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)

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)