Why is diplomacy "broken"?

[Psyren]

I don't think that's quite valid. You don't choose what you say to the beholders, any more than you choose what your verbal spell components are. What you say is defined by its effects on the game, and thus by your check result.

Is your Strength check based on a series of pushups? Is your real Knowledge check based on a pop quiz?

This is a game about make-believe. Not everyone playing a charismatic Bard is a charismatic Bard in person. They put ranks into Diplomacy because they want to live the fantasy of a smooth-talking, personable fellow. They roll the dice, and if the skill check passed the DC, in-game the character says whatever needs to be said in the same way that a fighter hits the enemy without the player having to demonstrate his swordsmanship.

What these guys said. Your character knows what to say - they're the diplomatic one, not you.

I don't think the player should be entirely divorced from the process, but penalizing someone's character because their IRL player is shy or brash or stutters is itself antithetical to the spirit of what roleplaying means.

[Seto]

Is your Strength check based on a series of pushups? Is your real Knowledge check based on a pop quiz?

This is a game about make-believe. Not everyone playing a charismatic Bard is a charismatic Bard in person. They put ranks into Diplomacy because they want to live the fantasy of a smooth-talking, personable fellow. They roll the dice, and if the skill check passed the DC, in-game the character says whatever needs to be said in the same way that a fighter hits the enemy without the player having to demonstrate his swordsmanship.

I agree. And much like having twice a professional athlete's physical prowess, or going toe-to-toe with a Dragon, or climbing up a great wall without holds, aren't realistic, but are awesome, I find that being a person so charismatic everyone instantly has a fondness for you and tend to do what you ask them is pretty believable for D&D. It's more akin to animé than RL or even superheroes movies, but I like it. So I'd tend to be lenient towards a player that focuses on Diplomacy.

Now, Diplomacy can be easily abused, but in a low-to-mid-op group (in high-op pretty much anything is abusable anyway) it'll be taken care of pretty easily :
- you can't change someone's attitude by more than one step per hour.
- the +10 DC for in-combat diplomacy means that the enemy stops fighting if you do and agrees to listen, but stays hostile. Then you have to succeed on another roll for the actual diplomacy. And if you roll high enough, well, congratulations, you avoid combat if that's what you're trying to do.
- maybe some other things but I gotta go join friends, I'll edit if that kicks in :)

[Xerlith]

I am not saying that everyone has to play by those rules, but I prefer roleplaying above being optimized to game mechanics. A lot of rules are thrown by the wayside in our games for the sake of expedience and I compensate in other areas as DM.

I'd like to ask. If I was your player and you told me to roll attack to hit... If I came up to you and kicked your chair really hard, would you have told me I crit?

[Flickerdart]

I am not saying that everyone has to play by those rules, but I prefer roleplaying above being optimized to game mechanics. A lot of rules are thrown by the wayside in our games for the sake of expedience and I compensate in other areas as DM.

It's not about being optimized. It's about "I want to roleplay as a charismatic person and represent that by putting points into Diplomacy" and then you saying "haha how dare you try to pretend you're somebody you're not in a game where wizards mind-control dragons, now sit down and be quiet."

[icefractal]

Don't get me wrong, the flat DC is kind of stupid. But I think some of the extremes people talk about come from not actually following the rules. And using the D&D Joke Book ELH. Don't use the ELH.

A Diplomacy check can do two things:
1) "Gain the advantage" in negotiations. Very vague. Requires you be negotiating first, and doesn't imply you can make them do anything ridiculous.
2) Change their attitude. This doesn't make them do anything, it simply makes them Helpful (at best) for whatever actions you propose. You still actually have to tell them why they should do the thing, and there are limits to how far "helpful" goes.

So "give us your castle for this turnip" - nope. Beyond the scope of what people would do for a friend, doesn't happen.

You can, however, use Diplomacy to avoid a lot of random encounters. Someone just targeting you opportunistically wouldn't do that if they were friendly to you. Even someone ordered to kill you might "accidentally" stumble and give you the chance to escape. I don't see that as a problem - there are a lot of things that bypass random encounters: stealth, flight, any number of spells; so why not Diplomacy too?

[Urpriest]

You can, however, use Diplomacy to avoid a lot of random encounters. Someone just targeting you opportunistically wouldn't do that if they were friendly to you. Even someone ordered to kill you might "accidentally" stumble and give you the chance to escape. I don't see that as a problem - there are a lot of things that bypass random encounters: stealth, flight, any number of spells; so why not Diplomacy too?

Why should it do it with a fixed, non-scaling chance with no tactics the opponents can use to prevent it, though?

[Sartharina]

I'd like to ask. If I was your player and you told me to roll attack to hit... If I came up to you and kicked your chair really hard, would you have told me I crit?

No. But I'd at least expect you to say what you're hitting with, and also try to narrate your actions as well instead of sounding like a Bingo Hall.

[dascarletm]

To quote myself.

Player: Diplomacy roll, 40. The BBEG is now friendly towards me. I tell him he needs to stop his master plan since we are friends.

DM: BBEG says, "Tis a shame I have to do this, you really seem like such a nice fellow too. Perhaps in a different life or in a different situation things may have turned out differently. Either lay down your arms and join me, or die. I will give you this offer though, I see so much of myself in you..."

You can be friendly or helpful, but still at odds.

[NichG]

It's not about being optimized. It's about "I want to roleplay as a charismatic person and represent that by putting points into Diplomacy" and then you saying "haha how dare you try to pretend you're somebody you're not in a game where wizards mind-control dragons, now sit down and be quiet."

The problem is when it goes beyond 'I want to roleplay a charismatic person' and into the realm of 'DM, tell me a story about how my character was awesome', which is part of the problem of flat DCs, but also part of the problem of treating abstracted parts of the rules as if they had the same structure as highly concrete parts of the rules. In combat, 'what an attack does' is very strictly codified and defined - that's why e.g. called shots are often problematic, because there isn't actually much space for the rule to allow for variations in the ideas leading to that action choice and execution. A character who makes an attack without consideration of its logical efficacy in the situation will usually come up against some mechanical representation of whether or not the attack would be effective - the creature has DR, creatures with thickly armored hides have higher ACs, etc.

However, Diplomacy is comparatively an extremely abstracted game mechanic. Narratively, what you say should matter, not just how you say it, but the Diplomacy skill does not distinguish those two things (or at least, does not do so sufficiently to be mechanically significant to a character who optimizes diplomacy). The result is that a player who uses the skill without consideration of the logical efficacy of what they're trying to achieve is going to end up in a situation where the game system indicates the same degree of success as a player who uses the skill in a way that properly accounts for the scenario.

From the DM's side of things, that means either that the underlying logic of the narrative is going to break down and become absurd (e.g. the 'purple potato!', 'I like this guy, lets not kill him' example), or the DM is being asked to fill in that void by saying what the player's character does that somehow bridges that gap. But, that is basically the opposite of 'the spirit of roleplaying' - the DM ends up playing the player's character for them!

In other rule systems, when something is abstracted the way Diplomacy is in D&D, that's generally an intentional choice made as an invitation for the DM and players to fill in that gap with situation-specific details when relevant, or leave it abstract when such factors aren't relevant. Which is why 'you have to roleplay what your character says' is such a common rule even in D&D games - the abstract nature of the Diplomacy skill means that it's treated more as a modulator on the RP, rather than an indication of a mini-game with very sharply defined mechanical boundaries in the way that D&D combat is. And then people expecting it like the latter rather than the former end up being disappointed or coming into conflict.

[Flickerdart]

But, that is basically the opposite of 'the spirit of roleplaying' - the DM ends up playing the player's character for them!

That's only true if the player literally offers nothing at all, which I am not suggesting. But simply saying "we are but peaceful travellers, let us pass" or something to that extent and getting a good result on the Diplomacy check should be sufficient - just pretend that the character said it in a persuasive way while looking very pitiful and not worth fighting or something, and move on.

Flat DCs are bad, but that's not really relevant.

[supersonic29]

There are 3 key points that you don't really have to elaborate on to explain the madness of diplomacy.


1. D&D 3.5 is expansive enough that optimization can and will find a way to exploit anything to its fullest, and this is especially easy with skills. Diplomacy is no exception.

2. Diplomacy is a skill that indiscriminately interacts with things you can communicate with. Through things like mindlinks, tongues, empathies, and so on you can communicate with most anything that has intelligence.

3. They assigned a flat DC to use this on things of any CR/ECL, including hostile things. Even if it's a stretch, there is a listed number to make someone or something go from hostile to fanatic because you're a good speaker, and that is kind of not okay. (Also worth noting this DC doesn't differ between an angry farmer and your worst nemesis)

[Ravens_cry]

I'd have to think that the most broken abuse of the Diplomacy system is simply through 1st level magic.
Charm Person + Hypnotism.
Charm Person sets the target to friendly, and Hypnotism makes them two categories higher for a specific request/task. Which is Fanatic.

Only if your game uses the Epic rules for skill checks.

[supersonic29]

Only if your game uses the Epic rules for skill checks.

A lot of (possibly a majority of) builds and tricks assume that at least all official content is available to them.

[NichG]

That's only true if the player literally offers nothing at all, which I am not suggesting. But simply saying "we are but peaceful travellers, let us pass" or something to that extent and getting a good result on the Diplomacy check should be sufficient - just pretend that the character said it in a persuasive way while looking very pitiful and not worth fighting or something, and move on.

Depending on the player and DM, people draw the line of what is sufficient/reasonable differently. Almost all of these debates are simply the result of people on either side of the debate drawing the line at a different place.

E.g. some people argue that even having to come up with "We are but peaceful travellers, let us pass" is too much. Others would be fine with drawing the line there. Others would say that the skill should cover for things like tone of voice, grammar, and particular word choice - but if you were doing the 'we are but peaceful travellers' thing on a group of bandits whose livelihood is robbing peaceful travellers, it should fail because what you said should actually logically make them more likely to attack you. Others would draw the line even further, requiring the player to be careful about "Sir" versus "My Lord" versus "Your Royal Highness" and things like that. Etc.

There isn't a right answer for where to draw the line, aside from 'where you and your players want to'. It depends on the kind of gaming you're aiming at. But its one of those things where people often come in with very strong expectations and assumptions, and don't realize that it's something that needs to be actively discussed and decided on.

[Psyren]

That's only true if the player literally offers nothing at all, which I am not suggesting. But simply saying "we are but peaceful travellers, let us pass" or something to that extent and getting a good result on the Diplomacy check should be sufficient - just pretend that the character said it in a persuasive way while looking very pitiful and not worth fighting or something, and move on.

Flat DCs are bad, but that's not really relevant.

Again, this. Figure out some way to adjudicate it that requires the player to contribute, but does not penalize them for being less charismatic than their character - that's the DM's job with any skill check.

[Venger]

As I recall that's the defining schtick of the Assplomancer, just with Escape Artist. And really, who wouldn't follow blindly after you pull that trick.

I prefer "anal assassin" myself.

I am not saying that everyone has to play by those rules, but I prefer roleplaying above being optimized to game mechanics.

And there's the stormwind fallacy. You can have a "flavorful" character who is also competent. You can have a boring character who is also mechanically weak. The two metrics are unrelated and not inversely proportional.

No. But I'd at least expect you to say what you're hitting with, and also try to narrate your actions as well instead of sounding like a Bingo Hall.

Some people actually like hacknslash games. In the same vein as the people who are saying you shouldn't need to cast spells every time your wizard does or move a mountain every time your brute knocks down a door, some people don't like to roleplay and the system makes an allowance for it. If you're running a module or something and you and your party just wants to play wow, it lets you bypass encounters the same way invisibility, charm, or teleport does.

[jedipotter]

The big problem with Diplomacy is that it is not an opposed check. It can be a goblin thug, a elven king, a sneaky thief, or even the demi-god of lies. The DC is just a set number. So just say any of the four is ''unfriendly'' , well it is only a DC of 25 to change that.

And here we get into the DC problem. A first level character can get +12 to diplomacy no problem(+4 rank, +2 synergy, +4 ability, +2 feat). So, sure they have only a chance of doing it....but then get to 5th level an it's up to +16. And at 5th level they can have the masterwork tool and magic item to get another +4. So that is a total of +20 at 5th level. And that is without spells...

[Flickerdart]

E.g.

No. No, no, no. Listing examples shows that you're missing my point entirely.

What I am saying is, as long as the player is making any sort of effort at all above "lol I say potato" or "I rolled a 23" then it should be fine, and if if the DM insists it's not, the DM is singling out Diplomacy as the one skill you don't get to pretend your character is good at.

[Ashtagon]

Assplomancers are banned in my games. I just can't read the word without collapsing into giggles and crying from laughter.

[Flickerdart]

Assplomancers are banned in my games. I just can't read the word without collapsing into giggles and crying from laughter.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Target: DM touched.

[Psyren]

What's the etymology of that, anyway? Shouldn't it be "Escaplomancer?"

[StoneCipher]

I mean, to go into depth on what I was talking about with using diplo rolls as a guide, I look at what their roll is and then from there I ask them to complete the narrative and give me a little bit of what they will say. I will apply from there a discretionary call based on their narrative. Low rolls usually failing and high rolls usually succeeding, but bonus points are added for really great excuses and persuasions. I don't use diplomacy as it exists in the books either, because to me its silly to just get a high diplomacy score and run around avoiding encounters all day.

I don't play based on game mechanics, I play based on the story. I will not kill my PCs unless they are fully deserving of death.

I know that will frustrate and confuse the minmaxers and rulebenders but anyone that is more focused on the story than the game mechanics will understand what I am doing.

[Extra Anchovies]

What's the etymology of that, anyway? Shouldn't it be "Escaplomancer?"

It's because you use the epic escape artist rules to squeeze through someone else's... well...

Yeah

There's a reason I prefer the jumplomancer, and it's not just because they stay in the air for a full minute.

[Urpriest]

I mean, to go into depth on what I was talking about with using diplo rolls as a guide, I look at what their roll is and then from there I ask them to complete the narrative and give me a little bit of what they will say. I will apply from there a discretionary call based on their narrative. Low rolls usually failing and high rolls usually succeeding, but bonus points are added for really great excuses and persuasions. I don't use diplomacy as it exists in the books either, because to me its silly to just get a high diplomacy score and run around avoiding encounters all day.

Wouldn't you rather the game gave you a structure for that, though? Wouldn't you rather there were explicit bonuses and penalties listed that someone had done the work of balancing against the skill's progression, so that the DCs actually matched your narrative expectations? Or guidelines that not only let you do this sort of fudging, but told you when, where, and how much of it would still be compatible with game balance?

Basically, are you saying you prefer Diplomacy as it is? Because if you don't, that's precisely the aspect of it that's broken.

[RoboEmperor]

Even if you guy say diplomacy doesn't require some sort of offer, someone pointed out that the monsters will only be diplomatic to the bard. That means no matter how high a bard's diplomacy skill is, he will be absolutely useless to the party in combat because I'm sure any hostile action against the opposition or any friendly action to your party will drop their attitude.

"Hi there"
*Diplomacy*
"I REALLY LIKE YOU A LOT! BUT NOT YOUR FRIENDS. I'M A EAT THEM AND TAKE YOU HOME"
*buffs a party member*
"WHAT? YOU #^*&! YOU DARE HELP THEM? I'M GONNA KILL YOU!!!"

So I think even when "abused", diplomacy is no better than a wizard with contingency that teleports him home at the first sight of a hostile creature.

[Flickerdart]

I know that will frustrate and confuse the minmaxers and rulebenders but anyone that is more focused on the story than the game mechanics will understand what I am doing.

What you're doing is shafting people who want to contribute to the story using skills they don't have in real life.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What's the etymology of that, anyway? Shouldn't it be "Escaplomancer?"

Escapelomancer + Pervirtuoso = Assplomancer. In particular, the epic use of escape artist allows you to squeeze through a space as small as 2 square inches before it just says "screw it you can escape through a solid wall of force."

[Urpriest]

What you're doing is shafting people who want to contribute to the story using skills they don't have in real life.

Read the post again. They fill in the narrative the players provide according to the result of the check, which is exactly what we are describing. They just also add bonuses and penalties based on the narrative (which is not the same as what the player said, anyway).

Escapelomancer + Pervirtuoso = Assplomancer. In particular, the epic use of escape artist allows you to squeeze through a space as small as 2 square inches before it just says "screw it you can escape through a solid wall of force."

Assplomancer doesn't involve Pervirtuoso to my knowledge. It's just a particular target of the escape artist check, with the "plo" tacked on from Diplomacy because why not.

[NichG]

No. No, no, no. Listing examples shows that you're missing my point entirely.

What I am saying is, as long as the player is making any sort of effort at all above "lol I say potato" or "I rolled a 23" then it should be fine, and if if the DM insists it's not, the DM is singling out Diplomacy as the one skill you don't get to pretend your character is good at.

"Any sort of effort at all" is not well-defined, and it's an explicit choice as to where you personally decide to draw the line between 'some effort' and 'no effort'. "I rolled a 23 in Diplomacy" is an effort too - the effort of choosing to use Diplomacy. But, based on where you choose to draw the line, it's an insufficient one.

Based on where I choose to draw the line, going up to bandits and saying 'we're peaceful harmless travellers, leave us alone' is insufficient. It is the equivalent of choosing to use a rapier to attack a skeleton in combat, or using a fireball to attack a fire element. But because D&D abstracts the Diplomacy skill more than it abstracts the Fireball spell, it's on the DM and the players to decide how to handle that kind of factor.

At someone else's table, they may draw the line elsewhere.

If you go to any table and assume that they are going to draw the line where you draw it without discussion, that will cause problems. This is fundamentally because D&D is a game which has one system (combat) that is incredibly concrete and specified, but also at the same time has systems which are extremely abstracted. This gives people the mistaken impression that it is safe to assume that the abstracted parts will be like the concrete parts, or even that the concrete parts will be like the abstracted parts (e.g. players who burn a lot of actions trying stunts during combat which don't work well because of the concrete nature of the rules, and then end up doing poorly)

[thethird]

I don't play based on game mechanics, I play based on the story. I will not kill my PCs unless they are fully deserving of death.

I know that will frustrate and confuse the minmaxers and rulebenders but anyone that is more focused on the story than the game mechanics will understand what I am doing.

Since you don't play based on game mechanics it sounds like it should frustrate and confuse you, rulebender. If it does not why would you, or anyone, assume that it would annoy other rulebenders? Unless of course the "minmaxers" and "rulebenders" part was only to say: if what I do annoys you then you are a "minmaxer" and a "rulebender" which for some reason are equated to something bad.