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

[Corwin]

Basically I want to reward my players investment in a feat, I just don't want the result of that to be a hard coded power like 4E had.

I get that. I can even dig it. But why stop at these two feats? Why aren't you doing that for GWF, for just one example? When they drop a foe, instead of a hard coded bonus attack, why not come up with something different every time, based on your whim?

 

[Oofta]

I get that. I can even dig it. But why stop at these two feats? Why aren't you doing that for GWF, for just one example? When they drop a foe, instead of a hard coded bonus attack, why not come up with something different every time, based on your whim?

To me there's a difference between abstractions the game has to have around hit points, damage, AC and so on. I accept that those things are simplified versions of reality so that we can tell the story.

I don't see a reason to have hard and fast rules to peoples reaction to something unless magic is involved. Can I imagine you're average mook being intimidated by <insert bad guy here> but would James Bond be intimidated? Batman? Could someone say something to Batman that would make him afraid enough that he couldn't approach? I mean, sure Scarecrow may mess with Batso's mind, and there are situations where it doesn't make sense to punch the Joker in the face for other reasons. But neither of them would be scary enough on their own to get a sociopathic vigilante hero to back down.

Because if the good guys can do it, so can the bad guys when I run games.

Charm Person works because it's mystically warping the target's brain.

A person may (rightfully) be scared of a T-Rex and if you're spellcaster polymorphs into one, most commoners are going to flee in terror because that would be a natural logical response. A Dragon is intimidating because of it's supernatural nature and heroes may be susceptible to that aura.

 

[Caliburn101]

I have seen in real life, people act stupid as all hell when charmed by a few honeyed words skilfully delivered, and been frightened enough to physically shake at the mere verbal outburst of someone who had a bone to pick with them.

A well delivered line can stop a riot from happening, and a confident glower can intimidate a mugger to back off... in real life.

I think it's fantastic that SKILL now has the future potential to deliver these effects in the game as well as they can do in reality.

Don't get hung up with - 'that should be from a spell' just because that's the only thing you've seen before...

PS. I like BOTH - which needs to be a choice in your survey...

 

[Corwin]

To me there's a difference between abstractions the game has to have around hit points, damage, AC and so on. I accept that those things are simplified versions of reality so that we can tell the story.

And you don't see how something like the mechanics of a charmed condition isn't doing the exact same thing?

I don't see a reason to have hard and fast rules to peoples reaction to something unless magic is involved.

So, boiled down, we are back to the ol' tried-and-true, "martials can't have nice things," argument?

Charm Person works because it's mystically warping the target's brain.

I don't recall the feat saying anything about the user casting Charm Person on the target...

Again, you are willing to abstract for combat, using simplifying mechanics to keep the game moving forward, but not here? Are you sure you have a full grasp of exactly what it is the charmed condition confers? Nothing in the charmed condition describes 'magic', BTW. Just a heads up.

 

[Satyrn]

I have seen in real life, people act stupid as all hell when charmed by a few honeyed words skilfully delivered, and been frightened enough to physically shake at the mere verbal outburst of someone who had a bone to pick with them.

A well delivered line can stop a riot from happening, and a confident glower can intimidate a mugger to back off... in real life.

I think it's fantastic that SKILL now has the future potential to deliver these effects in the game as well as they can do in reality.

But you can already do that sort of thing with the skills. When the player declares his character is trying to do one those things the DM can 1) rule that it's possible, 2)set a DC, then 3) call for a skill check. That's how I use the skil

What these feats are doing is taking that first step out of the DM's hands. Which is good if you prefer codified skill uses, but terrible for my game.

 

[Oofta]

And you don't see how something like the mechanics of a charmed condition isn't doing the exact same thing?


So, boiled down, we are back to the ol' tried-and-true, "martials can't have nice things," argument?


I don't recall the feat saying anything about the user casting Charm Person on the target...

Again, you are willing to abstract for combat, using simplifying mechanics to keep the game moving forward, but not here? Are you sure you have a full grasp of exactly what it is the charmed condition confers? Nothing in the charmed condition describes 'magic', BTW. Just a heads up.

Charm has the additional effect of can't attack the charmer. Fear means you can't get closer.

I'd be OK with diplomat giving you advantage, but it says the target is charmed which adds on that the charm cannot attack the source. So the Joker does the usual evil guy monologue and Charms Batman and then proceeds to kill Commissioner Gordon. Batman can't attack because he's charmed.

Menacing gives the target the Fear effect, so Joker intimidates Batman and the caped crusader can't get any closer. If Batsie has already used up his batarangs, he's SOL. Or you have a crossover and the Joker menaces the Hulk. Hulk may be angy but if there's nothing handy to throw, Hulk is stuck in corner sulking.

 

[Oofta]

I have seen in real life, people act stupid as all hell when charmed by a few honeyed words skilfully delivered, and been frightened enough to physically shake at the mere verbal outburst of someone who had a bone to pick with them.

A well delivered line can stop a riot from happening, and a confident glower can intimidate a mugger to back off... in real life.

I think it's fantastic that SKILL now has the future potential to deliver these effects in the game as well as they can do in reality.

Don't get hung up with - 'that should be from a spell' just because that's the only thing you've seen before...

PS. I like BOTH - which needs to be a choice in your survey...

All of which can be done with skill checks.

PS. I'd change the survey if I could, but once you create one it's set in stone as far as I can tell.

 

[Corwin]

Charm has the additional effect of can't attack the charmer. Fear means you can't get closer.

For someone who was just espousing appreciation for abstraction, and understanding a need for simplification for gaming purposes, you seem hung up on "can't". Do you realize that the narrative is just as readily, "won't" or "disinclined"? I mean, are you apt to punch a friendly acquaintance of yours? Or even a cordial stranger you are having a pleasant conversation with on the street?

The impression I keep getting from your concerns is that the feat intendeds to confer some sort of quasi-magical effect. It says no such thing.

 

[jgsugden]

While these do not break the game, I do not like that they imply that you can't frighten an NPC or charm the NPC without the appropriate feats - as a DM, I might decide those are appropriate results of a good charisma check.

 

[Geeknamese]

Let's break down the diplomacy feat and unpack it completely. The feat grants, after 1 minute the following two effects:

1. Advantage on diplomacy checks
2. The baddy won't attack you.

Now, let's back up a second. Any group with a rogue with expertise in Diplomacy gets the same bonus as this feat grants. A second PC with diplomacy (hardly a rare thing) can grant Advantage on every single diplomacy check. Now, since I haven't heard a single whisper of a complaint along the lines of a Diplomancer dominating the game, I'd say it's pretty obvious that granting advantage on a high diplomacy skill is not game breaking. In three years of 5e, no one has complained about this, so, AFAIC, it's a complete non-issue.

Which gets to the second part- the no attacking. Thing is, if you step back for a second, you realize pretty quickly that this won't actually apply very often. If you've used diplomacy on an NPC to change its reaction to neutral or better, why is that NPC attacking you? By the time the charm effect kicks in, the odds of combat are probably very low anyway. It's not actually going to change anything.

Where I can see this coming in most often will be in negotiations. Bartering for equipment, that sort of thing. Which is fair enough. You spend a feat, you get cheaper equipment. Cool. Smaller groups, where the odds of doubling up on Diplomacy proficiency will likely get more mileage out of this than larger groups.

But, in any case, the odds that you can stand around something for a full minute and it hasn't already attacked you means that it's probably not going to attack you at all. It's a nice ribbon, but, hardly the game breaking mess that people seem to be thinking that it is.

The post that makes the most sense out of this whole thread and no one even pays attention to it. Just sounds like people arguing just because they refuse to lose. The only reason why there is even an argument regarding this feat is because there are DMs who can't handle their min-maxing players. Again, the Skill Feat is called Diplomat. You're good at talking your way out of stuff. Like if you're stuck in a bad spot, if you get to talking long enough, you can get yourself out of a jam and ensure they don't attack you. Min-maxers see a social skill and automatically try to figure out a way to make it a Combat skill and then see it from only a Combat perspective so much so that they just put blinders on to sense and how it will play out at the table. *shakes head*


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app