Why diplomacy will never be balanced.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This one is even simpler than the fighter one.

The complaints about diplomacy go well beyond fixing the RNG. A large portion of people, probably the majority, object to the idea of someone waltzing in and crushing the wills of some random stranger. I'm not talking about 'convince the guard to let you in', I mean, 'get the mind flayers to agree to sacrifice themselves for the better good' level. They go on and on about how overpowered and simulation-breaking such an ability is and how diplomacy shouldn't be that ridiculous.

That would be fine... if it wasn't competing with magic that already did that game effect! There does exist magic where you can convince Dark King Howard to abandon his futile war effort or where you can get hordes of vampires to sleep in lava. It's not even high level, you get that shit halfway into the game.

Unless you're specifically willing to retire that skill and all applications of it after a certain point (which may not be a bad idea), diplomacy needs to be comparable to that shit and at a fairly middling level, too. You can have some other balancing factor in there like 'diplomacy lasts for a lot longer and is free, but is moderately lessened in effect' or 'diplomacy takes a lot longer to use, making it unsuitable for combat but has a stronger overall effect than the enchantment school', but it needs to have some reason to be used.

Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. Because there's already a class. But since diplomacy is a skill no one is going to accept it ever being on that level. So diplomacy will never be balanced in the long run.

[Username17]

I disagree. Yes, Diplomacy is never going to be allowed to be as big as Dominate. Even if the rules said it was, DMs would stealth nerf it. But that doesn't mean it can't do something good. Dominate takes combat actions. A skill that gave you a sizable chance of not having to roll initiative during encounters - like the 2nd edition version - could retain utility well into the stage where a single combat action could turn twenty trolls into your sex slaves.

That's why I am so focused on the initial reaction roll. It's literally the only thing Diplomacy can do that makes any difference in a game where Charm Monster exists.

-Username17

[shadzar]

simulation-breaking

I would say breaking the suspension of disbelief rather than the simulation. Also as you point out magic is used better for such thing in most cases.

Also something to consider for many when complaining about diplomacy and other things in regards to the DM having control vs a set of rules...

Players get to make choices for their characters, likewise the NPCs are the DMs character...so having some sort of rule (outside of magical effects that violate all other rules 99.9% of the time) that removes that character from being able to choose from what the player intends it to be played as, means that the players should also lose some sort of choice in how their character is played to some sort of mechanic rather than actual player choice having any say.

Often in argue people forget that the DM is a player and they play all the NPC, and if you fear the DM abusing you, then just get a new one or learn to trust the one you have. The system cannot make up for lack of trust with those you play with.

So if the players can use something other than magic to just take control over an NPC, then likewise the same needs to be able to be done to the PCs on an easier basis, via the rules, and without thinking the DM is an ass for doing it; so that both sides of the opposition are equal for the game to be "fair", or at least believable as to not remove ones suspension of disbelief.

[hogarth]

Personally, I don't care if any or all skills are made obsolete by magic. I just don't want them to do something dumb.

If a skill, in the course of normal operation, does something stupid (e.g. a moderately focused diplomat can turn an unfriendly creature friendly with ease whereas a charismatic dilettante can never do so), that's worth changing in my book.

Obviously there are differing opinions on this issue.

[MGuy]

I seriously don't mind the skill being able to take over someone's mind. In fact in my own rule set you are required to have it in order to do so. I have absolutely no disagreement about the fact that diplomacy should indeed be comparable to charm monster. I do think though that Charm Monster and other spells that flat out give you a bonus to or completely replace skills should be taken out. Dominate and similar spells should be made very temporary and logically would ruin the chances of the dominated victim finding you very appealing in the long run. Charming someone for long term benefit would then indeed be worth doing.

[Lokathor]

Could we, perhaps in a future edition, take it in the other direction? Diplomacy does all the great things a Diplomancer wants it to do, but it takes 1 or 10 minutes, or maybe even an hour. Then Charm Person just lets you make a Diplomacy check as a standard action. Dominate does a similar thing, but you can also use your casting stat instead of having to use your charisma, and you get a +5, or something.

Changing the time taken could be a powerful enough benefit, particularly if you normally require more time steps for more opinion shifts.

[MGuy]

That's actually the direction I'm taking spells in my own rule set. Another example (unrelated to diplomacy) is invisibility, which in my game would merely allow you to make a stealth check when you normally wouldn't be able to. That way spells are dependent on the skills.

[LR]

That's actually the direction I'm taking spells in my own rule set. Another example (unrelated to diplomacy) is invisibility, which in my game would merely allow you to make a stealth check when you normally wouldn't be able to. That way spells are dependent on the skills.

What situations would prevent a stealth check while allowing one for invisible people?

[MGuy]

Direct observation.

[K]

To make Diplomacy work, you need to make it a mini-game as rigorous as combat.

I mean, you need to be able to convince people to suicide when they are unstable, you need a mechanic to make them unstable above and beyond simple talking, and you need guidelines for when it can't be used at all.

Under that system, you can allow Charm and Dominate because they'd let you do Diplomacy Combat during a condition when it normally can't, namely real combat. Charm should allow diplomacy when it won't ordinarily work, like when someone is so against you they won't even listen or otherwise busy while Dominate could simulate in-game victories like an event severe enough for someone to comtemplate suicide.

The full abstract situation of 3e is unworkable. It was ok back in 2e when everything was Magic Tea Party, but we want a more rigorous game.

[Krakatoa]

Diplomacy is a skill so dependent on the nature of the NPCs that it seems to me like it's impossible for it to be broken within the context of the RAW. Whether it can be succesful depends entirely on the manner of character that the DM has created, and, indeed, how far the DM is willing to go.

Moreover, a succesful diplomacy roll doesn't neccesarily mean that the target NPC or group has to do a compelte 180--they can, perhaps choose to let some hostages go or moderate their views a bit, but retain their primary objectives. There's absolutely no reason that it should be competing with mind-altering magic or even have similar effects.

Really, the problem is not with the rule, it's with DMs letting players get away with abusing it.

[K]

Diplomacy is a skill so dependent on the nature of the NPCs that it seems to me like it's impossible for it to be broken within the context of the RAW. Whether it can be succesful depends entirely on the manner of character that the DM has created, and, indeed, how far the DM is willing to go.

Moreover, a succesful diplomacy roll doesn't neccesarily mean that the target NPC or group has to do a compelte 180--they can, perhaps choose to let some hostages go or moderate their views a bit, but retain their primary objectives. There's absolutely no reason that it should be competing with mind-altering magic or even have similar effects.

Really, the problem is not with the rule, it's with DMs letting players get away with abusing it.

You do know that being able to abuse the rules is a function of them being bad rules, right?

Rule 0 does not make the game better. It can make the sessions playable, but not the game better.

[Caedrus]

I can see a great many design options that would give Diplomacy advantages over Dominate Person. Sure, they both change people's minds about things, but they can do so in different ways. There are all kinds of reasons you would want to make someone your friend rather than your enchanted thrall.

A simple example.

Dominate:
Pros:
-Complete absence of free will. They will do absolutely anything you want.
Cons:
-Must be directed. Cannot use free will to serve you in ways you wouldn't have thought of. Etc.
-Is blocked by various countermeasures to enchantments and magics.
-Unlike a person who becomes your friend by more natural means, people aware that King Howard is dominated might not be too happy with you. Same goes for if King Howard (or whoever) ever gets out from under the spell.
-In 3.5e D&D at least, you can only use it on humanoids until you're at the very end of the game (if your game even goes to level 18-20).

Diplomacy:
Pros:
-Socially acceptable. It's not a nigh-universally recognized crime to be friends with someone via diplomacy.
-Self-directed helpers can make use of expertise and experience you don't have.
-Gets through magical countermeasures. At the very least, it is probably targeting a *different* defense than Dominate.
-Does not use up spell resources.
-Works on any creature that is capable of negotiation.

Cons:
-Incomplete control. Only influence and manipulation.
-May require maintenance. You might have to talk to your friends once in a while.
-Possibly blocked by some kind of DIFFERENT defenses than are used against Dominate (however, being able to target different defenses is a good thing for you).

And that's before you consider all the things you could add or change around. As Frank said in his initial response, the kind of action could differ. That's a big deal right there.

[TheWorid]

I agree with Lago here. Diplomacy is pointless if it's not being allowed to do level-appropriate things, at that means being on par with magic.

The trick here is wording the associate rules very strongly, leaving little room for interpretation and using absolute terms whenever possible. Otherwise, you're going to get stealth-nerfing from bad MCs, as Frank noted.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Otherwise, you're going to get stealth-nerfing from bad MCs, as Frank noted.

Glance up at all of the other replies in this thread. TGD (unwisely) prides itself as being the best and the brightest of TTRPGs and about half of the suggestions either intentionally or unwittingly are long-term nerfs.

The absolute best suggestion so far (that will get universally implemented in games anyway) requires the skill automatically going off before the DM gets ahold of it and doing a very specific thing. Putting it on the level of NWN's tumble or spellcraft. I mean, jeez, Frank's suggestion makes diplomacy cut-rate stealth or bribing.

I think this thread is pretty much ample evidence about why it'll never be balanced. Then again, I believe that skills should be phased out after a certain point in the game anyway. But that's another thread.

[Lago PARANOIA]

To make Diplomacy work, you need to make it a mini-game as rigorous as combat.

And this doesn't strike you as even MORE unworkable out of the gate? Sure, it might be a swell idea for Politician: The Lobbying, but in fucking D&D? The original hack-and-slash game? The game that has multiple mass mind-control effects that don't require any more thought than 'I charm monster it'? Stop pulling my leg.

[Krakatoa]

You do know that being able to abuse the rules is a function of them being bad rules, right?

Diplomacy is too deeply linked to the narrative (what the NPCs want vs what the PCs want, and more importantly, how badly they want it) to be unbalanced. It's like a Fate Point or an Aspect to be Invoked or Compelled. The only way it can be unbalanced is if the DM allows it to be. I'm personally of the opinion that Diplomacy should never be used to completely resolve the conflict, but rather to add or mitigate specific complications. You can argue that WOTC needs to make a note of things like that in the skill description, but it's something that should be common sense to any DM and player worth his or her salt.

Besides, applying your standard, nearly every spell in 3.5 is a bad rule.

[Username17]

Could we, perhaps in a future edition, take it in the other direction?

No. We can't. Because if the DM sees you being able to do anything big with diplomacy, he will lose his shit. See any thread about how broken diplomacy is ever made. Even if we write in plain English that Diplomacy totally turns an enemy into an ally, DMs will nerf it. They will put up caps on the number of shifts that can be achieved, or they'll make "important" NPCs off limits. If Diplomacy's sole contribution is the production of charm effects under any circumstances, it will not be allowed to function.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't throw in some sort of negotiation mini-game or that you shouldn't allow diplomacy to improve an NPC's reaction to you given time and a decent roll. Those things should totally happen. But job one is getting Diplomacy to do something specific that flies under the radar of stealth nerfs - and modifying initial reaction so that you don't have to fight some monsters and get to save spell slots for the encounters you want to have is certainly one of them.

-Username17

[Sashi]

No. We can't. Because if the DM sees you being able to do anything big with diplomacy, he will lose his shit.

I'd take it one step further, and say that shit will also be lost if other players see the quiet guy with the stutter roll dice through a social encounter because he doesn't like to talk.

Every time I've ever seen Diplomacy at play in a game it goes through a three-step process:

Step 1: Player waits until MC allows him to MTP with an NPC.
Step 2: MC waits until player has MTP'd enough that the outcome is obvious.
Step 3: MC calls for a diplomacy roll, and arbitrarily declares the result of the roll to be the obvious outcome of the MTP.

Sometimes an arbitrarily low check gets declared a failure, but this is mitigated by people who like to talk to NPC's investing in social skills so they don't get arbitrarily low rolls.

A player who can bench 250 doesn't stand around demanding that the STR8 wizard he's playing also bench 250, and the skinny dweeb who gets winded climbing stairs doesn't act like his CON20 dwarf also gets winded climbing stairs. But RPG players will lose their shit over game rules that let shy people with stutters act like silver-tongued Lotharios, or force the guy who loves puzzles to sit out on answering sphinx riddles because he's playing an INT6 Half-Orc.

People just get butthurt and act like they're being punished by "not being able to contribute" to the social minigame because they min-maxed for the combat minigame. They honestly believe that not only can they can charm the panties off the princes after writing CHA8 on their character sheet, but that they should.

[Kaelik]

My problem with Diplomacy is simply this:

It's a skill, that does X to Y. Where X is "win the encounter" and Y is not actually important.

If there is a good way to distinguish it so that Diplomacy can do anything at all between "win encounter" and "absolutely nothing" that would be nice.

There are actually other issues, such as the fact that it's a roll for winning the encounter that costs no resources, and that it doesn't contribute in line with other stuff, so the Diplomancers fun comes at the expense of everyone else in the party, but I think those problems are easier to work through than the win encounter vs nothing one.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm personally of the opinion that Diplomacy should never be used to completely resolve the conflict, but rather to add or mitigate specific complications.

That's bullshit. Not only are there other ways to solve the conflict in exactly the manner you're trying to avoid like charm spells and the like, but there are alternative methods of conflict avoidance in the first place. Such as teleportation. Or stealth. Or disguises. Or cyber-hacking. Or using a divination spell. Or whatever.

Getting upset because the players talked their way out of an Act One complication (or even the Act Three climax) is ridiculous. If player agency is to mean anything at all, it means that they can take control of the plot in meaningful ways when they want to and have the ability to. Occasionally this means that the precious conflict you have planned gets derailed or obviated.

DEAL WITH IT.

They honestly believe that not only can they can charm the panties off the princes after writing CHA8 on their character sheet, but that they should.

To be absolutely fair, there shouldn't even BE a Charisma stat in D&D. Not because it isn't useful, but because it's SO useful that it destroys character concepts unless they wallow in it.

Charisma is the 'be the protagonist' and 'get the girl' stat, but everyone wants that. A lot of people have made the basket-weaver argument that you should sacrifice combat effectiveness for this stat--which is stupid. Not just because of the obvious objection, but because there are classes that get to have combat effectiveness tied to their charisma stat and get to have it both ways. So yes, Virginia, you can totally shag the prince and his hot brothers AND also be a badass in combat. Thog the Barbarian only gets to be one or the other.

There are actually other issues, such as the fact that it's a roll for winning the encounter that costs no resources, and that it doesn't contribute in line with other stuff, so the Diplomancers fun comes at the expense of everyone else in the party, but I think those problems are easier to work through than the win encounter vs nothing one.

Probably the easiest way to prevent diplomacy from becoming an 'encounter bypass against the other players' wills' stat is to put a timer on it. That is, you have to spend at least 5 rounds (or whatever) diplomatizing before it goes off in its more powerful ways. That way you can still use the skill to do things like convince the guard captain not to run you through while not stealing the combat spotlight from your teammates if they really do want to run him through. Diplomacy becomes a group decision, then, like letting the rogue and ranger go skulk through the castle on their own or letting the wizard take a month's downtime to research.

[RobbyPants]

To make Diplomacy work, you need to make it a mini-game as rigorous as combat.

I mean, you need to be able to convince people to suicide when they are unstable, you need a mechanic to make them unstable above and beyond simple talking, and you need guidelines for when it can't be used at all.

So, in combat, if the PCs get involved, they are obviously risking something (losing combat).

If we make Diplomacy work like this, I'm assuming the PCs need to accept a similar risk as well, right? If one outcome is make someone unstable and make them commit suicide, is it possible that the same could be inflicted on the PCs? I would think the only way that could work is: yes, it does.

[Parthenon]

If we make Diplomacy work like this, I'm assuming the PCs need to accept a similar risk as well, right?

This is why Diplomacy will never be balanced. While people will accept being able to hit others and be hit in return, they will never accept being told that their PC now really likes an NPC they don't like, or that their PC wholeheartedly agrees to do a favour that they didn't want anything to do with.

And even if you somehow limit it to the PCs only, what happens when one PC tries to use it on another PC? Thats going to be pretty abusive.

[angelfromanotherpin]

If we make Diplomacy work like this, I'm assuming the PCs need to accept a similar risk as well, right?

This is why Diplomacy will never be balanced. While people will accept being able to hit others and be hit in return, they will never accept being told that their PC now really likes an NPC they don't like, or that their PC wholeheartedly agrees to do a favour that they didn't want anything to do with.

This is not true. I've run games with systems that allow for this sort of thing, and the players have totally gone with it.

[TarkisFlux]

You realize Parthenon, that everything you just wrote applies equally well to the every charm / compulsion spell ever written? Are those unbalanced as well? Do PCs put up with being told that they're now friends with that asshole wizard or that they wholeheartedly agree to do something that ass suggested they do?

Diplomacy in this form is just turning a skill into a different form of ability acquisition. And while there's lots of good reasons not to do that (the problem of setting DCs with the range of available modifiers, general desire to not assign that sort of power to skills, etc.), saying the effects can never be balanced is bullshit because they don't do anything that isn't already done elsewhere.