A bard with diplomacy, mystic aura, and seduction is arrested and set for trial. There is a question of which of how useful these proficiencies will actually be.
Does he:
1. Add only +2 to his crime and punishment resolution check (the word "or" in the wording implies this)
2. Add +4 to his crime and punishment resolution check (I believe mystic aura can normally stack with seduction or diplomacy but only one at a time)
3 Add +6 to his crime and punishment resolution check (very unlikely given that seduction and diplomacy do not normally stack)
The Diplomacy proficiency's description says its bonus applies when the character attempts to parley. I'd say it applies if your bard is attempting to defend himself, but not if he's using a hired attourney, since if he's using an attourney he has by definition hired someone else to do the parleying.
The Mystic Aura proficiancy's description says its bonus applies to reaction rolls to impress and intimidate people. I'd say it definitely applies.
The Seduction proficiency's description says it always applies when making reaction rolls with people who are potentially attracted to the character. I personally read "potentially attracted to the character" as meaning "finds at least some people of the character's gender and race attractive," and I'm pretty sure that my reading isn't particualrly controversial, so I'd say this applies if whoever is sitting in judgement in the court is into male humans.
There is no rule that says the bonuses from Seduction and Diplomacy don't usually stack. I don't know where you're getting that from; as far as I can tell, both could easy apply when encountering humans, demihumans, and (at the judge's discretion) some beastmen.
"Or" is ambiguous in the English language, and does not necessarily (or even usually) mean XOR. Since ACKS is generally pretty intuitive and allows things to work when it seems reasonable that they'd work, I'd say that in this case the word "or" indicates that all three proficiencies could potentially apply to the roll, either seperately or in combination.
Putting all that together, I'd say it'd be a +2 from mystic aura at a bare minimum; a +4 if either the bard defends or the judge is into male humans, but not both; and a whopping +6 if the judge is into male humans and the bard defends himself.
Of course, a +6 bonus is absolutely massive, and Alex has mentioned that he's not happy with how easy it is to stack bonuses when making reaction rolls, so this might change in ACKS second edition... But this is the answer I'd use in my own campaign.
[quote="GMJoe"]
Of course, a +6 bonus is absolutely massive, and Alex has mentioned that he's not happy with how easy it is to stack bonuses when making reaction rolls, so this might change in ACKS second edition... But this is the answer I'd use in my own campaign.
[/quote]
I have similar issues with how bonuses stack on the reaction rolls. In my campaign I stretched the reaction results across 2d10 instead of the original 2d6 to mitigate this.
I've been considering implementing a houserule that the first proficiency gives a +2, but all subsequent proficiencies only give a +1, such that a character with both Seduction and Mystic Aura would only add a +3 to their roll, and a character with Diplomacy, Mystic aura, and Seduction would only add a +4... My hope it that it would discourage "diplomancers" without devaluing the proficiencies too much, but I've not done any styatistical analysis or anything, so I'm not sure how much it would actually help.
I've been considering implementing a houserule that the first proficiency gives a +2, but all subsequent proficiencies only give a +1, such that a character with both Seduction and Mystic Aura would only add a +3 to their roll, and a character with Diplomacy, Mystic aura, and Seduction would only add a +4... My hope it that it would discourage "diplomancers" without devaluing the proficiencies too much, but I've not done any styatistical analysis or anything, so I'm not sure how much it would actually help.
[/quote]
This is the houserule I use, because the bonuses increase in value significantly as you get more of them.
I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, though.
Mystic Aura is pretty potent. I don’t allow diplomacy to stack with seduction or intimidation. The character has to decide how they want to influence - diplomatically, seductively, threateningly, etc.
[quote="moorcrys"]
I don’t allow diplomacy to stack with seduction or intimidation. The character has to decide how they want to influence - diplomatically, seductively, threateningly, etc.
[/quote]
Seduction's a bit of an odd duck, really. As written, Intimidation and Diplomacy both only apply if the PCs approach the encounter in a certain way, but Seduction is based purely on the encountered creatures' preferences and applies regardless of what approach the PCs take. (This actually makes it one of the best implementations of "looking good and being treated well because of it" that I've seen in a TRPG.)
Maybe the asymetry is part of the problem? If Seduction was changed such that it depended on the PCs approaching encounters in a seductive way (as in your houserule), it would be harder to stack it with Diplomacy and Intimidation. Alternatively, if Intimidation and Diplomacy were changed such that they depended on whether the _encountered creatures_ were open to diplomatic approaches or being intimidated, rather than on whether the PCs attempted to take those approaches, players would have much les ability to dictate whether their proficiencies applied to particular reaction rolls, thus making those proficiencies less powerful.
That being said, I suspect changing rules to prevent these proficiencies from stacking is just treating a symptom, rather than directly addressing the root cause: The bonuses to reaction rolls from proficiencies are too big. ACKS is a system where a +2 modifier to a stat-based roll is considered a big advantage even when that stat only affects d20 rolls; and yet there's a whole bunch of proficiencies that give you a +2 bonus to rolls using smaller dice. Either the bonuses from proficiencies need to be reduced (perhaps to +1 per proficiency) or the amount of random variance in the roll has to be increased (as in wmarshal's house rule of using 2d10 instead of 2d6 for reaction rolls).
There was an axiom article that changes reaction rolls to 3d6, which reduces the effects of stacking.
I have ruled that Mystic Aura is only +1 as it always applies and always stacks. I limit intimidation, diplomacy, and seduction to certain situations. Normally they do not stack. However a clever player may be able to create situations where they do (say seduction and intimidation if the target is into bdsm, or diplomacy and seduction when you are trying to flirt with the goblin queen during negotiations).
If the player can manage to make that work in his trial, give him the +6 bonus. Don't forget to give him a -1 or -2 for representing himself and a -2 to a -4 if he misreads the situation and tries to use seduction on judges that are not having it. A trial is not the local tavern. (In my experience some judges eat that stuff up, and others are the exact opposite).
I hadn't considered the +1 stacking rule. I might try that out. The other option is just to dump all of the social reaction skills into one,but I like the flavor of the different skills. One of my PCs has a total of +4 to his intimidation checks with mystic aura and if he can manage a situational +1 or +2, he can intimidate folks to follow his orders fairly easily.