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

[Corwin]

IMHO an NPC that can't be intimidated by a few words in combat is different from an NPC that could never be intimidated under any circumstance.

So which one should Vader be?

Because, since it was your example: If you could point to any scene (in any of the 3 original movies) where you think Han had a chance to kowtow Vader, with the equivalent of an intimidate check (with or without this feat-your choice), that would help greatly with figuring out what your point is.

 

[Gradine]

There's a difference. If a creature is huge/ethereal/amorphous, if it's stat block says that they can't be grappled, then they can't.

Without changing the creatures stats to say they are immune to fear or intimidate, there is no reason other than DM fiat to say the creature cannot be intimidated during combat.

IMHO an NPC that can't be intimidated by a few words in combat is different from an NPC that could never be intimidated under any circumstance.

I would agree.

What I and others are failing to understand is why you can't just say "this guy is not going to be intimidated by a few words in combat" and let everyone move on with their lives? Because you've got a player who thinks they're playing 4e and you've taken away their power card for no good reason and ripped it to shreds in front of them while laughing maniacally and collecting their tears for your immortality ritual? That hardly seems like anybody else's problem but Tom's. Ugh, Tom. Tom! It's always Tom, isn't it?

5e empowers you to rule in exactly that kind of way, for what it's worth. Your choice to disregard that is your choice, but recognize that it is not the default one.

And if you, as the DM, feel that you would be entirely unable to make that ruling, then there's nothing I or anyone else is going to be able to say to you. You see a duck and only a duck. You're playing a fundamentally different game from the one we're playing, one where the DM has no agency in dictating the rules and internal consistency of the world they're running and is instead enslaved to the players' interpretations of the RAW.

Maybe that's an artifact of AL play, and if it is then thank Arawai I've never subjected myself to the AL. That's not the way I play the game, nor would I want to participate in such a game.

 

[Oofta]

I would agree.

What I and others are failing to understand is why you can't just say "this guy is not going to be intimidated by a few words in combat" and let everyone move on with their lives? Because you've got a player who thinks they're playing 4e and you've taken away their power card for no good reason and ripped it to shreds in front of them while laughing maniacally and collecting their tears for your immortality ritual? That hardly seems like anybody else's problem but Tom's. Ugh, Tom. Tom! It's always Tom, isn't it?

5e empowers you to rule in exactly that kind of way, for what it's worth. Your choice to disregard that is your choice, but recognize that it is not the default one.

And if you, as the DM, feel that you would be entirely unable to make that ruling, then there's nothing I or anyone else is going to be able to say to you. You see a duck and only a duck. You're playing a fundamentally different game from the one we're playing, one where the DM has no agency in dictating the rules and internal consistency of the world they're running and is instead enslaved to the players' interpretations of the RAW.

Maybe that's an artifact of AL play, and if it is then thank Arawai I've never subjected myself to the AL. That's not the way I play the game, nor would I want to participate in such a game.

In a home game I can discuss house rules (I have a few) with my players and we'll come to a consensus.

In AL games, you're judging for a table with people you may have never met. The vast majority are going to be OK with you letting people know "this is how I run menacing", but there are always going to be a handful (around 5-10%) that will be insistent that you follow the letter of the feat.

I'm not currently doing AL games, but they can be rewarding and fun for different reasons so I don't let the minority spoil the game for me.

I'm just as concerned about the flip side. Consider the performer feat - a lot of people are going to feel that you can only distract someone with your performance if you have the feat.

 

[Gradine]

In a home game I can discuss house rules (I have a few) with my players and we'll come to a consensus.

In AL games, you're judging for a table with people you may have never met. The vast majority are going to be OK with you letting people know "this is how I run menacing", but there are always going to be a handful (around 5-10%) that will be insistent that you follow the letter of the feat.

The only issue I see here is that you're describing as a "houserule" (e.g., "this is how I run...") what is actually a sensible interpretation of the RAW. I'd personally like it to be more clear in a second round that these additional benefits are still ability checks and subject to all of the rules incumbent within them (including the DM decided whether success or failure are even options) but again, I see that as a reasonable interpretation of the feats even without such an explicit statement.

Any player, at a home game or otherwise, who refuses to accept as legitimate a common sense DM's ruling is a bad actor and isn't someone I'm interested in catering the game to.

I'm just as concerned about the flip side. Consider the performer feat - a lot of people are going to feel that you can only distract someone with your performance if you have the feat.

I have been extraordinarily vocal in my distaste for the Performer feat, which seems to me to be the worst offender of exactly this issue. I think basically every other feat benefit has enough meat to it to say "this feat lets you accomplish this in this specific way" that I have enough leeway as a DM to say to anyone without the feat can attempt it, but not as well/easily/quickly/what have you.

Performer is inexcusable though. What have they been using Performer for at their tables that they see this as an alternative add-on ability worth a feat?

 

[Corwin]

Any player, at a home game or otherwise, who refuses to accept as legitimate a common sense DM's ruling is a bad actor and isn't someone I'm interested in catering the game to.

The core bugaboo, IMO.

I have been extraordinarily vocal in my distaste for the Performer feat, which seems to me to be the worst offender of exactly this issue. I think basically every other feat benefit has enough meat to it to say "this feat lets you accomplish this in this specific way" that I have enough leeway as a DM to say to anyone without the feat can attempt it, but not as well/easily/quickly/what have you.

Performer is inexcusable though. What have they been using Performer for at their tables that they see this as an alternative add-on ability worth a feat?

Agreed. I've also prefaced my opinion of these playtest feats with the caveat that my hope is the final product avoids locking away mundane skill uses. In the similar vein of anyone being able to attempt disarming a foe (the DMG offers suggestions) even while the battlemaster has the disarm maneuver (clearly superior option).

 

[Oofta]

The only issue I see here is that you're describing as a "houserule" (e.g., "this is how I run...") what is actually a sensible interpretation of the RAW. I'd personally like it to be more clear in a second round that these additional benefits are still ability checks and subject to all of the rules incumbent within them (including the DM decided whether success or failure are even options) but again, I see that as a reasonable interpretation of the feats even without such an explicit statement.

Any player, at a home game or otherwise, who refuses to accept as legitimate a common sense DM's ruling is a bad actor and isn't someone I'm interested in catering the game to.

All I can say is that I play with some people that I otherwise enjoy gaming with that are very literal. If a feat says they can intimidate someone during combat and I think it doesn't make sense they will be very vocal in their opposition. Whether or not they accept my ruling as a DM, I'd rather not have upset players. You would say it's their fault, I say it's the fault of the wording of the feat.

The other simple reason I don't like the feat is that don't think veteran combatants should be easily frightened barring magic. Morale and other extraneous factors should come into play. Even a conscript will continue to attack if they know their leaders will torture and kill them (and their families) if they don't attack.

 

[Corwin]

All I can say is that I play with some people that I otherwise enjoy gaming with that are very literal. If a feat says they can intimidate someone during combat and I think it doesn't make sense they will be very vocal in their opposition. Whether or not they accept my ruling as a DM, I'd rather not have upset players. You would say it's their fault, I say it's the fault of the wording of the feat.

I find this interesting given that you earlier implied it was I who was speaking from an adversarial playstyle role...

 

[Satyrn]

I find this interesting given that you earlier implied it was I who was speaking from an adversarial playstyle role...

Are you saying that quote suggests Oofta has an adversarial playstyle?

Or maybe that he's just so very soft on his players that he would view not-soft as adversarial?

I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[Oofta]

Are you saying that quote suggests Oofta has an adversarial playstyle?

Or maybe that he's just so very soft on his players that he would view not-soft as adversarial?

I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

I think telling a player "no you can't do that even if the rules say you can*" is adversarial.

Giving adversaries additional characteristics designed to negate a character's abilities for no reason other than to negate the character's abilities is also adversarial. In other words, a fire elemental is going to be immune to fire but if all of my NPCs are suddenly immune to fire because I don't like feature X that does fire damage, I'm just being a dick.

*[EDIT]Just to be clear - that should probably be "telling my players they can't with no justification other than I said so". There are going to be times when the players can't do something for reasons that are not clear to them at the moment.

 

[Corwin]

Are you saying that quote suggests Oofta has an adversarial playstyle?

Or maybe that he's just so very soft on his players that he would view not-soft as adversarial?

I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

I said I find it interesting.

But to answer your questions: By his own description, Oofta appears to play in a somewhat adversarial playstyle group. Or, maybe, passive-aggressive could be a more accurate description. Where there looms this threat of some of the players causing a stink should he rule against them. Thus, why I found it interesting, as I said. I believe I have gained insight into how Oofta leans and why he assumes the same of others. Maybe Oofta would rather fall back to the dice always deciding things. That way there is no chance of giving an impression the DM is preventing the players from doing what they want, when they want. And having an argument ensue.