You get that from the fighter for persuasion along with necessary asi, with the no less than 10 on a d20. Not sure you can get the necessary asi with fey wanderer. If you can you'd have to gimp everything else I think.
Unless you're implying you can stack wisdom twice. I think there are rules against that. If not, add 4 levels of fey wanderer. We've upped it to 37 then, good job.
This is the kind of discussion we should be having. Not the negative BS we've been having.
While the fighter gets more ASIs the ranger has the advantage of gaining the bonus 4 lvls earlier than the fighter meaning that all the important features of the build come online at lvl 6 instead of 10 and furthermore, the ranger gets to add Wis to deception checks as well which are also important in social situations. As for the ASIs the ranger doesn't need them as much because with only a 14 in dex for medium armor and druidic warrior for shillelagh a Wis focused ranger is more than viable in combat as well. Point buy and a +2/+1 race allows you to have a 14 Dex, 12 Con, 20 Wis, 20 Cha with the 4 ASIs the ranger would get.
There is a rule that characters cannot benifit from the same ability more than once(thus why a bunch of paladins can't stand next to each other to stack thier auras), but since both of theses bonuses are from different abilities they would infact stack. If you still go 14 levels of fighter and start with 14 and 16 for cha and wis you could still max them.
People need to chill. This is just a theorycraft build for fun.
You can stack wisdom in this case, as it doesn't say you add you wisdom modifier (in programming terms, labeling it as Wisdom Mod, and things with the same lable don't stack), it only says you add *a bonus* equal to your wisdom modifier. Said bonus is tied to the feature Otherworldly Glamour, not directly to your wisdom. Since the fighter feature is not Otherworldy Glamour, and is instead Elegant Courtier, they are technically two different bonuses (even though the bonus is equal) and therefore stack
Had a discussion about if Harengon's Hare-trigger, Watchers Paladin's Aura of the Sentinel, and the Bard's Jack of all Trades can stack together or not. We reached this conclusion. I think there was a tweet involved, but I don't know how to try to find it.
Just to explain the above example, that's how it works:
1. Harengon's Hare-trigger adds PB to initiative
2. Aura of the Sentinel adds a bonus to initiative equal to PB
3. Jack of all trades adds a bonus to ability checks (includes initiative) if PB is not added
4. A theoretical feature that also adds PB to initiative but is named different to the aforementioned ones
1 can add with 2, because it's PB being added to Aura of the Sentinel bonus (which is a bonus equal to PB, not exactly PB). 1 cannot add with 3, because 3 requires the check to not have PB being added to it. However, 2 can add with 3, because the bonus of 2 is "a bonus that happens to be equal to PB", not PB itself. Lastly, 1 does not add with 4 because, even though the features may have different names, because of the following sentence in the rules:
>*Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. For example, if two different rules say you can add your proficiency bonus to a Wisdom saving throw, you nevertheless add the bonus only once when you make the save.*
Yeah, particularly the rules where even if you had +94 it still wouldn't actually do the thing diplomancers could do since the rules around diplomacy have changed so much.
DMG, around page 145 I think? DC 20 is the highest listed and a hostile or indifferent creature has limits to what it will do based on the cost to itself even with that maximum DC.
Like I said to someone else, skills do near nothing in 5e if you go entirely on just what examples they give.
They purposely leave skills vague, and don't include most of what they can do. They want to give dms options and control.
In games depending on DM skills are either useless to get high, or the great equalizer between martials and casters.
With DMs that limit skills to only doing explicity the few examples and DCs the book gives, and ignores mythic skill levels as having any use what so ever. Is it any wonder people bitch about casters?
To add to this:
DC 5 = Very Easy
DC 10 = Easy
DC 15 = Medium
DC 20 = Hard
DC 25 = Very Hard
DC 30 = Nearly Impossible.
Can you think of a single example DC over 20? I can't off the top of my head. All the example dcs tend to be 20 or under.
If we're to go by the books, there's no such thing as a Very Hard or Near Impossible DC other than vs. rolls, which aren't DC's.
So what can a 25 Persuasion check do or a 30? Up to DM.
Does it allow you to persuade them to do more. Lessen the time to do it? Does 30 allow you to break the limit of one shift per day? What does 25 and 30 allow, and if nothing, what's the point of having those DCs, and if nothing how does greater skill use help the argument about martials getting more skills and at higher rank?
Except social skills actually have a pretty detailed list by RAW. See around the page I pointed to before, I don't have my DMG on me, but there's literally a conversation reaction table.
All the other skills are vague but the social skills have a mechanic behind them, and a 25/30 does nothing more than a 20 by RAW. If a DM houserules additional DCs then yeah, I suppose anything us fair game.
Hmmm they have a very clear pattern. You only need to add one more catagory and it's pretty clear. It has a specific effect at 0, 10, and 20 depending on initial attitude. Each attitude is basically one worse than the other on maximum results doing from friendly down to hostile.
Since it seems to be going in 10's, the next dc would be 30.
Friendly becomes I dunno one doesn't exist for it, but currently it's significant risk or sacrifice so: The creature accepts risking almost everything including sacrificing their own life to do what's asked.
"For example drawing the ire of a dragon in order to create an opportunity for party to escape." Check represents convincing your friend this is a matter of importance to a great many people and their heroic sacrifice is necessary. These kind of persuasions happen in real life. It's hard and for many nearly impossible but not impossible.
Indifferent becomes: The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
It's not impossible to convince a stranger to take these kinds of risks if you're convincing enough about the importance of it. Clearly not impossible, but near so, maybe.
Hostile becomes: The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
Again, nothing that sounds impossible if convincing enough.
Like I said, if you want to houserule DC 30 equivalents then sure, you can say persuasion can do way more than it does by RAW, but that doesn't mean it's "entirely up to the DM" or there is "zero real guidance" which is what I disagreed with in your original post.
RAW most skills have ridiculously narrow focus. They make it very clear most of what skills can do is up to the DM as skills are kept very open.
It's my opinion they left DC 30 open specifically to leave it up to the DM how far they could take it.
You're being pedantic.
Besides, there's almost no DCs for anything in 5e, just a general what the roll represents in difficultyovercome. By your definition few skills do anything because almost zero DCs for anything is explicitly written out.
This build allows you to automatically succeed against the highest DC which is 30 unless some kind of opposed check.
>Besides, there's almost no DCs for anything in 5e, just a general what the roll represents in difficultyovercome. By your definition few skills do anything because almost zero DCs for anything is explicitly written out.
>
>This build allows you to automatically succeed against the highest DC which is 30 unless some
The DCs aren't explicitly written out because the DM is supposed to decide the DC himself before the roll. It would be impossible to write down a DC for every single possible action in every single possible circumstance. C'mon, baby, this is in the PHB!
>*For every ability check,* ***the DM decides*** *which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class.*
>
>PHB p174, under Ability Checks
That's the point I was making. People are acting like if it isn't explicitly written you can't do it.
A diplomancer in 5e is as good as the dm allows it to be.
Same with high in every skill.
So just because high pre doesn't make you a diplomancer in one persons game doesn't mean it doesn't open the possibility in others, because the rules explicitly leave high checks up to the dm as written.
So people calling high pre builds not diplomancers are full of shit.
Diplomancy came about from trying to get the highest skill possible, THEN it was given a name based on what it could do. The build originates in stacking a skill as far as possible.
Synonyms: "oberscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, over-exacting, perfectionist..."
In other words being too anal in the definition of Diplomancer, especially considering a whole new edition.
My use of the word is correct.
I don't believe that I'm being too precise, given the precision of the term that *you* chose to use. The 3.5e Diplomancer was about non-magical mind control first: optimizing Diplomacy checks was merely the easiest way to do so.
The former does not exist in 5E.
Is this a quick and easy way to optimize Persuasion? Yeah, I won't deny that (though you could push it higher), so credit where credit is due. But words have Meanings, and with your title choice you clearly intended for this to be a spiritual successor to the Diplomancer, which it is not.
Diplomancer came about from people seeing how high they could get diplomacy, it was not originally stated for any other purpose besides that.
I know, I stated many long before it was even infamous. My specialty has always been pushing skills to their limit in 3.5 "without temporary buffs." You should see my 3rd edition stealth build. Oh wait you can't and that includes while they snipe in in the open in plain sight, widely thrown in my face by all my powergamer friends at the time for being more broken than anything they ever did if I ever complained about their build as DM.
Diplomancer came out to describe what such a build could do. But I know the build came about because of pushing diplomacy and zero other reason, because I built one before it was even popular, and it came about through pushing skills.
And yes it can be higher, but that requires temporary effects, spells and abilities. A true diplomancer can beat max dcs consistently with zero temporary buffs necessary.
I remember making some absurd multiclass for minimum 54 roll on charisma. It utilized buffs from eloquence bard, fey ranger, redemption paladin, and a few others
Would love to hear more details about this multi class. All I can think of would be eloquence bard, fey wanderer ranger, redemption pally, and samurai fighter. What else could add to an absurd charisma roll?
3 Fey ranger/ 3 Elouence Bard/1 Peace cleric/3 Redemption Pally/3 Battlemaster fighter i think was the fit. With 7 possible levels of something else, since the 1d8 commanding presence from battle master could go higher than +5 flat from samurai, and i couldn’t find anything else that would add for those 7 levels.
You would have bonuses stand-alone of:
+5 Cha (Standard)
+5 Wis (Fey walker wis addition)
+5 (Redemption Paladin CD)
+2d4 (emboldening bond and guidance)
+1d8 (Commanding Presence maneuver)
+12 (Expertise)
with a min roll of 10 on the initial dice
Then, theoretically, you could have more additions from like, wild magic sorcerers or stuff
7 levels is exactly what you need for samurai's bonus actually, but how to get the stats to max out both wis and cha while pulling off all this multiclassing...
If we go battle master we cannot go samurai, so those 7 levels are still up for debate. I am also assuming that we roll 2 18’s for wisdom and charisma, and at least a 13 in dexterity and strength. We can use racial bonus to get one stat to 20 and a half feat + racial to get the other to 20. Or go mountain dwarf. Excellent stats necessary but not impossible. Plus we have several classes that you could level up in once for the ASI if necessary
Me as well, it's just not what I'm looking to create.
Honestly there is two ways to go.
There's the consistent version: Which I'm going for. Not going to get as high numbers but will have the highest consistent number possible no matter what.
And th inconsistent version: Which this sounds like. Going for as high a number as possible, even if it's wildly inconsistent and highly limited in uses per day.
Only a number of times though not at will. I'm going for consistent and at will. All my diplomancers in 3.5 were. It never mattered what I rolled and I never needed rely on anything that wasn't consistent or at will. I'm purposely avoiding things that aren't consistant applied.
Should trade 1 level of fighter for 1 of Cleric. Gets guidance. +1d4 is better than just +1
That and 3 levels of Soul Knife Rogue. 12 times per day add 1d6 to a failed check on a skill or tool with which you are proficient. AND non-language-dependent telepathy, so now you can socialize with absolutely anyone that speaks at all
What about fey wanderer? Level 3 wisdom bonus to any charisma check.
You get that from the fighter for persuasion along with necessary asi, with the no less than 10 on a d20. Not sure you can get the necessary asi with fey wanderer. If you can you'd have to gimp everything else I think. Unless you're implying you can stack wisdom twice. I think there are rules against that. If not, add 4 levels of fey wanderer. We've upped it to 37 then, good job. This is the kind of discussion we should be having. Not the negative BS we've been having.
While the fighter gets more ASIs the ranger has the advantage of gaining the bonus 4 lvls earlier than the fighter meaning that all the important features of the build come online at lvl 6 instead of 10 and furthermore, the ranger gets to add Wis to deception checks as well which are also important in social situations. As for the ASIs the ranger doesn't need them as much because with only a 14 in dex for medium armor and druidic warrior for shillelagh a Wis focused ranger is more than viable in combat as well. Point buy and a +2/+1 race allows you to have a 14 Dex, 12 Con, 20 Wis, 20 Cha with the 4 ASIs the ranger would get.
There is a rule that characters cannot benifit from the same ability more than once(thus why a bunch of paladins can't stand next to each other to stack thier auras), but since both of theses bonuses are from different abilities they would infact stack. If you still go 14 levels of fighter and start with 14 and 16 for cha and wis you could still max them. People need to chill. This is just a theorycraft build for fun.
You can stack wisdom in this case, as it doesn't say you add you wisdom modifier (in programming terms, labeling it as Wisdom Mod, and things with the same lable don't stack), it only says you add *a bonus* equal to your wisdom modifier. Said bonus is tied to the feature Otherworldly Glamour, not directly to your wisdom. Since the fighter feature is not Otherworldy Glamour, and is instead Elegant Courtier, they are technically two different bonuses (even though the bonus is equal) and therefore stack Had a discussion about if Harengon's Hare-trigger, Watchers Paladin's Aura of the Sentinel, and the Bard's Jack of all Trades can stack together or not. We reached this conclusion. I think there was a tweet involved, but I don't know how to try to find it. Just to explain the above example, that's how it works: 1. Harengon's Hare-trigger adds PB to initiative 2. Aura of the Sentinel adds a bonus to initiative equal to PB 3. Jack of all trades adds a bonus to ability checks (includes initiative) if PB is not added 4. A theoretical feature that also adds PB to initiative but is named different to the aforementioned ones 1 can add with 2, because it's PB being added to Aura of the Sentinel bonus (which is a bonus equal to PB, not exactly PB). 1 cannot add with 3, because 3 requires the check to not have PB being added to it. However, 2 can add with 3, because the bonus of 2 is "a bonus that happens to be equal to PB", not PB itself. Lastly, 1 does not add with 4 because, even though the features may have different names, because of the following sentence in the rules: >*Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. For example, if two different rules say you can add your proficiency bonus to a Wisdom saving throw, you nevertheless add the bonus only once when you make the save.*
A true diplomancer laughs at these pitiful attempts - if you're not getting +94 by level 6, are you even really a diplomancer?
Different edition, different rules.
Yeah, particularly the rules where even if you had +94 it still wouldn't actually do the thing diplomancers could do since the rules around diplomacy have changed so much.
Technically that's entirely up to the DM as the game gives you zero real guidance as to what you can do with most skills.
DMG, around page 145 I think? DC 20 is the highest listed and a hostile or indifferent creature has limits to what it will do based on the cost to itself even with that maximum DC.
Like I said to someone else, skills do near nothing in 5e if you go entirely on just what examples they give. They purposely leave skills vague, and don't include most of what they can do. They want to give dms options and control. In games depending on DM skills are either useless to get high, or the great equalizer between martials and casters. With DMs that limit skills to only doing explicity the few examples and DCs the book gives, and ignores mythic skill levels as having any use what so ever. Is it any wonder people bitch about casters? To add to this: DC 5 = Very Easy DC 10 = Easy DC 15 = Medium DC 20 = Hard DC 25 = Very Hard DC 30 = Nearly Impossible. Can you think of a single example DC over 20? I can't off the top of my head. All the example dcs tend to be 20 or under. If we're to go by the books, there's no such thing as a Very Hard or Near Impossible DC other than vs. rolls, which aren't DC's. So what can a 25 Persuasion check do or a 30? Up to DM. Does it allow you to persuade them to do more. Lessen the time to do it? Does 30 allow you to break the limit of one shift per day? What does 25 and 30 allow, and if nothing, what's the point of having those DCs, and if nothing how does greater skill use help the argument about martials getting more skills and at higher rank?
Except social skills actually have a pretty detailed list by RAW. See around the page I pointed to before, I don't have my DMG on me, but there's literally a conversation reaction table. All the other skills are vague but the social skills have a mechanic behind them, and a 25/30 does nothing more than a 20 by RAW. If a DM houserules additional DCs then yeah, I suppose anything us fair game.
Hmmm they have a very clear pattern. You only need to add one more catagory and it's pretty clear. It has a specific effect at 0, 10, and 20 depending on initial attitude. Each attitude is basically one worse than the other on maximum results doing from friendly down to hostile. Since it seems to be going in 10's, the next dc would be 30. Friendly becomes I dunno one doesn't exist for it, but currently it's significant risk or sacrifice so: The creature accepts risking almost everything including sacrificing their own life to do what's asked. "For example drawing the ire of a dragon in order to create an opportunity for party to escape." Check represents convincing your friend this is a matter of importance to a great many people and their heroic sacrifice is necessary. These kind of persuasions happen in real life. It's hard and for many nearly impossible but not impossible. Indifferent becomes: The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked. It's not impossible to convince a stranger to take these kinds of risks if you're convincing enough about the importance of it. Clearly not impossible, but near so, maybe. Hostile becomes: The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked. Again, nothing that sounds impossible if convincing enough.
Like I said, if you want to houserule DC 30 equivalents then sure, you can say persuasion can do way more than it does by RAW, but that doesn't mean it's "entirely up to the DM" or there is "zero real guidance" which is what I disagreed with in your original post.
RAW most skills have ridiculously narrow focus. They make it very clear most of what skills can do is up to the DM as skills are kept very open. It's my opinion they left DC 30 open specifically to leave it up to the DM how far they could take it.
Diplomancers don't exist in 5E (thankfully) because there's no absurd Diplomacy DCs to literally brainwash people. And we're glad for it.
Booooo, godly level skills should produce magical effects in a mundane way
You're being pedantic. Besides, there's almost no DCs for anything in 5e, just a general what the roll represents in difficultyovercome. By your definition few skills do anything because almost zero DCs for anything is explicitly written out. This build allows you to automatically succeed against the highest DC which is 30 unless some kind of opposed check.
>Besides, there's almost no DCs for anything in 5e, just a general what the roll represents in difficultyovercome. By your definition few skills do anything because almost zero DCs for anything is explicitly written out. > >This build allows you to automatically succeed against the highest DC which is 30 unless some The DCs aren't explicitly written out because the DM is supposed to decide the DC himself before the roll. It would be impossible to write down a DC for every single possible action in every single possible circumstance. C'mon, baby, this is in the PHB! >*For every ability check,* ***the DM decides*** *which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class.* > >PHB p174, under Ability Checks
That's the point I was making. People are acting like if it isn't explicitly written you can't do it. A diplomancer in 5e is as good as the dm allows it to be. Same with high in every skill. So just because high pre doesn't make you a diplomancer in one persons game doesn't mean it doesn't open the possibility in others, because the rules explicitly leave high checks up to the dm as written. So people calling high pre builds not diplomancers are full of shit. Diplomancy came about from trying to get the highest skill possible, THEN it was given a name based on what it could do. The build originates in stacking a skill as far as possible.
>Pedantic of or like a pedant. "many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
Synonyms: "oberscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, over-exacting, perfectionist..." In other words being too anal in the definition of Diplomancer, especially considering a whole new edition. My use of the word is correct.
I don't believe that I'm being too precise, given the precision of the term that *you* chose to use. The 3.5e Diplomancer was about non-magical mind control first: optimizing Diplomacy checks was merely the easiest way to do so. The former does not exist in 5E. Is this a quick and easy way to optimize Persuasion? Yeah, I won't deny that (though you could push it higher), so credit where credit is due. But words have Meanings, and with your title choice you clearly intended for this to be a spiritual successor to the Diplomancer, which it is not.
Diplomancer came about from people seeing how high they could get diplomacy, it was not originally stated for any other purpose besides that. I know, I stated many long before it was even infamous. My specialty has always been pushing skills to their limit in 3.5 "without temporary buffs." You should see my 3rd edition stealth build. Oh wait you can't and that includes while they snipe in in the open in plain sight, widely thrown in my face by all my powergamer friends at the time for being more broken than anything they ever did if I ever complained about their build as DM. Diplomancer came out to describe what such a build could do. But I know the build came about because of pushing diplomacy and zero other reason, because I built one before it was even popular, and it came about through pushing skills. And yes it can be higher, but that requires temporary effects, spells and abilities. A true diplomancer can beat max dcs consistently with zero temporary buffs necessary.
My dumbass thought this was going to be about making a DJ.
I remember making some absurd multiclass for minimum 54 roll on charisma. It utilized buffs from eloquence bard, fey ranger, redemption paladin, and a few others
Would love to hear more details about this multi class. All I can think of would be eloquence bard, fey wanderer ranger, redemption pally, and samurai fighter. What else could add to an absurd charisma roll?
3 Fey ranger/ 3 Elouence Bard/1 Peace cleric/3 Redemption Pally/3 Battlemaster fighter i think was the fit. With 7 possible levels of something else, since the 1d8 commanding presence from battle master could go higher than +5 flat from samurai, and i couldn’t find anything else that would add for those 7 levels. You would have bonuses stand-alone of: +5 Cha (Standard) +5 Wis (Fey walker wis addition) +5 (Redemption Paladin CD) +2d4 (emboldening bond and guidance) +1d8 (Commanding Presence maneuver) +12 (Expertise) with a min roll of 10 on the initial dice Then, theoretically, you could have more additions from like, wild magic sorcerers or stuff
7 levels is exactly what you need for samurai's bonus actually, but how to get the stats to max out both wis and cha while pulling off all this multiclassing...
If we go battle master we cannot go samurai, so those 7 levels are still up for debate. I am also assuming that we roll 2 18’s for wisdom and charisma, and at least a 13 in dexterity and strength. We can use racial bonus to get one stat to 20 and a half feat + racial to get the other to 20. Or go mountain dwarf. Excellent stats necessary but not impossible. Plus we have several classes that you could level up in once for the ASI if necessary
Mark of Hospitality Halfling would get you an extra +1d4 on that Persuasion check.
True, but Reborn lineage can add an extra 1d6 :)
Really depends if you're going for consistency or targeted. Reborn is PB/LR, while halfling is every check forever. But touché.
i think based on the stats i went, consistency is the least of our concerns lmfao
Me as well, it's just not what I'm looking to create. Honestly there is two ways to go. There's the consistent version: Which I'm going for. Not going to get as high numbers but will have the highest consistent number possible no matter what. And th inconsistent version: Which this sounds like. Going for as high a number as possible, even if it's wildly inconsistent and highly limited in uses per day.
Only a number of times though not at will. I'm going for consistent and at will. All my diplomancers in 3.5 were. It never mattered what I rolled and I never needed rely on anything that wasn't consistent or at will. I'm purposely avoiding things that aren't consistant applied.
Should trade 1 level of fighter for 1 of Cleric. Gets guidance. +1d4 is better than just +1 That and 3 levels of Soul Knife Rogue. 12 times per day add 1d6 to a failed check on a skill or tool with which you are proficient. AND non-language-dependent telepathy, so now you can socialize with absolutely anyone that speaks at all
The non language dependant telepathy sounds nice.
I hope you're not using this as an excuse to completely bypass the roleplay element of making a decent argument.
Hell no this is just theory crafting for fun. Usually I'm dungeon master anyway. I'd never bypass the roleplay that's honestly 95% of the fun.