Talk:Tome of Prowess (3.5e Sourcebook)/Affability

Let's Not be Hasty

The rules text says the DC is Cha-based, but the crunch says it's Wis-based. As a minor note, shouldn't "be" not be capitalized in the title? --DanielDraco 02:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, it should be Wis throughout. And are always capitalized in title schemes, just not prepositions or articles (according to the standards I'm referring to anyway). Which means I screwed up "Do It for Me, Please". - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Likeable

It seems like a bit of a design flaw that, once you've gotten their attitude up, it becomes increasingly easy to get their attitude even higher. Which then gives you increasing bonuses to things like Push an Agreement. The basic problem is that it's increasing returns with decreasing risks and decreasing difficulty. So once you manage to get a foe to like you somewhat, they've fallen into a diplomatic black hole with no hope of escape, and they are doomed to fall in love with you and do everything you say. --DanielDraco 02:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Spending the time to get someone to like you before you try to talk them into something is intentional, but repeated uses of Seriously Likeable to get them all the way up to helpful before hand are not. That's the point of the "After the initial time you use this on a person, they are treated as Hostile for purposes of this check (though their actual attitude towards you may be different)" line. The only easy way to get their attitude higher would be with the Do It for Me, Please and asking for things against their nature consistently, which might need a similar 1-time limiter (as might Campaigner). Would that sufficiently address your concern? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 03:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Chat discussion summary - missed the attitude modifier for repeat uses, so it's basically ok. Updates for clarity have been put through. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the -10 penalty should be cumulative? Right now any tenth level character with 22 charisma, skill focus, and maxed out Affability can automatically make anyone with a combined CR and wisdom of 10, even murderous people, their good friend over no more than 5 encounters. That seems a little excessive to me. --TheDarkWad (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem out of line for a specialized character at level 10 to me. It's the full extent of the specialization allowed by the rules (thus the extreme top end) and you still have to get the target to hang out for at least half an hour. If that seems excessive, what do you suggest? Recall that at the same level, wizards are throwing around dominate person and have piles of charm laying around if they care. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Push an Agreement

Check failure should not work like suggestion. Just by not reaching the DC-6 you are forcing someone to refuse any deal, regardless or the terms. Want the bandit to let the hostages go? All you need is low cha, no ranks in Affability, and the time to argue why he shouldn't. That also holds for the other failures. Need to start a war? Just barely convince a leader to accept a peace treaty. He immediately breaks the deal and war is assured. That is really bad for the game. That's why I think that low checks should only decrease rapport, rather than also forcing you to reject what might be a favorable agreement.--TheDarkWad (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That should be covered by the clause that it would be accepted without check because it's what they were going to do anyway. I could reword that if it's not clear though.

[edit] Well, the bandit case anyway. The peace treaty seems like a stretch, but if that's how you read it I should probably reword stuff for clarity. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Also why can't first level characters convince each other of anything at a 10 foot distance? --TheDarkWad (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reworded for clarity. Hopefully that helps clear things up. And thanks for bringing it up :-)

You can convince someone of something at any range that you can communicate with them, but doing a hard sell on someone requires a bit more "in your face"-ness and lack of distraction for low level. And 5' covered most conference table distances and pushy salesmen and whatnot, while also making sense for the improve rapport progression (decreasing ranges to remember), so I went with it. I could see boosting the range a lot and adding a "non-distracted" clause to it though, so you can convince the king or whatever from a more secure distance as long as you had his ear. I'll kick it around for a bit, not really sure of the best way to do it. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Delay Aggression

Is there anyway to resist? Shouldn't the DC be modified by wisdom or something?--TheDarkWad (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DnD 3.x is built around primarily single activation roll effects that are either on the initiator or the target end (excepting most death effects and other "strong for their level" abilities), so the way that this is resisted is to hope that the initiator fails. There's no way for a defender to resist it. Which might sound weird, but it's like saying there's no way for a target to resist an attack roll or a caster to resist a saving throw or the undead to resist a turn check (which this is sort of modeled on). The Wis bonus is sort of assumed and pre-built into the DC (set at +3 for reference). It doesn't really work to apply it individually with the new EL based implementation. I'm still kicking around a DC increase though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that you can always boost AC or saves. You can't boost your resistance to this very well at all. Maybe you could incorporate resisting Affability into Psychology? Or base it off of a will save directly? --TheDarkWad (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And even turn undead has turn resistance I guess. This is a pretty different formulation than it used to be, so I don't mind fiddling with the mechanics and the numbers a bit more to see if something else makes sense. Basing off Will save directly is probably out though. The scaling is wrong and there are too many add-ons for me to want to mess with it. It might be setup such that it triggered a will save though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having pondered this, I've decided not to change it. The added complexity of making some bloodthirsty people less willing to hear you out than others doesn't seem worth it. If it were something like a [fear] effect I could see doing a save based thing (and plan on it in some not yet sorted form for the Intimidation update), but this is a really weak sanctuary effect that doesn't seem worth the headache. So to answer the question, the way you resist being stopped by this is to be more bloodthirsty in the first place. Which means that you're more likely to hold off on beating up your friends even after you've decided they need it. And I'm pretty comfortable with that setup. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

Read Push and Agreement. The names change: favorable, acceptable and unacceptable turns to acceptable, tolerable and repugnant. Stick to one naming convention (and make sure to not have the same name for different things. As always, will condone a reduction in explanation. --Franken Kesey (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorted I think, nice catch. No idea what your last sentence means though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)