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

[Tony Vargas]

Do the general rules governing ability checks (that the DM has to determine whether both success and failure are even possible before calling for a roll) still apply, or do these feats create specific rules exceptions that say these are powers PCs can always accomplish?

Wouldn't be so bad - there are lots of mechanics in 5e that just work without explicitly calling for the DM to make a ruling the way checks do - attacks are usually treated that way, for instance, and spells, of course.
But, mainly, it's "Rulings, not Rules," and the DM can decide an attack just misses or just hits, or a feat or spell does or doesn't do what it says in a given instance.

It's one of those scenarios where "rulings over rules" and "specific beats general" contradict.

Only if you consider 'rulings over rules' to be a general rule. (which wouldn't make a lot of sense, would, it? I mean, it's rulings /over/ rules, not a rule that governs ruling on other rules...
...more of a slogan, really.)

D&D, at any edition but certainly 5e, is too big and too broad to expect complete consistency from. I mean, the guys in charge of the "official rulings" channels can't seem to keep things straight sometimes. They've hard-coded in two defining statements that seem to fly completely in the face of each other, on purpose I suspect, to give us as DMs plenty of justification to play the game and make the rulings we were always going to do in the first place.

Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and D&D already has hobgoblins. Legions of them.

(I'm not sure how that applies, but it sounded cute before I typed it.)

My biggest concern, though, is still that I feel like the feats, rather than providing something the PCs can always accomplish my time in 3e and 4e makes me see these as telling players "no you can't do this cool thing unless you have the feat/skill trick/utility power."

That's a problem with skills, themselves, too. The more skills, the more things you can be un-skilled at. But, even in 4e, the existence of skill utilities didn't mean you couldn't do stuff without e'm - there were even actual, workable guidelines for adjudicating improvised actions - rather, they meant you could do something more specific, more dependably or easily, by expending a resource. Heck, it's a problem with classes, for that matter, one class gets to do something, it needs to be 'niche protected,' it can get silly - something 5e has gone pretty far in avoiding, IMHO.

Ultimately, 5e Empowers the DM to judge what a given PC can do in a given circumstance, feats or the lack thereof notwithstanding.

 

[Satyrn]

Ultimately, 5e Empowers the DM to judge what a given PC can do in a given circumstance, feats or the lack thereof notwithstanding.

Agreed. It's why I think the features of these feats are simply unnecessary. The expertise part is enough, in my mind, to cover the intent to make the person who takes it great at the skill. Well, for a "2e meets 5e" sort of style, anyway. I could totally see these fitting a more "4e meets 5e" style.

But, again, as I think I've said before - I'm happy with a skill system that just tells us the names of the skill, and lets us play with that as the sum total of the rules (well, that and "player states his action, and DM figures out if it works as the player describes, maybe involving a DC and a check")

 

[Bacon Bits]

Wouldn't be so bad - there are lots of mechanics in 5e that just work without explicitly calling for the DM to make a ruling the way checks do - attacks are usually treated that way, for instance, and spells, of course.
But, mainly, it's "Rulings, not Rules," and the DM can decide an attack just misses or just hits, or a feat or spell does or doesn't do what it says in a given instance.

Only if you consider 'rulings over rules' to be a general rule. (which wouldn't make a lot of sense, would, it? I mean, it's rulings /over/ rules, not a rule that governs ruling on other rules...
...more of a slogan, really.)

Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and D&D already has hobgoblins. Legions of them.

(I'm not sure how that applies, but it sounded cute before I typed it.)

It absolutely fits. Emerson was arguing for transcendentalism. That is to say: intuition has value over objective empiricism. The quote continues: "[...] Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

Now, I don't necessarily agree with Emerson. Aristotle was misunderstood (he fled Athens fearing he'd end up like Socrates) and great and, importantly, largely empirically wrong. I wouldn't want to build a spacecraft using Aristotelian physics, not the least reason of which is because he didn't believe in the vacuum. However, he does have a point that absolutes are inflexible, and that's not always a beneficial thing.

In any event, I don't think being misunderstood due to inconsistency is a particularly laudable design goal for game rules. It does mean you get to play the game however you want, but it also means the game is different at every table. Go down that path too far, and we return to what nearly killed 1e/2e: unchecked DM empowerment and inconsistent DM guidance leading to DMs ruling poorly and ignoring criticism causing players to go find more consistent and enjoyable games (RIFTs, WOD, etc.).

That's a problem with skills, themselves, too. The more skills, the more things you can be un-skilled at. But, even in 4e, the existence of skill utilities didn't mean you couldn't do stuff without e'm - there were even actual, workable guidelines for adjudicating improvised actions - rather, they meant you could do something more specific, more dependably or easily, by expending a resource. Heck, it's a problem with classes, for that matter, one class gets to do something, it needs to be 'niche protected,' it can get silly - something 5e has gone pretty far in avoiding, IMHO.

Ultimately, 5e Empowers the DM to judge what a given PC can do in a given circumstance, feats or the lack thereof notwithstanding.

Sure, and it's acceptable to be inconsistent. You shouldn't feel obliged to be consistent if doing so loses something greater. I don't think even Emerson was championing inconsistency for it's own sake (that is to say, it must still pass subjective evaluation and intuition... he certainly championed finding philosophical truths by contradicting himself).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Multiple people have expressed the idea that these feats close off, or seem to close off, to characters without the feats.

I don't understand this.

I've never in my gaming life felt like a feat or whatever meant I couldn't do the thing. Distinct abilities just codify a, generally better than normal, way of doing a thing.

Obviously there is a grey area, and some stuff is obviously only open to those with the ability, like a spell. Otherwise...what?

Stealthy is weird bc it "allows" what should be a basic part of stealth, imo.

The others, though...don't get it. Obviously you can do all the same stuff you did before.

Genuinely, can someone explain?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

How do they imply that, though?

 

[Satyrn]

Multiple people have expressed the idea that these feats close off, or seem to close off, to characters without the feats.

I don't understand this.

I've never in my gaming life felt like a feat or whatever meant I couldn't do the thing. Distinct abilities just codify a, generally better than normal, way of doing a thing.

Obviously there is a grey area, and some stuff is obviously only open to those with the ability, like a spell. Otherwise...what?

Stealthy is weird bc it "allows" what should be a basic part of stealth, imo.

The others, though...don't get it. Obviously you can do all the same stuff you did before.

Genuinely, can someone explain?

Since you can see it in Stealthy, I think you already get what I've been saying. I just see it in the others, too, while you don't.

The Diplomat feat just reads as advice on how to put mechanics behind any a standard attempt to persuade someone into friendly feelings.

Same with Menacing. It's good advice for a DM trying to figure out how to decide what being intimdated means, but even then it won't likely be a good fit always. But there is something good about this feat. I'd prefer if, for example, it had said "in combat, you can give up an attack to try to intimdate a humanoid." Period. I'm good with that.

 

[Oofta]

Since you can see it in Stealthy, I think you already get what I've been saying. I just see it in the others, too, while you don't.

The Diplomat feat just reads as advice on how to put mechanics behind any a standard attempt to persuade someone into friendly feelings.

Same with Menacing. It's good advice for a DM trying to figure out how to decide what being intimdated means, but even then it won't likely be a good fit always. But there is something good about this feat. I'd prefer if, for example, it had said "in combat, you can give up an attack to try to intimdate a humanoid." Period. I'm good with that.

I'd be happier with the feats if they didn't include "charmed" and "frightened" because of the implications of those conditions. I just want more flexibility in how I reward my players for the actions their characters take.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I'll bite. [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], what is the difference between someone whose reactions have been positively influenced by diplomacy and the charmed condition? Or, someone intimidated and frightened?

I'm rather failing to see the issue here.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, I'll bite. [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], what is the difference between someone whose reactions have been positively influenced by diplomacy and the charmed condition? Or, someone intimidated and frightened?

I'm rather failing to see the issue here.

Charmed you cannot attack the creature charming you. So if the target of charm is supposed to be an assassin keeping you busy for some signal, they can no longer attack. In addition, there is no explanation of how the charm would end.

Frightened you cannot approach the creature you are frightened of. This can be incredibly powerful against melee opponents. Frighten them and then the party disengages. Kill target from range. A valor bard could easily keep someone locked down for the whole fight as long as they win the first contest since subsequent checks the target has disadvantage.

I know there are also spells that can have similar effect but someone with these feats (assuming double proficiency) is far more likely to succeed. In addition, no spell resistance, no legendary saves.

So the party rogue says something mean to the Gamma Barbarian Kluh that is supposed to be a BBEG. Kluh has magic resistance and legendary saves, but not a great wisdom. The vast majority of times he's going to lose the check (it's guaranteed once the rogue gets reliable talent). A frightened Kluh is a worthless sack of hit points. Call the fight.

 

[Satyrn]

Ok, I'll bite. [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], what is the difference between someone whose reactions have been positively influenced by diplomacy and the charmed condition? Or, someone intimidated and frightened?

I'm rather failing to see the issue here.

I'm not oofta, but let me answer this too: being postiively influenced doesn't have to mean "apply the charmed condition." It can, but it could also mean something else, anything else that the player is aiming to achieve where "apply the charmed condition" isn't a good fit. I can't really give you an example of that, but I can for IIntimdate:

What if, in combat, a player decides to try intimidating a foe into dropping his weapon? The Menacing feat doesn't help with that (ignore the expertise part! ) because the player is clearly not trying to intimidate will impose the Frightened condition.

Now how would I rule that? I imagine I'd say, "well, let's just substitute 'he drops it' for 'he's got the frightened condition.'"

And realizing I'm gonna be regularly ruling in modification of the feat, I find the feat pointless.