Diplomacy

[Volomon]

Ok, my DM is running basically what is a dungeon crawler and all this. Should be quite fun as this will be my whole second time playing as a player.

I've always wondered about Diplomacy and have always found it to be one of those things rarely used by my players unless the situation is presented as "one of those kind" of situations you know your approached by a city watch for randomly happen chancing on a dead body in an alley. Clearly diplomacy or some quick words are needed.

Now I've always wondered ok if your in a random dungeon just for the fun and loot of it, can you potentially diplomacize one of the natives? For instance a room harboring ten goblins is walked in on and they all turn to notice you can I use diplomacy and some gold to hire me a guide for the rest of the dungeon, I mean clearly they live here. However I notice that the PHB says it takes X minutes to negotiate a better attitude. Further it says preempting a fight could potentially give you a -10 DC say for instance the goblins just rush me and I am all like no I wish to parley.

Is the PHB just assuming that no fighting is happening??

As a DM or player what do you say to these kinds of situations. Would it potentially break a (on the fly) dungeon if you had a personal guide, and what would you do just attack the players anyway even if one of them spoke goblin? How many of these situations have you ever seen, personally I never see any of them. It seems we all assume if it's in a dungeon it's evil and wrong and must die for the progression of our levels.

[Morph Bark]

Diplomacy is actually one of the most broken skills in the game. Pump it up high enough and you can make anyone into your friend, no matter their level, stats, abilities, or whatever else as long as they have an Int score of 3 or higher.

Hence why this is a good replacement.

[jiriku]

I use Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules IMC, and it works marvelously well, although I scale the Risk v. Reward modifiers across +/- 20 rather than +/- 10.

But to directly address your question, yes, Diplomacy has a place in the dungeon. At least, RAW it does. In practice, I find that your ability to use Diplomacy depends heavily on the flexibility and open-mindedness of your DM. If you try to negotiate with the goblins with a bad DM, you'll get a facefull of arrows for your trouble because in the DM's mind "you're supposed to fight them". OTOH, if your DM is more willing to go with the flow, then you'll have a chance (although you do face the -10 modifier for rushed Diplomacy).

[G3N3R3L GHOST]

As stated before diplomacy definitely has a place anywhere. I know there is even a couple of PRC's dedicated to using words instead of swords. Can't think of them off the top of my head but I believe one is in complete divine on in BoED and ond in a Forgotten realms? book. Regardless there is definitely merit in your idea. So roll with it if your DM is down.

[Lhurgyof]

I dunno, I like bluff more. Since it is only a -20 penalty to tell a ridiculous lie to somebody. xD

[Yorrin]

On the other hand, if you want to ignore everyone telling you to not use the broken RAW Diplomacy, take a one level dip in Binder. The Naberius vestige allows you to Diplomance as a standard action without the -10 penalty. If you're REALLY serious about it grab a level in Marshal as well and choose 'Motive Charisma' as your minor aura. Given that you've got a decent Cha mod and max your ranks in Diplomacy you'll be well on your way to never having to fight an intelligent foe ever again.

[Morph Bark]

On the other hand, if you want to ignore everyone telling you to not use the broken RAW Diplomacy, take a one level dip in Binder. The Naberius vestige allows you to Diplomance as a standard action without the -10 penalty. If you're REALLY serious about it grab a level in Marshal as well and choose 'Motive Charisma' as your minor aura. Given that you've got a decent Cha mod and max your ranks in Diplomacy you'll be well on your way to never having to fight an intelligent foe ever again.

Well, if you're gonna go that way... I might as well present Fred.

Behold: Fred the Diplomancer.

[Aroka]

Diplomacy should be potentially useful with any intelligent creatures. Even halfway decent adventures (including many D&D or AD&D adventures) should include some notes on how various intelligent creatures encountered may react to attempts at negotiation or bribery.

But it's always up to the DM. If the DM is hidebound, bad at improvisation, and hasn't prepared negotiation scenarios for the adventure, you're not going to have much success. If the DM is better at saying "yes", you'll find all skills, not just Diplomacy, far, far more useful.

[WarKitty]

Diplomacy should be potentially useful with any intelligent creatures. Even halfway decent adventures (including many D&D or AD&D adventures) should include some notes on how various intelligent creatures encountered may react to attempts at negotiation or bribery.

But it's always up to the DM. If the DM is hidebound, bad at improvisation, and hasn't prepared negotiation scenarios for the adventure, you're not going to have much success. If the DM is better at saying "yes", you'll find all skills, not just Diplomacy, far, far more useful.

This actually keeps coming up in the campaign I'm running. I hate saying "no" all the time...but the players want to use diplomacy on EVERYTHING. Even where it really doesn't make sense. I hate the feeling that I'm not letting them use a skill, but how do I get them to actually fight things on occasion if I let them use it? Otherwise we might as well not have a party, just the bard adventuring with a bunch of dead weight.

[NowhereMan583]

This actually keeps coming up in the campaign I'm running. I hate saying "no" all the time...but the players want to use diplomacy on EVERYTHING. Even where it really doesn't make sense. I hate the feeling that I'm not letting them use a skill, but how do I get them to actually fight things on occasion if I let them use it? Otherwise we might as well not have a party, just the bard adventuring with a bunch of dead weight.

If they really prefer talking to fighting, maybe you should skew the adventures towards RP challenges that involve the whole party. Have them play out conversations, and if the bard is dominating that arena, then the NPC they're talking to can directly address one of the others. "That's very nice, harp-boy, but I really wanted to know what Bob the Fighter thought. I respect a man with a greatsword." Thus, they're all involved, and the fact that they prefer talking to fighting is no longer a negative.

And if you're really itching for combat, just make sure to occasionally introduce creatures who aren't swayed by diplomacy; animal-intelligence creatures that don't have the mental capacity for it, or really really evil creatures that just don't feel like talking to the party (demons, perhaps).

Of course, you'll have to give out heaps of roleplaying XP to keep them advancing through the levels, but that's not difficult. "Alice the Wizard, you did really well in that meeting with the courtiers. Take 500xp." Etc., etc.

Edit: And if the situation really doesn't make sense for Diplomacy, just assign a huge circumstance penalty. "You want to... negotiate with the drider? Sure, but take -10 to your rolls."

[WarKitty]

If they really prefer talking to fighting, maybe you should skew the adventures towards RP challenges that involve the whole party. Have them play out conversations, and if the bard is dominating that arena, then the NPC they're talking to can directly address one of the others. "That's very nice, harp-boy, but I really wanted to know what Bob the Fighter thought. I respect a man with a greatsword." Thus, they're all involved, and the fact that they prefer talking to fighting is no longer a negative.

And if you're really itching for combat, just make sure to occasionally introduce creatures who aren't swayed by diplomacy; animal-intelligence creatures that don't have the mental capacity for it, or really really evil creatures that just don't feel like talking to the party (demons, perhaps).

Of course, you'll have to give out heaps of roleplaying XP to keep them advancing through the levels, but that's not difficult. "Alice the Wizard, you did really well in that meeting with the courtiers. Take 500xp." Etc., etc.

Edit: And if the situation really doesn't make sense for Diplomacy, just assign a huge circumstance penalty. "You want to... negotiate with the drider? Sure, but take -10 to your rolls."

It's more like half our players prefer talking, and half the players prefer fighting. Plus they're already doing no-combat or single-combat sessions most of the time.

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

[Volomon]

It's more like half our players prefer talking, and half the players prefer fighting. Plus they're already doing no-combat or single-combat sessions most of the time.

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

I think you have a DM issue not a player issue, what I mean by that is say for instance a NPC's purpose in life is to take over the world through undead minions, that character can not be coerced via diplomacy no mater what. His minions who want to become part of his ever living undead army (aka theres no side effects from being dead just ever lasting life) will not negotiate either.

The only way Diplomacy can effect the situation is if the opposing creature is hostile, this means it's just pissed off and the PC's are not actually in direct conflict with it's over all goal in life, aka no better than a mean bull. Hence why I posed the original question with the prefix of being a random dungeon crawl (no goal purpose). There is no DC modifier it is just impossible. It would similar to convincing someone to jump off a bridge. You can have all the negotiating skill in the world, it's not going to help.

Ultimately this mean's there to many creatures in the campaign/adventure without a purpose if they can so easily join the PCs after years of working for a master for a goal, then there is something wrong with the over all campaign itself.

[NowhereMan583]

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

Ah, we did houserule that. I think we settled on 5 words or less as a free action; past that, you're eating into your turn... and yes, eventually your turn will end, and if you haven't been convincing enough, you're going to take another hit.

[WarKitty]

I think you have a DM issue not a player issue, what I mean by that is say for instance a NPC's purpose in life is to take over the world through undead minions, that character can not be coerced via diplomacy no mater what. His minions who want to become part of his ever living undead army (aka theres no side effects from being dead just ever lasting life) will not negotiate either.

The only way Diplomacy can effect the situation is if the opposing creature is hostile, this means it's just pissed off and the PC's are not actually in direct conflict with it's over all goal in life aka no better than a mean bull.

Ultimately this mean's there to many creatures in the campaign/adventure without a purpose if they can so easily join the PCs after years of working for a master for a goal, then there is something wrong.

Yeah that's sort of the way I have been running it. I just feel bad because I'm constantly telling my characters "no, you can't use this completely maxed out skill you have." I'm trying to find some way to let them use it without it being a freebie all the time.

[NowhereMan583]

Yeah that's sort of the way I have been running it. I just feel bad because I'm constantly telling my characters "no, you can't use this completely maxed out skill you have." I'm trying to find some way to let them use it without it being a freebie all the time.

You know, just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they can't roll for it.

Player: I want to use Diplomacy on the lich.
DM: Sure.
Player: [roll] I got a 29.
DM: Your brief attempt at negotiation, however prettily worded, fails to persuade him to give up the goal towards which he has been working for centuries. And it's his turn now. [roll] Make a Reflex save.

[Volomon]

Yeah that's sort of the way I have been running it. I just feel bad because I'm constantly telling my characters "no, you can't use this completely maxed out skill you have." I'm trying to find some way to let them use it without it being a freebie all the time.

Well just start sorting out some major DCs, I have one adventure that envolves a ball and diplomatic meeting between countries. Then further on one of the diplomats turn out to be a major wanted criminal (aka the guy they are after), and whole chase beings. Really he's one of the only handful of creatures they fight.

It doesn't have to be autowin, the max skill is what 24? You gain -10 for just trying to stop a fight already in progress trying to stop someone who doesn't like you is like another -10 so leaving 4 isn't autowin.

Just get cranking on some heavy DCs, and RP your side of the conversation, they might even RP theres and the whole DC won't matter.

[Volomon]

You know, just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they can't roll for it.

Player: I want to use Diplomacy on the lich.
DM: Sure.
Player: [roll] I got a 29.
DM: Your brief attempt at negotiation, however prettily worded, fails to persuade him to give up the goal to which he has been working for centuries. And it's his turn now. [roll] Make a Reflex save.

Ya I agree, don't use words like "No" you can't do that. Never use NO in any situation. Explain what happens instead. Above is a perfect example.

[WarKitty]

Ya I agree, don't use words like "No" you can't do that. Never use NO in any situation. Explain what happens instead. Above is a perfect example.

Admittedly my group does require (and expect) "no" on occasion. Like "I roll to intimidate the poison gas trap."

[Saya]

As the DM, it's always possible to just set up situations where diplomacy simply doesn't work, ie: the enemy simply doesn't want to talk.

Enemy clerics/champions of enemy deities almost never want to go peacefully with you, since if they do, there's a pretty good chance they'll lose their powers, and it's not worth it.

Another thing you can do is ask the player "What do you want to say?", and make it not simply just another dice roll, where the player has to choose the right thing to say, or take a massive penalty to the check.

[Volomon]

Admittedly my group does require (and expect) "no" on occasion. Like "I roll to intimidate the poison gas trap."

Ok that requires a slap, but also I would say "You approach closer to give it a face full of spittle and rage, however you incidental step on the trap, and it's repose is broke with fury as you choke on it's witless banter of gas." Yup I'd still let my players pull that crap, but they pay for I am an unforgiving DM.

[NowhereMan583]

Ok that requires a slap, but also I would say "You approach closer to give it a face full of spittle and rage, however you incidental step on the trap, and it's repose is broke with fury as you choke on it's witless banter of gas." Yup I'd still let my players pull that crap, but they pay for I am an unforgiving DM.

This is, I've found, the best way to handle that sort of nonsense. Volomon's wording is much funnier than any of my responses have beem though.

[Aroka]

This actually keeps coming up in the campaign I'm running. I hate saying "no" all the time...but the players want to use diplomacy on EVERYTHING. Even where it really doesn't make sense. I hate the feeling that I'm not letting them use a skill, but how do I get them to actually fight things on occasion if I let them use it? Otherwise we might as well not have a party, just the bard adventuring with a bunch of dead weight.

The thing is, you can say "yes, but." It's an improv acting thing that really comes in handy in RPGs of any kind: instead of blocking, you accept and adapt.

"Can I talk to the enemy?"
"Yes, but do you have anything they want?"

Just because someone tries to talk doesn't mean it results in anything useful. You should not let dice and Diplomacy ranks overrule what makes sense: a bunch of bandits aren't going to be dissuaded by an impassioned speech about the value of hard work and people's right to property, but they might let the PCs go for a large enough bribe (and a good Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate check; on a failure, the bandits decide to just take it all).

This the whole "thinking on your feet" part. It's not necessarily easy - I learned it by running RPG campaigns on a completely improv basis for something like 10 years. But practice and theory both help a lot.

You may also want to prepare by creating scenarios that can go either way - if the bard does a good job at negotiating (not just a good Diplomacy check), maybe they can avoid a big fight, but it won't be free. Or maybe they can bribe their enemies to help them - the goblins living near the dungeon show them a way in. (But maybe they also set up an ambush for when the PCs come out laden with all that treasure.)

It's more like half our players prefer talking, and half the players prefer fighting. Plus they're already doing no-combat or single-combat sessions most of the time.

I think I need to houserule out the "talking is a free action" thing. That's the real thing that rubs me wrong, if you stand there talking OF COURSE the big bad lich is going to lob another ennervate at you.

This is easy to fix with the rules. Making a Diplomacy check requires 10 consecutive, uninterrupted full-round actions. That's not going to happen in the middle of a pitched fight. If the bard suddenly comes up with something incredible or shouts out just the right words, maybe he can create a lull in the combat (provided the entire party stops fighting) and initiate negotiations, but that's a big maybe.

Say yes, but follow the rules ("yes, but it takes 10 full-round actions"), and don't give free rides: make the player work for it.


So, remember: "Yes, but...", "What's the pay-off?", "Things change."

Ya I agree, don't use words like "No" you can't do that. Never use NO in any situation. Explain what happens instead. Above is a perfect example.

This, too. People can always try, but sometimes there's no way to succeed. A good DM can also come up with ways to make the failure interesting - they can complicate rather than block or stop the story. (Instead of failing to climb the wall at all, you clamber over it and fall, hurting your leg.)

If they get nonsensical (trying to interact with traps), just go "What? How?"


Edit: Remember, though, that sometimes it just works for a character to give a speech and end a battle and turn enemies into allies. It depends on relative power levels and the "epic" quotinent of your campaign.

[Watchers]

Well just start sorting out some major DCs, I have one adventure that envolves a ball and diplomatic meeting between countries. Then further on one of the diplomats turn out to be a major wanted criminal (aka the guy they are after), and whole chase beings. Really he's one of the only handful of creatures they fight.

It doesn't have to be autowin, the max skill is what 24? You gain -10 for just trying to stop a fight already in progress trying to stop someone who doesn't like you is like another -10 so leaving 4 isn't autowin.

Last I checked, there were ways to improve skills other than just investing ranks. Otherwise, how would a level 6 character have a +94 to his check? Also, a few -10 penalties won't hurt his chances very much.

RP your side of the conversation, they might even RP theres and the whole DC won't matter.

Another thing you can do is ask the player "What do you want to say?", and make it not simply just another dice roll, where the player has to choose the right thing to say, or take a massive penalty to the check.

Pet peeve. This can lead to a situation where just because the player of the Bard is a poor speaker and the player of the barbarian is Barack Obama, the dude with the charisma penalty and no ranks ends up having more success than the guy with a +90 modifier.

EDIT: At above: You can make a diplomacy check as a standard action, as per the rules. You just take a decent penalty.

[thompur]

Also remember, Diplomacy only works in convincing the other being to being favorably disposed to you. It won't necessarily change their mind.

Lich: "You make an intriguing arguement, Bard. I think I shall not have my minions kill you as they will the rest of your party. You will, instead, be permitted to live as my personal historian. Your first assignment will to compose an epic about the death of your companions at my hands."

Diplomacy can only be abused if the DM allows it.

[Aroka]

Pet peeve. This can lead to a situation where just because the player of the Bard is a poor speaker and the player of the barbarian is Barack Obama, the dude with the charisma penalty and no ranks ends up having more success than the guy with a +90 modifier.

Fo' sho'. If a game has social skills and someone invests in them, they shouldn't be negated.

RP (acting) should be less important than choices and decisions - I don't care how my players RP the negotiation, but I care endlessly about what they are offering and asking for. Those decisions will influence many things: the DC (or check bonuses), and what success and failure result in.

[elonin]

I recall looking at Rich's diplomacy rules and thinking that he has set the bar so high that it is like use magic device (wait until you have 10 ranks or suffer bad results). I can understand the desire to make the skill harder at top levels but he didn't consider the consequences for low level people. Believe me that a fix is needed.

[Watchers]

I dunno, I think a +94 at level 6 could probably cope with those rules.

[Aroka]

I dunno, I think a +94 at level 6 could probably cope with those rules.

You can't really set the bar at dealing with outliers that distant, though.

[WarKitty]

I recall looking at Rich's diplomacy rules and thinking that he has set the bar so high that it is like use magic device (wait until you have 10 ranks or suffer bad results). I can understand the desire to make the skill harder at top levels but he didn't consider the consequences for low level people. Believe me that a fix is needed.

This seems to be a common problem with D&D in general. Skills are either too costly to be useful at low ranks, or too easy once you have a certain level.

What you really need is some way to have an opposed roll to diplomacy.

[elonin]

While we are at it why not an opposed check for tumble? It's stupid that once you can beat a 25 tumble check you are full speed tumbling past four opponents at a time without breaking a sweat. Unlike tumble there is an opposed check for diplomacy in a sense motive check.