Quote from: estar;513813There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Ring of Protection doesn't add to the AC of magic armor, just the saves.

Quote from: Rum Cove;513818Yet, has anyone built a "Diplomancer" without the requirement of a magical race (any non-Human), magical items, magical classes (prestige or otherwise) or magical feats?

I would imagine it has been done. If you take max ranks in it, you dont really need to.

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

More to the point, Fred found ALL he needed within a mile from his home or so. Items, places to train/churches to be accepted... And he was never aced by the stray mindless aberration while questing for Diplomacy.

Quote from: Reckall;513824More to the point, Fred found ALL he needed within a mile from his home or so. Items, places to train/churches to be accepted... And he was never aced by the stray mindless aberration while questing for Diplomacy.

So because a person could die before getting the broken thing, the broken thing isn't broken.

Or because it could be delayed for some levels it isn't broken.

Because being able to make everyone your friend at high levels is like a fighter being able to kill everyone at high levels. It's fine if a fighter can kill most people, but part of that is because there are a very few people or things as powerful as your ridiculous fighter. Likewise it's fine if a character can talk down every mugger or even every king, but now they can talk down every god if they want to. Or if they want to solve a mystery, they can just ask everyone in the city "did you do it?" And if they answer no it's because they are innocent.

I know you don't have to use the rules they give you, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have given us more usable rules.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513820Ring of Protection doesn't add to the AC of magic armor, just the saves.

Yup.

Quote from: beejazz;513814Core books have their rough spots too. Easiest for a non-magic character is just TWF plus sneak attack. Easy enough around second level. Doubles the damage bonus from sneak attack, and you can get that bonus every round by way of flanking.

You have the option of cross classing fighter, and starting this combo at level 2 instead of 3, as well as picking up more damaging weapons and better armor. If you go the flanking route, you may as well use the armor anyway.

This is probably a little worse than "bat wizard replaces rogue" because the bat wizard is wasting spell slots on things a rogue can do all day, among other things (the context you mention). But in this case the rogue is fighting better than the fighter, isn't significantly weaker against attacks, and doesn't have an equivalent to sacrificing spell slots. Meanwile the fighter (unlike the rogue) doesn't have as variable a role. If someone fights better than fighter why play fighter?

Not that there aren't also some abusive fighter builds. Just that if one person's being abusive more than one will want to, and it's an example of abuse that can happen accidentally (the two-weapon knife fighter is also a cool character concept, so this can be the opposite problem from the guy who wants to play Bruce Lee and takes monk and toughness).

I thought we were talking about Diplomacy?

Quote from: StormBringer;513800And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

We've been over this, I'm sure.  The existence of a hard limit on AC has nothing to do with descending AC.  If you wanted to put a hard limit on AC in 3e, you could do so.  You could easily turn THAC0 into THAC10 that goes up to 30.

Quote from: estar;513813There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Uhhhh...  +5 plate, shield and ring, +4 Defender?  Those are bog standard?  What kind of campaign are you running?  That is some of the most powerful magic available.

Also:

Quote from: CRKrueger;513820Ring of Protection doesn't add to the AC of magic armor, just the saves.

And:

Quote from: Reckall;513824More to the point, Fred found ALL he needed within  a mile from his home or so. Items, places to train/churches to be  accepted... And he was never aced by the stray mindless aberration while  questing for Diplomacy.

Quote from: B.T.;513834We've been over this, I'm sure.  The existence of a  hard limit on AC has nothing to do with descending AC.  If you wanted to  put a hard limit on AC in 3e, you could do so.  You could easily turn  THAC0 into THAC10 that goes up to 30.

Sure, you probably can.  The point is, no one does, because the rules clearly don't so much as suggest it.  A table that ends at AC -10 is a pretty clear indication that the best you can do is AC -10.

And while the six 20s Estar mentioned looks like they throw the math off a bit, they don't.  Because you still have to roll 20s for the rest of the results above that.  If the to hit number is 23, you can't roll a 19 with a +4 bonus.  You still have to roll a 20.  So it isn't six 20s, it's all the rest of the to hit numbers after that are also 20, but you also have to have a bonus to hit.

AC -10, for all intents and purposes, is a hard limit on AC.  You can go beyond that if you wish, but it requires a very high level of magic (as shown above), and ends up being more than a little pointless, since you still have only a 5% chance to hit, assuming you have other sufficient bonuses to make up the difference.

Quote from: Windjammer;513706

QuoteOf equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

And yet neither (a) nor (b) are important to assess the coherence of a rules system. See thread linked above.

"And yet neither the board nor the property details are important to assess the coherence of the rules of Monopoly."

Bullshit.

It is impossible to judge the rules of an RPG without taking into account the scenarios in which those rules will be used. This doesn't mean that there aren't bad rules or ineffective rules or poorly designed rules. But it does mean that trying to maintain that the only good rule is one which is equally good no matter what conditions you use it under is an intellectually bankrupt position.

Maybe Benoist is a little over-zealous in the "rules aren't all that important department", but it pales in comparison to the "rules are ALL IMPORTANT" nonsense that Trollman and you are touting.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513715The problem i found with diplomacy is the rule should have given the GM much more leeway to determine what success actually meant (and this how we used it).

I agree. The fundamental problem is not the particular DCs they set. The problem is that the entire concept of what a Diplomacy check does is flawed.

It doesn't matter what the DCs are: As long as the mechanic is "make a check vs. a DC and permanently alter an NPC's relationship with you", the skill is going to make every PC with a few ranks in Diplomacy into the Mule from Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513719Generally i avoid social skills and let people deal with stuff in character.

I generally find that social skills are, just like all other skills, useful for determining the outcome of a specific, discrete task: Does the NPC believe that lie? Do the PCs realize that this guy is lying to them? Will the NPC accept the offer the PCs are making? Let's find out!

At that point, it's just finding the level at which you feel comfortable letting player skill activate character skill in these circumstances. My threshold on social skills is usually a little bit higher than on physical skills: Saying "I search the chest for traps" is enough for me; but "I tell him a lie" isn't. I expect the players to say what the lie is before I use the rules to determine how good the character is at telling it.

Beyond that, there's the broader philosophical issue of whether you want the mechanics for the Jump skill to tell you when a jump is certain/impossible or if you want the GM to make that determination and only use the mechanics for jumps they determine to be uncertain. I generally prefer the former (since it makes for a more reliable "oracle"), but it can easily go either way.

Quote from: beejazz;513737People finding problems with the rules usually find them in play, but it doesn't matter because there's no special context that makes toughness a feat worth having.

Sure there is: 1st level wizards in a one-shot. Low-level thugs that the DM wants to give a little more endurance. Decent for mindless foes up to about 6 HD that you don't want to get too fancy with.

And, according to Monte Cook, that's exactly the sort of stuff the feat was designed for.

With that being said, I'm not going to argue that there aren't better ways to have designed the Toughness feat in order to make it more widely useful. (Personally, I use a variant that gives 2 hp + 1 hp per HD.) But it was designed for a particular purpose and it serves that purpose pretty well.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513784Of course. But just like in MtG - it's hard to keep track of all the cards/supplements, without making broken combos. Ironically - the 3e breaking game combos do remind me very much of the combos that used to break MtG, as they usually rely on heavy metagame rather then using the mechanics you should be using, so to speak.

It's not like these combos didn't exist pre-3E. They were a common topic of discussion in online AD&D groups pre-2000. And it's not like they went away in 4th Edition, either.

While game-breaking exploits and combos should, of course, be avoided, the reality is that you can only avoid having "better" and "worse" choices by severely limiting either (a) flexibility of character creation; (b) the scope of gameplay; or (c) both. That's the reality of complex systems.

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

Only if you believe that there should be significant uncertainty about whether not characters are capable of tying their own shoes.

And, of course, you can put a cap on AC whether you're ascending or descending. But that, as we've discussed before, actually just makes the randomizer matter even less.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513838Only if you believe that there should be significant uncertainty about whether not characters are capable of tying their own shoes.

There is a substantial difference between tying your shoes and being able to convince anyone, anywhere, no matter how they feel about you that they are actually your best friend.

Also, when your modifier is almost five times the randomizer, the randomizer is virtually useless.  A monster's hid dice listing in 1st edition was never more than X+4, because a higher bonus than that meant to just add another hit die to the creature.  And that is only half the maximum die result.  Using the above five-fold standard, you would have a one hit die creature with 41-48 hit points.  Not too much like a one hit die creature any more.  Similarly, with a +94 modifier, you are making DC95 tasks automatically.  Things that well over twice the value of  "nearly impossible" are instead impossible to fail.  Every single DC under 95 is automatic and doesn't need to be rolled for.  The example of Fred the Diplomancer above shows this is possible at sixth level.  If the character was 20th, 25th, or 30th level, I would have no problem with it.  But they are sixth level, and able to convince Sauron to help them toss the One Ring into Mount Doom.

'Significant uncertainly in tying shoes' has nothing to do with a +94 bonus.  Use your head, for fuck's sake, instead of unrelentingly defending all things 3.x

Quote from: estar;513813There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Rings of Protection don't stack AC with magic armor; only stack on saves.

If I ignore all kinds of common sense I can build the IUDC, too.  For example, a centaur with it's Treasure Type Q can potentially be carrying five million GP (and thus five million xp) worth of gems.  If I roll all 18s, if I roll a 20 every time I hit, if if if.

Truth is?  You're not gonna get those things like that.  Or rather, the odds are very remote that you'll get those things.

Quote from: StormBringer;513840There is a substantial difference between tying your shoes and being able to convince anyone, anywhere, no matter how they feel about you that they are actually your best friend.

Which, ironically, is specifically BECAUSE the DC is capped.

And you're the one arguing for capped DCs.

Make up your mind.

QuoteAlso, when your modifier is almost five times the randomizer, the randomizer is virtually useless.

You fail at mathematics.

In a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's). It's only when you cap target numbers that the randomizer becomes useless.

QuoteYou fail at mathematics.

In a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's). It's only when you cap target numbers that the randomizer becomes useless.

To explain what Justin is saying:

If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 100 AC, the d20 roll is still valuable.  If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 20 AC, the d20 roll is not valuable.  In a system in which bonuses are not capped but there are hard limits on DCs, the d20 roll becomes meaningless.

Quote from: Rum Cove;513797Why is it so wrong to allow a player to follow the rules and create a "Diplomancer"?  If they can reach higher levels and create world peace - what is the problem?  Shouldn't a player be able to enjoy a character concept of their choosing?

Isn't the DM stopping it at all cost, a little too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

Nothing in my book, as long as there is sufficient role-playing to support the Diplomacy skill checks.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513845Which, ironically, is specifically BECAUSE the DC is capped.

And you're the one arguing for capped DCs.

Make up your mind.

No, it's not because the DC is capped.  It's because the modifiers are not.  Learn how games are designed before you step in next time.

QuoteYou fail at mathematics.

In a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's). It's only when you cap target numbers that the randomizer becomes useless.

As shown above, you are hardly one to be declaring who is and who is not good at math.

For example, if your total modifiers are +94, then there is no rolling for any DC below 95.  See how that works?  When you add 94 and the lowest possible result of the d20, which is a 1, you get that minimum of 95.  It's not possible to roll a result less than 95.  So any DC less than 95 is automatic.  The only time you need to roll is if the DC is between 96 and 114.  See, the highest result on a d20 is 20, which added to 94 yields 114.  You can't get a result above 114, no matter how much you want to.  Here's where it gets tricky.  The odds of rolling 1 or better on a d20 is 100%.  So, the only instance where you would need to roll for anything is if there is a chance to roll below a certain number.  The first opportunity for that on a d20 is with the number 2.  The odds of rolling a 2 or better on a d20 is 95%.  So a DC of 96 is almost a certainty also.  Therefore the only time you would need to roll the d20 is if your DC is 96 or higher.  And before we forget, let's throw out the number that is really critical to this discussion:

Sixth fucking level.

We are talking about a character that is sixth level.  A sixth level character that does not need to roll for any DC under 96.

As pointed out in the SRD, a DC of 40 is "nearly impossible", so the only time you would need to roll the dice is if the task at hand is 2.4 times more difficult than "nearly impossible".  I suppose they could call that "nearly two and a half times impossible" instead, but that's really dumb.

Almost as dumb as your solution of uncapping the DCs, which most people call "always fighting orcs".  In other words, if the total modifier is +94, then the DC has to be between 95 and 114 to be useful (remember those numbers from before?).  Of course, this range is absolutely no different than 45 to 64 and having a total bonus of +44.  In fact, it is exactly the same as having a range of 1 to 20 with no bonuses at all.  See how that works?  You aren't increasing the range of possibilities, you are simply increasing the numbers.  When the total bonuses are +94, there is no valid result less than 95 nor larger than 114.  Exactly like there is no result less than 1 nor greater than 20 on a d20.

Hence, if you don't cap the DC in order to keep up with the bonuses, you completely obliterate the need for bonuses or higher DCs.  The skill system becomes entirely superfluous, because the bonuses are meaningless.  And even more so, if you don't cap the DC, the DCs themselves are meaningless.  A DC of 90 should be three times more difficult than a DC of 30.  Except, it isn't.  It depends on the bonuses involved.  With a total bonus of +94, a DC of 30 is exactly the same as a DC of 95.  And again, this is at sixth level.

So, you might want to brush up on:
a) math
b) game design
c) not talking out of your ass

These are useful skills to have when you want to claim someone else has 'failed' at math.  Or game design.  Or not talking out of their ass.  Because it is clear you have a ways to go on all of these skills.