starter as rules go.

I can't roll spellcraft to determine the nature of a spell I have no contact with. "Line of sight" and "Line of effect" are fairly useful and already determined game concepts. If I have line of sight and line of effect on a script (ie am close enough to see it, and it's not behind a wall), I can try to use Decipher Script. If I have line of effect to a creature, I can try to use diplomacy.

Of course, there are skills (knowledge, for instance), for which the object of the skill is effectively yourself, but usually there's an object. And I'd usually rule that if you have line of effect to the object, you can use your skill on it.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

It could be argued that the diplomacy skill isn't all that broken.

"You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party."

It doesn't actually say when you can do it. It doesn't say you can't use it on an enemy charging at you with a sword, bit it doesn't say you can either. To say 'you can do this particular thing' is not equivilent to saying 'you can always do this particular thing'.

The decipher script skill...

"You can decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form. The base DC is 20 for the simplest messages, 25 for standard texts, and 30 or higher for intricate, exotic, or very old writing."

... doesn't actually specify that you must have seen the message you are deciphering. To say that diplomacy can be used in battle by the RaW but decipher script can't be used on a text you've never seen seems like the worst kind of double think.You can take a -10 penalty to use it as a full-round action. Think about a little guy getting charged by a crusader and saying "Wait, I'm on your side, I don't want to fight, I want to help you. Don't hurt me, you're god wouldn't like that." In what other situation would taking a -10 penalty be worth saving a minute?

[Valgoth]

I wouldn't call diplomacy broken... just use incorrectly. It's not applicable to every situation. You can't walk up to the BBEG, roll an epic diplomacy check, and get him to change his evil ways, thus "defeating" him, can you? No DM in their right mind would even ALLOW the roll, much less set a DC for it.

Use diplomacy where it applies... and that's not everywhere.

[Weiser_Cain]

A deaf, flying, Orc Sorcerer solves most of these problems.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I wouldn't call diplomacy broken... just use incorrectly. It's not applicable to every situation. You can't walk up to the BBEG, roll an epic diplomacy check, and get him to change his evil ways, thus "defeating" him, can you? No DM in their right mind would even ALLOW the roll, much less set a DC for it.

Use diplomacy where it applies... and that's not everywhere.

The problem is that one man's insanity is another man's reasonable request.

A character with +40 Listen is capable of hearing an owl swooping in for this kill a hundred yards away. A character with +40 Jump can leap twenty feet in a straight line from a standing start. A +40 skill check allows you to perform nigh-superhuman feats. Why shouldn't a character with a +40 Diplomacy check be able to persuade somebody evil to repent? If they can't, who can? And is there anything intrinsically wrong with the final "showdown" with the big bad being a debate, rather than a fight?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The problem is there is no resist check. You can persuade anyone, no matter how many divine ranks they have.

[TheThan]

This is the problem with the way the skill sub-system works.

If the whole system of dnd was point based the way the skill system is, then the game would function better. We wouldn’t have so many ludicrous abuses of the skills. That’s why the system in star wars saga is better, because the skills scale with level, so its very hard to get a stupidly high modifier to X skill, simply by the nature that you don’t get to dump a ton of points into it. The drawback is that everyone’s skills will advance at the same rate. It also looses a bit of character individuality, when all bards have roughly the same diplomacy modifier. But some times you have to take the good with the bad.

[Thane of Fife]

And is there anything intrinsically wrong with the final "showdown" with the big bad being a debate, rather than a fight?

Intrinsically? Certainly not.

The problem is that the villain can't do it back. The party paladin can convince the BBEG that flipping the switch to destroy the city won't bring the villain's mother back, or whatever, but the villain can't convince the PC that flipping said switch is the right thing to do. Why is the PC so much more iron-willed than the villain?

And if you do let the villain use diplomacy on the PCs, then it would essentially come down to who can use skill first.

Asides from which, it's only really appropriate on some villains. You can convince Darth Vader that being evil is wrong, but can you persuade Sauron of the same?

[Corolinth]

Diplomancy is why circumstance penalties exist.Sadly, too few people who discuss game balance address this.

[horseboy]

Asides from which, it's only really appropriate on some villains. You can convince Darth Vader that being evil is wrong, but can you persuade Sauron of the same?What? All that time and no one every thought to just offer hims some visine? So touched by the simple gesture he realizes the value of free will and how wrong he was to try and squash it. He then uses his powerful magics to create tea and cakes for everyone as a means of apologizing for his past behavior.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Intrinsically? Certainly not.

The problem is that the villain can't do it back. The party paladin can convince the BBEG that flipping the switch to destroy the city won't bring the villain's mother back, or whatever, but the villain can't convince the PC that flipping said switch is the right thing to do. Why is the PC so much more iron-willed than the villain?

Roughly the same reason that the villain deals with the potential threat posed by the PCs by sending his minions after them in a slow, not-too-dangerous progression, always making sure that he matches the minions he sends after them to their approximate level and current wealth, making sure to equip each one with suitable valuables to make killing them worthwhile.

Villains are there to lose. That's the point.

And who's to say the villain can't talk the PCs around? It's just that it's considered impolite to do it by pure game mechanics. The reason for this double standard is that the DM controls everything except for the PCs opinions and actions (and even those he can influence fairly readily).


And if you do let the villain use diplomacy on the PCs, then it would essentially come down to who can use skill first.

This, I think, is the basic problem with the way people look at the Diplomacy skill, it's treated (as I think I said earlier, but that post might have been eaten) as a weapon in the PC arsenal, like those abilities you get in JRPGs where you can entice monsters into your party by having the girl blow kisses at them. At no point do people view the use of the "Diplomacy" skill as involving any actual diplomacy (it's rather like the example somebody gave above about allowing a Decipher Script check on a script you can't actually see).

If the Diplomacy rules are used as part of a good faith attempt to reach an amicable solution to a problem, then they're absolutely fine. Indeed I'd argue that the reason Diplomacy doesn't have an opposing check is because it's supposed to be sincere (otherwise you use Bluff).


Asides from which, it's only really appropriate on some villains. You can convince Darth Vader that being evil is wrong, but can you persuade Sauron of the same?

Sauron, interestingly enough, never shows up in person, so the point is rather moot. The rest of Sauron's forces, similarly, could be considered effectively mindless, driven by his dark will.

[Blanks]

A character with +40 Listen is capable of hearing an owl swooping in for this kill a hundred yards away. A character with +40 Jump can leap twenty feet in a straight line from a standing start. A +40 skill check allows you to perform nigh-superhuman feats. Why shouldn't a character with a +40 Diplomacy check be able to persuade somebody evil to repent? If they can't, who can? And is there anything intrinsically wrong with the final "showdown" with the big bad being a debate, rather than a fight?
The problem is that after the diplomancer starts working his "magic" every showdown ends the same way...

Again this is because it can't be resisted. It somehow needs to scale with difficulty in a way that doesn't require the DM to decide upon a specific circumstance modifier. I have seen some okay solutions, but none that adresses this completely :(

[Artanis]

As far as broken skill uses go, I have one word for you:

Jumplomancer.


A +370 Diplomacy check. At level 15. With 6 ranks in Diplomacy.

[Thane of Fife]

And who's to say the villain can't talk the PCs around? It's just that it's considered impolite to do it by pure game mechanics. The reason for this double standard is that the DM controls everything except for the PCs opinions and actions (and even those he can influence fairly readily).


Right. But I'd consider the PCs' doing it to the villain to be almost as bad. Since turning the antagonist is a "better" result than killing him, I would expect the PCs to put more effort into doing it than they would have to put into killing him. As is, though, they don't need to know anything about the person they're talking to to be able to convinve him of anything.


Indeed I'd argue that the reason Diplomacy doesn't have an opposing check is because it's supposed to be sincere (otherwise you use Bluff).

But I don't think sincerity really matters. Look at this forum. For the past few weeks, countless people have argued with EE that 4e isn't going to be a disaster. I'm sure these people are sincere. In all likelihood, they are never going to convince him. But these same arguments have made me look less unfavorably towards it. People care about things to different extents.

And finally, I suspect my major problem is that I simply can't fathom someone with a +40 to diplomacy. We're discussing someone who could, hypothetically, come on to this forum and, in about a minute, convince every single poster here that 4th edition is going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

While being mauled by a boar.

Since no DM will ever be able to think of an argument of equivalent caliber, I think that using diplomacy as such will result in less descriptive, and therefore less interesting, situations.

[Chronos]

He then uses his powerful magics to create tea and cakes for everyone as a means of apologizing for his past behavior.Yeah, but the cake is a lie.

Seriously, way back in Middle Earth's history, Eonwë (the Herald of Manwë, probably best modeled D&D as an advanced Solar) tried to diplomance Sauron, and almost succeeded, but Sauron's pride was too great to allow him to repent. This actually makes sense: An epic character, well geared towards diplomacy, negotiated with another epic character, inherently resistant to negotiation, and the result could have gone either way. When a level 10 human can try the same thing, and consistently succeed, there's a problem in the system.

[BRC]

The problem with Diploacy is that it dosn't scale at all, and it has too many uses. An example of a feat that scales? Bluff, As the characters get better at bluffing the enemies get better Sense Motive checks.
"But BRC, Jump dosn't really scale either"
That is true, however, you can't buypass most fights with a good jump check like you could with a Bluff or Diplomacy Check.

[Lokey]

As far as broken skill uses go, I have one word for you:

Jumplomancer.


A +370 Diplomacy check. At level 15. With 6 ranks in Diplomacy.
I am intrigued and wish to learn more.

[Kantur]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=943738

Though I'm sure it'd been bettered since the first post of the thread...

[Sofaking]

The problem is that in game terms being "helpful" towards somebody genuinely means "wanting to help them" not "thinking it would be useful to help them in the short term".

Why? Why can't an evil npc not have ulterior motives when he agrees to help you? He can genuinely believe that if he helps you he will get ahead. But what is preventing an CE character from turning on his friends, or even an CN character. It is in their very nature to act on their whims and do what suits them. Just because you tell the BBEG to not kill you or leave the area forever doesn't mean he is going to change alignment and change his ways for the rest of his life does it? Would you feel ok with this if the DM did it to one of your characters? Perhaps had an evil diplomancer somehow convince your holy paladin into killing some children and wearing their faces as hats?

[Fiery Diamond]

I may be mistaken here as a non-native speaker. But if you are "friendly" to someone it does not mean you are his/her friend.

- Giacomo
You are entirely correct here. (I'm an American, a native speaker of English). Those who tell you otherwise are using a bizarre definition of "friendly." The problem lies in different interpretations of what a "friend" is, and merging them.

Is someone you are nice to your friend? That's the concept of "friendly" by RAW. The definition of "friend" people on this board are using has nothing to do with that definition of friendly. If I'm nice and civil (the idea of "friendly" by RAW) that doesn't mean they're my buddies. Being a "friend" is past the helpful stage.

-Fiery Diamond

[Dan_Hemmens]

Why? Why can't an evil npc not have ulterior motives when he agrees to help you?

Because then he wouldn't be "taking risks to help you" which is the RAW definition. A "Friendly" character by RAW actively "wishes you well" and "Helpful" is a stage beyond that.

[Blanks]

Regarding "helpful", "friend" and "friendly" i think the problem is that people define them a little too static.
I diplomance the BBEG into being friendly, which means he stops attacking me and says "nice weather today aint it?". He then for some reason leaves the area, but the next day he starts considering "hmm why was i so nice to that dude?". A week later he says to himself "screw that guy, i will leave him alone, but if he interferes in my plans again i will have to kill him".
This is not how it should work every time, im just saying psychopaths react that way. Seen Schindlers list? Schindler diplomances a Death camp commander into being more forgiving, and the guy feels great about it. But only 5 minutes later he changes his heart again, picks up a rifle and shoots the guy he forgave. Maybe the check succeded by 1, and if he had succeded by 10 or the Nazis lvl*5 or something the effect would have been more lasting?

My daugther is my BEST friend. And yet i say no to helping her all the time because thats what friends do when their friends are endangering themselves.
The BBEG who is a friend might very well think "I need to wage this war but i dont want my friend hurt. I will teleport him away to a safe place. Say, the capital of a country far away. Its a nice place and he will be safe".