D&D 5E Menacing and Diplomat from UA Skill Feats

[Tony Vargas]

Back to Menacing. I think I'd rule as a DM that Intimidating someone in combat would not have the effect this feat describes more often than I as a player would expect as reasonable for a combat feature, and thus I don't want it written so much like a combat feature.

Well. I'm not sure that makes sense.

Makes sense to me. Like a spell (and that comparison's already been made up-thread), it's higher-'player agency' than a skill check, more of what the character using it can do is spelled out. Opting into feats like that will give your players who aren't already accessing spell resources for that purpose, possibly a little more expectation of a say in how things go down in play, a stronger definition of what their character can do.

Ultimately, the DM can still overrule it like any other rule, but like telling someone they're spell didn't perform as written, you should have a decent reason, even if you don't have to share it right away....

 

[Oofta]

Concerning defensive duelist...

What about if your PC can't see the attack coming? An invisible attacker successfully sneaks up behind you and hits you with a melee attack? Is the DM being adverserial to say that the PC cannot use Defensive Duelist in this case? There's nothing in the rules saying you have to be able to see the attack coming. And yet, the implicit fiction of how the feat works is fairly clear. Does the PC get to use their reaction to react to and block an attack they couldn't possibly know was coming until it hit? Or does the feat confer Spidey Senses?

Yes, I have players that would be upset if I said he didn't get his defensive duelist. The feat does not state you have to see your attacker.

They would accept my ruling of course, but that doesn't mean they would not be upset.

I don't get the issue with skulker. You have to be hidden when you make the attack. You have really good camouflage, but you still have to be hidden. There is no "popping out of cover" unless the DM allows it. You have to be hidden the whole time.

skulker: When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.

 

[Oofta]

Advantage on Insight.
Disadvantage on Intimidate.
Q.E.D.

OK until you have an 11th level rogue with a high charisma and reliable talent and their minimum check is higher than the target can get with a die roll of 20.

 

[iserith]

I've always played that specific overrides general. YMMV.

Nothing overrides the DM's responsibility to decide when the rules are brought into play. The rules serve the DM.

But let's take a realistic game scenario. The PCs are mid-to-low level (say, level 7). They aren't broadly known yet, they are facing soldiers they've never faced before. My soldiers are Champions - CR 9 from Volo's Guide.

I view these champions as seasoned professionals. They aren't named characters, but I also don't see how they could be easily intimidated, especially by a PC they've never heard of.

So during Step 1 of the basic conversation of the game, the DM describes the environment as including this steely-eyed champion whose scars tell the story of a veteran of a hundred battles who never backs down from a fight. Or something like that. If that doesn't get the point across, the DM adds "The champion can't be intimidated..." as an aside to the players. Now the players know what's up.

By the wording of the feat there is nothing that stops the intimidate.

By the way the game works, the DM can, when he or she decides it doesn't work. Hopefully this is telegraphed ahead of time. And hopefully the DM is reasonably consistent and perhaps even sparing about doing this. In my view, anyway.

As far as frightened not having much effect, I completely disagree. They go from +9 to hit, average damage 12 points per hit to an effective +1 to hit 6 points per hit (they're normally +6 to hit with their bow, disadvantage drops that to +1)

They go from a major threat to being an annoyance.

Simple: Have them Dodge when they are frightened and be thankful they chose this feat instead of Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter which applies the Dead condition more effectively. Embrace the opportunity to describe the way this seasoned professional has assessed the menacing PC's threat and gone on the defensive like a skilled warrior to reinforce your other description.

 

[iserith]

Concerning defensive duelist...


Yes, I have players that would be upset if I said he didn't get his defensive duelist. The feat does not state you have to see your attacker.

They would accept my ruling of course, but that doesn't mean they would not be upset.

The surprise rules would probably do for resolving uncertainty in that scenario anyway since it will determine if the PC can use a reaction before the monster's turn.

 

[Hussar]

Correct me if I'm wrong. You're stating that some NPCs are not going to be easily intimidated. I agree 100%. In my campaign the PCs fight everything from cowardly goblins to professional soldiers that are much tougher than the typical town guard soldiers. The goblins can be intimidated, by and large the soldiers cannot (it's not always quite that simple of course).

The reason I don't like the menacing feat is because if you just take the feat as written, there is no wiggle room in who can be intimidated as long as they are humanoid or what the results will be. Win an intimidate check and the target is frightened. Frightened has a very specific mechanical in game effect unless they are immune to fear.

You can always add to the feat "if the DM allows a check", but it's not what the feat says.

Some of my players are "rules lawyers"* and would be upset if I say "no because I said so". I don't understand why that is a hard concept to grasp that I would rather not upset my players.

*I'm not a rules lawyer, that doesn't mean I don't respect their opinions or point of view.

Sorry to belabor a point here, but, how is this any different from what we had before the feat. You mentioned earlier that a successful intimidate check would have "some" benefit. What exactly does that mean?

Ignoring the feat for a minute, what would happen if my PC successfully intimidates an NPC in combat? What would you actually do? How would you rule?

OK until you have an 11th level rogue with a high charisma and reliable talent and their minimum check is higher than the target can get with a die roll of 20.

Again, we've had this in the game since Day 1 and it hasn't been a problem. Or, if it is, nobody is talking about it. And, again, if my high Cha rogue with reliable talent and expertise in Persuasion talks to your NPC and succeeds, what does that mean? Is it possible that I talk the NPC out of attacking me? Can I stand in front of a hostile NPC, convince it to talk to me, talk to it and make a successful persuasion check and it still eats me?

And you're worried about these feats pissing off your players?

So, Oofta, I'm going to ask again. Because you've brushed it off twice already. What would you actually rule that these skills do when used successfully? What does a successful Intimidate check mean to you? What does a successful Persuasion check mean?

Because, AFAIC, the effects from these feats are perfectly in line with successful checks.

 

[iserith]

OK until you have an 11th level rogue with a high charisma and reliable talent and their minimum check is higher than the target can get with a die roll of 20.

If the player wants to frighten my humanoid monster until the end of his or her next turn instead of doing 1d8 plus 6d6 + Dex mod damage to the thing, that's just fine by me! Then he or she can deal with disadvantage on the attack in the rogue's next turn since the frightened monster is now dodging. So there's another turn of damage potentially avoided.

 

[Oofta]

So, Oofta, I'm going to ask again. Because you've brushed it off twice already. What would you actually rule that these skills do when used successfully? What does a successful Intimidate check mean to you? What does a successful Persuasion check mean?

If I brushed you off, it wasn't intentional.

First of all, I don't need a feat to allow for intimidate in or out of combat. I currently allow it. I will usually give people a free insight check to see if they think the creatures they're fighting might be susceptible to intimidate.

So what happens? Depends.

• They may run away
• The may surrender.
• They may may be conscripts that will continue to attack with disadvantage because they fear their commanders more while screaming "I have no choice" with tears running down their faces.
• They may recklessly go after the person that intimidated them provoking opportunity attacks.
• They may focus on the person doing the intimidate instead of going after the squishy wizard.
• They may hesitate and lose their turn
• More than one target may be affected(having any of the results above)
• The target may laugh and call the person trying to intimidate them a "girly man"
• So on and so forth

The problem I have with persuasion, as I've said before, is that I think advantage/disadvantage on social skills should be driven by player creativity, role playing and situation. There are all sorts of ways to get advantage on social skill checks in my game, I don't want it to be a mere "I took a minute to introduce myself so I get advantage".

 

[Hussar]

Again, if you spent ten rounds in front of a hostile NPC, I'm thinking combat likely wasn't in the cards anyway. And gaining advantage only requires a second pc with proficiency. Since it hasn't broken the game yet I'm not sure why it would do so now.

And let's be honest here. There's no reason any of those intimidation results can't happen. Only thing is, now the pc has another option. He could still spend the full round to gain any of those other effects.