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

[doctorbadwolf]

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 don't see it in Stealthy, actually. I have issues with Stealthy, but not the same ones you do. Most of what Stealthy does is make something that is normally up to the DMs discretion, and for that character it is automatic, with some limits. ie, if the guard ain't looking, or is distracted, you can dart past unseen.

The rest of what it does is take what you can normally do a step further than what is strictly possible. Ie, walking past a guard who is actively searching the area for you, in your direction, without being seen.

The problem I see in all that doesn't apply, IMO, to the others. That is, what it actually does isn't clear. At first I thought it only did what I've already always done with stealth, but...now I think I was wrong, and you can, by intent, walk right past someone. And I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with it being unclear whether or not that is the intent.

Diplomat: it definately does more than that. If you are giving, "they can't attack even if you say something that would nromally provoke that response, and you have advantage on all interaction checks with them until they get some time and distance from you" as the result of a diplomacy check...you are houseruling that. That is...an extreme benefit to get for free.

Same with Menacing. If you are giving the Frightened condition, or a mechanically close equivalent, for a single intimidation check...that isn't something the rules should assume is a part of that skill.

The feats are entirely appropriate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

What? Seriously, what is happening here?

Why...would that situation have literally anything to do with the Menacing feat? It would just be a...normal use of the skill.

I feel like we are playing entirely different systems, all together.

This is like arguing that using Diplomacy to convince someone to not turn you in to the town guard for stealing is "ruling in modification" of the Diplomat feat. No, it just isn't a use of the feat. It's just a normal skill check.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This is literally 100% unchanged with the inclusion of these feats. You just do any other usage of Diplomacy as you normally would. What indicates, to you guys, that anything else on earth could be the case?

These feats don't change the entire way the skills work, they just give a distinct ability that you use with the skill. And (double) proficiency, and a +1 to the stat associated with the skill. That's it.

The feats make you better at the skill, a little better at all checks with that abillity, and gives you AN upgraded, specific, use of that skill.

The feats do not, in any way, or to any degree, change any other uses of the skill.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is literally 100% unchanged with the inclusion of these feats. You just do any other usage of Diplomacy as you normally would. What indicates, to you guys, that anything else on earth could be the case?

These feats don't change the entire way the skills work, they just give a distinct ability that you use with the skill. And (double) proficiency, and a +1 to the stat associated with the skill. That's it.

The feats make you better at the skill, a little better at all checks with that abillity, and gives you AN upgraded, specific, use of that skill.

The feats do not, in any way, or to any degree, change any other uses of the skill.

I think at least with the "dropping the weapon because intimidate" part, the question becomes if they can substitute an attack for the intimidation roll to have them drop the weapon instead of imposing frighten.

Essentially, players will want to use the abilities in non-standard ways, I think is what they are going for, and since the abilities are skills but are also laid out in a very strict sense of when they work, it could cause some minor issues.

I think is where they are going with it.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, the thing is, you didn't really answer the question. What's the difference? If I successfully intimidate (without the feat) a target, what is the effect? Does he just get to attack me without penalty? Isn't he actually scared of me? IOW, if I have a rogue, with expertise in Intimidate, and a 20 Cha, and I successfully intimidate that Baron McEvilton (whatever it happens to be) what is the impact of that successful skill check.

Now the Diplomacy one is even less likely to come up as it takes 1 minute to kick in, but, again, if I successfully use persuasion on an NPC, doesn't that mean that that NPC isn't going to attack me? I think I'd be pretty pissed as a player if I successfully persuade an NPC to not attack me (after all, Persuasion can to be used to persuade someone of something and the next round, the NPC attacks me.

In your case of the assassin, no persuasion check can ever succeed, since the baddy is only there to kill you. So, the feat doesn't matter in any case - you can't make a persuasion check on something that absolutely won't be persuaded. OTOH, if the NPC is open to having his or her mind changed, then, well, if you let the player roll, you should be accepting the consequences of that roll.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Why wouldn't you apply both? He drops his weapon because he's so scared of you. Seems a fairly decent ruling. Or, conversely, since applying the frightened condition means that you give up an attack, and not make a standard intimidate check, the two are mutually exclusive. You can burn your action to make an Intimidate check to make the baddy drop their weapon or you can burn an attack and apply the frightened condition.

Or, you could rule your way too. All three are perfectly reasonable. Considering this is the Rulings not Rules edition, seems a pretty standard response to virtually anything in the game. Several ways to adjudicate, pick the one that works for you. Since that's true of so many things in the game, I'm not sure why feats have to be different.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a note, I'm not entirely sure you can use Intimidate to disarm. Intimidate isn't the 3e skill where a success meant the NPC had to do whatever you told them to do. It's (from the SRD)

Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.

Using it to disarm an enemy might be a bit of a stretch. And, what would the opposed check be? Wouldn't it be a fixed DC? Which means the DM can simply set the DC at whatever, making the check much more problematic than the Frightened Intimidation from the feat.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think at least with the "dropping the weapon because intimidate" part, the question becomes if they can substitute an attack for the intimidation roll to have them drop the weapon instead of imposing frighten.

Essentially, players will want to use the abilities in non-standard ways, I think is what they are going for, and since the abilities are skills but are also laid out in a very strict sense of when they work, it could cause some minor issues.

I think is where they are going with it.

Sure, players will want to improvise expanded uses of their specific abilities. Cool. So, let the guy with the feat improvise things that someone without the feat can't do, or can't do as well. Im stricter about that with spells than with anything else, mostly with wizards, but with skills go nuts. There is still going to be a difference between the guy with Menacing and the guy without, regardless. Without the feat, a character can't intimidate as one part of a multi-attacking Attack Action. With the feat, they can, with limits. If some DMs effectively waive those limits...that is hardly an issue of the feat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But, the thing is, you didn't really answer the question. What's the difference? If I successfully intimidate (without the feat) a target, what is the effect? Does he just get to attack me without penalty? Isn't he actually scared of me? IOW, if I have a rogue, with expertise in Intimidate, and a 20 Cha, and I successfully intimidate that Baron McEvilton (whatever it happens to be) what is the impact of that successful skill check.

Now the Diplomacy one is even less likely to come up as it takes 1 minute to kick in, but, again, if I successfully use persuasion on an NPC, doesn't that mean that that NPC isn't going to attack me? I think I'd be pretty pissed as a player if I successfully persuade an NPC to not attack me (after all, Persuasion can to be used to persuade someone of something and the next round, the NPC attacks me.

In your case of the assassin, no persuasion check can ever succeed, since the baddy is only there to kill you. So, the feat doesn't matter in any case - you can't make a persuasion check on something that absolutely won't be persuaded. OTOH, if the NPC is open to having his or her mind changed, then, well, if you let the player roll, you should be accepting the consequences of that roll.

Having been debating this for a while, here is a potential response [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] is probably considering.


With normal skills he can declare that the check cannot happen. It is a skill, and you only roll when the DM tells you to.

However, these feats are player activated, and read like abilities that utilize a skill roll. This is very different, because the players will approach this with the intent that if they activate it, they are allowed to make the roll, which will then succeed.


Essentially, if he decided your 20 Cha rogue couldn't scare Baron McEvilton, he can deny you the roll, because the outcome is not in doubt. However, with the feat it would seem like he is being unfair to the player for not letting the use their ability against Baron McEvilton. Who then despite dining with the Avatar of Death or leading legions of terror across the planes, or what have you, will fail the opposed check and be scared of the your character


IMO I think you run into that by denying the skill check to, and I have no problem saying that a villain is immune to fear if they are that much of a terror inducing threat. But [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] has players at his table that this would cause problems for.

 

[Oofta]

Having been debating this for a while, here is a potential response [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] is probably considering.


With normal skills he can declare that the check cannot happen. It is a skill, and you only roll when the DM tells you to.

However, these feats are player activated, and read like abilities that utilize a skill roll. This is very different, because the players will approach this with the intent that if they activate it, they are allowed to make the roll, which will then succeed.


Essentially, if he decided your 20 Cha rogue couldn't scare Baron McEvilton, he can deny you the roll, because the outcome is not in doubt. However, with the feat it would seem like he is being unfair to the player for not letting the use their ability against Baron McEvilton. Who then despite dining with the Avatar of Death or leading legions of terror across the planes, or what have you, will fail the opposed check and be scared of the your character


IMO I think you run into that by denying the skill check to, and I have no problem saying that a villain is immune to fear if they are that much of a terror inducing threat. But [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] has players at his table that this would cause problems for.

That's pretty much it. In a home game I'll just explain how it works and try to come up with a compromise house rule that works for everyone. Basically if you use your intimidate (and succeed) it will have some benefit, just not necessarily making the target frightened.

I don't care how charismatic Han Solo was, he was never going to frighten Darth Vader. That doesn't mean I want to make Darth Vader immune to magic that relies on fear (I may or may not).

The flip side that I see to this is more insidious. Not to pick on 4E, but in a lot of cases we seemed to lose the spontaneity to do things that were encoded as powers. I'm worried that no one will try to use the intimidate in combat if they don't have the feat even if they're fighting enemies with a low morale. Basically cases where I think an intimidate check may work against multiple opponents.