Diplomacy in 4E

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
I finally picked up Star Wars sage and I must admit that I really liked the changes to the skills. In particular, the new skill Persuade, which replaces Diplomacy and Intimidate, is a major step forward. I like that the maximum possible benefit of diplomacy is changing attitudes one step (i.e. from hostile to unfriendly). This is a much more realistic approach. It is also resisted by a will save and has large negative modifiers if the target starts out unfriendly or hostile.

It is still a very useful skill for a rogue or a bard in a tight spot, but it is way more balanced.

In the same sense, the aggressive modifiers on intimidate really make the skill much more difficult to abuse. It makes skills useful but keeps the outcomes realistic.

I hope that this is a glimpse of things to come.
I too like the way many of the skills are handled in Saga. I can only hope they continue with the trend, otherwise there'll be some heavy house-ruling at my table as I won't even touch 3.x after playing Saga.
I too like the way many of the skills are handled in Saga. I can only hope they continue with the trend, otherwise there'll be some heavy house-ruling at my table as I won't even touch 3.x after playing Saga.

Yeah, Saga really is an improvement. The difference of +5 between trained and untrained is also an amazing idea. It removes the massive differences between skill levels at high levels. You rapidly reached a point where the character with spot can see things and everyone did not really need to bother rolling.
I like a lot of what they've done in Saga with skills. However, I'm a little iffy on persuasion. I feel intimidation and diplomacy are different enough to justify separate skills. I might want to play a dandy that could talk his way into any lasses heart but couldn't intimidate his way out of a paper bag. I might want to play an Orc whose brutish nature scares the snot out of his opponents but can't ever say the right thing when he isn't shouting orders (like when talking to royalty).
I like a lot of what they've done in Saga with skills. However, I'm a little iffy on persuasion. I feel intimidation and diplomacy are different enough to justify separate skills. I might want to play a dandy that could talk his way into any lasses heart but couldn't intimidate his way out of a paper bag. I might want to play an Orc whose brutish nature scares the snot out of his opponents but can't ever say the right thing when he isn't shouting orders (like when talking to royalty).

I admit that I always wanted an intimidate skill that was based on strength.

But I like the balanced baseline from which this skill begins. It is possible to improvise and adapt the system to be better. But it is nice when the basic material is clear, well written and mechanically sound.

I almost did not buy Saga due to the small rulebook - boy, would that have been a mistake!
I admit that I always wanted an intimidate skill that was based on strength.

But I like the balanced baseline from which this skill begins. It is possible to improvise and adapt the system to be better. But it is nice when the basic material is clear, well written and mechanically sound.

I almost did not buy Saga due to the small rulebook - boy, would that have been a mistake!

I'll give you that certainly!
*well, I don't think orcs, or dwarfs for that matter, need a cha penalty but that's for another thread*