So, I stumbled across something on the Giant in the Playground forums earlier, and I think I want to use it in this game (and likely any future games I run).  It's new rules for Diplomacy, and I'll likely rework the Intimidation rules as well to work with it.  But, I want a bit of input and ideas before I make it "official".<br/><br/>First off, the actual rules (as well as the reasoning behind them and an extended in-play example) are here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2), and I'll refer to it as I explain my other rules changes.  I do want to say that I take no credit in making those rules, although I do agree with just about everything said.<br/><br/><div class="spoiler_container"><div class="spoiler_header" onclick="hideSecond (this);" role="button">Quick summary of the new rules</div><div class="spoiler_body">The idea behind new Diplomacy rules is that they should be balanced around someone that's focusing on using Diplomacy, not the average character with a +0 Charisma modifier; you don't, after all, balance the combat and attack roll rules around the wizard, you balance them around the fighter.<br/><br/>First off, all Diplomacy checks have to be something that can be phrased as a "deal" of some sort, even if one side of the "deal" is "nothing", or something abstract.  The base DC for convincing someone is 15+target's level+target's Wis modifier.  If convincing a group as a whole, use the highest level character and the highest wisdom modifier, even if that's not the same person.  If you're attempting to convince several individuals at once, roll Diplomacy against each of them separately.  There are then two modifiers to add in; one for the target's relationship to you (ranging from +10 for "intimate" to -10 for a "nemesis"), and one for whether the deal you're proposing is favorable or not (again, ranging from +10 to -10).  Success on the roll means that the target agrees with your offer, failure within 5 means that the target is free to make a counter-offer; the party can accept the new deal immediately to make the roll a success, or try a different deal with a new roll.  Failing by 10 or more means the target stops listening to you and may turn hostile.</div></div><br/>I've always thought of Intimidate as the opposite of Diplomacy.  Essentially, Diplomacy focuses on the positive, while Intimidate focuses on the negative.  So, I'm going to have Intimidate use the same rules.  The difference between the two is whether the party's saying "something good will happen if you do X" or "something bad will happen if you don't do X".  The "something bad" doesn't have to be a direct threat by the party (although it certainly could be), it could be warning that if the duke doesn't help them kill the orc hordes outside of town, those same orcs will be attacking the city in a few days.  So, going off of the extended play example in the post, if the party can't convince the guards to let them into the ball by being diplomatic and bribing them, they can turn to violence.  In this case, the "Relationship" modifier would likely drop to -5, since you're being threatening, but the party's now proposing the "deal" of "either you let us in, or we get stabby."  This pushes the deal up more than simply letting the party in with no bribe, but at the risk of a potential fight breaking out, or the guard reporting that someone forced their way into the ball.<br/><br/>Any thoughts or comments?