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

[Oofta]

I would like to have a simple discussion about these feats without all the hyperbole that infected the other thread. Probably not possible. If you haven't already, you can see the pdf at UA-SkillFeats.pdf

Assumption 0: Just to get it out of the way, obviously I can modify rules as a DM to suit my style, but at a certain point you go from having a different ruling to house rules. As written in the Unearthed Arcana article, I think these feats in particular need to be redone. Please assume for this thread that you do not want to implement house rules or rulings that contradict the wording of the feat. This is playtest material, I'd like to discuss issues and changes to the playtest.

With that out of the way, let me know what you think.

The issues I have with Diplomat and Menacing are the following.

• IMHO, charmed and frightened supernatural conditions and should not be the result of a skill check. An NPC may find you charming, or be frightened of you. I may even borrow from those conditions - but I want more flexibility to deal with results than the conditions allow.
• Many, if not most, players will expect to follow the wording of the text which is very mechanical. "If you do X you get a contested skill check. If you succeed Y condition is imposed on the target".
• A PC is far more likely to win an opposed skill check than a target failing a save. Based on a quick check of stats from a spreadsheet I downloaded, creatures in the MM have a +1 to their insight check. At a certain point, depending on the build, a PC is guaranteed to win every skill check against the vast majority of creatures.
• In addition, certain monsters have counters to spells. Either the capability to literally cast Counterspell, magic resistance, legendary saves. No such mechanic applies to contested skill checks.

Now for some details.

Diplomat
Abbreviated Version: If you spend 1 minute talking to someone make a Persuasion vs Insight check. If your check succeeds the target is charmed by you.

This feat reduces the role of the DM to adjudicate results of role playing. As a DM if I think the players are doing a good job they don't need (and I do not want) a feat to get advantage on skill checks. I want advantage to be a reward for good RP, planning and story. I want to be able to give disadvantage in certain situations and not have such an easy counter.

The feat also need to be fixed for an obvious loophole. Once charmed, nothing other than getting away from the source of the charm can break the condition.

I see other issues as well. There's no indication that you can't try the check over and over again, or that the target realizes they were charmed. Does it work like the charm person spells in that the target considers the source a friendly ally, or is it just a bonus on future skill checks and not attacking?

If it's fixed, it's not horrible but I still don't like the mechanical nature.

Menacing
Abbreviated Version: Replace one attack to make an Intimidation vs Insight check. If your check succeeds, the target is frightened until the end of your next turn.

Frightened means the target cannot approach the source of the fear and has disadvantage on all attacks and ability checks. Frightening a melee based humanoid can basically remove them from combat for the round. Since the condition lasts until the end of your next turn, once you've frightened a target it will be easier to frighten the next round because they will have disadvantage on their Insight check.

In addition, it only takes an attack action. A valor bard gets two attacks, a fighter eventually gets four (more if they use an action surge). Other than number of attacks, there is no limit.

It's not going to have a huge effect if used against spell casters or humanoids with good ranged attacks, but the majority of humanoids seem to rely on melee attacks or have only less effective ranged attacks.

The biggest issue that I see is that once again takes a lot of RP aspects out of the game. If I've set up a the BBEG as someone who should never be intimidated by the PCs, this gets around it. It's one thing to be affected by a magic spell or supernatural ability, it's another to be frightened because the fighter called you a ninny.

IMHO the DM should be the arbiter of whether an NPC can be intimidated (whether or not they are immune to fear) and what the results of being intimidated is.

Stealthy
Abbreviated Version: If you are hidden, you can move up to 10 feet in the open without revealing yourself if you end the move in a position where you’re not clearly visible.

An honorable mention does have to go to the stealthy feat.

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to stealth, but this feat means for any span of 10 feet that has hiding spots on either side you can escape notice no matter what. Demon with truesight staring down the well lit corridor with no obstruction and absolutely nothing to hide behind? Have to walk right in front of the demon's nose close enough to feel his abyssally bad breath on your neck? No problem, I'm Stealthy!

Not game breaking but certainly versimilitude breaking and not necessary.

 

[Gradine]

To throw a wrench into the works, I voted both "I like Diplomacy" and "I do not like Diplomacy or Menacing". I would've voted for "I like Menacing" too but I was restricted to two options.

Reason being that I like the idea behind the feats but not this specific execution of them. I tend to like the idea of Diplomat better than Menacing; I feel like giving a PC an ability that can be (or is best) utilized in combat from these feats makes them seem to be "optimal" options and short-circuits the ideas behind ability (and thus skill) checks that make 5e such a great system to begin with. Diplomat, at least when working as intended, is perfectly fine.

Stealthy I think would also be fine with a few common sense tweaks, namely that it fails to work if something is looking directly in your direction as you move. If the creature who could spot you is otherwise distracted (such as being engaged in combat with another creature) the feat works without breaking verisimilitude. The feat, to me, implies the PC is capable of sensing and making the most of momentary distractions (it's not hard to cover 10 feet in a split second, which is all the distraction a master sneak should need to move from cover to cover). It just breaks down if the subject is staring directly in the space your moving through for the entire time with nothing else to serve as a distraction.

 

[Xeviat]

Based on a number of things, I find Menacing to be perfect. Compare Menacing's feat cost to Menacing Attack from the Battle Master's opportunity and Superiority dice cost. Battle Masters get extra damage and don't give up an attack (even more damage). It's not unlimited either; doesn't someone become immune once they succeed the skill check?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hussar]

As was mentioned in the other thread, every one of these issues require massive investment in character resources to be a problem. IOW none of these are actually a problem in a game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Diplomat

Obvious loophole of not breaking if attacked is obvious, so not going to comment on that.

What else does this feat do, what is this supernatural ability they have?

Advantage on future Social Checks.

That’s it, that is all Diplomat can give you once the attack loophole is closed. It says nothing about being a friendly acquaintance, all it does is charm and all charm does is prevent the target from attacking you and give you advantage on social checks against the target. And, once you have that advantage, you are using normal skill rules to accomplish whatever your plan was, and so things are back in the DMs court.



Menacing

This one has more potential to be aggravating, but there are a lot of factors at play.

The target has to be within 30ft to be scared, so if they run and you can’t follow, they can break the chain, if you can’t use you attack to scare them, they break the chain and reach you.

If you are in melee with the target it can break down to 1 attack to give the enemy disadvantage on all their attacks. Good, but not gamebreaking against a single foe most of the time.

Only working against humanoids means a few things. But the big one is their equipment. From the MM most of the enemies don’t have good armor, and don’t have the listed ranged equipment they might have. But, they are intelligent humanoids, so they can change that. It isn’t that big of a leap to assume most raiding type humanoids carry bows, or that they have 4-6 spears or handaxes for throwing. So, begin thinking about what extra weapons it makes sense for them to carry. Gnolls for example, already wield spears, and maybe they like to impale people on walls and leave them there, or in RL spears could break so they carry extras, nothing states their full equipment load out, so we have some wiggle room.


But, from previous conversations, I think your biggest issue is that they can use a non-magical ability to scare a guy you think should be fearless, but not immune to fear.

I can’t help you there.

Personally, I would follow my gut, depending on the situation, the enemy, the roll, and the table. Most likely, I would just let the enemy be frightened. They are mortal, they can feel fear, if they cannot feel fear I would make them immune to fear, even magical fear.

The ability does, by RAW, take away your ability to tell the player no, you are not scary enough to scare this guy. And, I find that fine. I’ve rarely had a PC invest in intimidation, and if someone did to the degree of getting this feat on top of it, I would have to re-evulate how scary they actually can be. There are abilities in the game that just do things, whether or not the DM wants them to happen. This is one of them, and I’ll work around it if I have to, but I don’t see it as breaking something essential in the game.

Stealthy I think would also be fine with a few common sense tweaks, namely that it fails to work if something is looking directly in your direction as you move. If the creature who could spot you is otherwise distracted (such as being engaged in combat with another creature) the feat works without breaking verisimilitude. The feat, to me, implies the PC is capable of sensing and making the most of momentary distractions (it's not hard to cover 10 feet in a split second, which is all the distraction a master sneak should need to move from cover to cover). It just breaks down if the subject is staring directly in the space your moving through for the entire time with nothing else to serve as a distraction.

Would not already allow a player to move 10 ft through an open area without breaking stealth if the enemy was distracted? I mean, I’m not going to be looking down the empty hallway if an orc is swinging an axe at my face. And if my passive perception is 13 and the rogue rolled a 22, I think that should be the end of that.

It is nearly supernatural in effect, but the number of times I could see it making the difference to allow the player to do something they could not already find a way to do, is pretty low.

 

[Satyrn]

As was mentioned in the other thread, every one of these issues require massive investment in character resources to be a problem. IOW none of these are actually a problem in a game.

They would actually be a problem in my game. They codify things I don't want codified, because then, well, I don't know what exactly. But it will be something like the players not trying the things in those feats because the think they can't do those things without the feat; or maybe as the DM I'll wind up limiting them if they don't have the feat.

That Stealthy "move 10 feet" feature, especially, is something already completely available. I don't understand how that's not something inherently part of the skill. And not limited by distance. A player wants to slip across a room from one door to another while the guard's back is turned? Stealth check. How is it not?

And the same for the halfing in combat hiding behind the paladin. Why wouldn't I already let him try slipping across the battlefield to get behind the fighter unseen? That's stealth! There just seems no point to Stealthy's feature - and it looks sucky because now it gates what ought to be available to everyone.

I would say the same for Diplomat and Menacing, except they are a little different. They both apply conditions, and Menacing implies improved action economy for the skill use. I like that this UA suggests applying conditions, but only so far as it serves as providing some interesting advice, a reminder that "hey, when adjudicating skill maybe look to the conditions to see if one of them makes sense."

But I don't like that the feats, like Stealthy, seem to gate off uses of the skills. I don't like that at all.


But then, for me, the best part of 5e's skill system was that there is no codified way to use the skills (I don't use the hiding sidebar, either).

 

[Mike Daniels]

I am fine with Menacing, it's similar to how I play Intimidation checks in my game enough to work for me.... On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I *hate* Diplomacy as it's written.

I can already envision the heaps of abuse my players would put upon the broken mechanic. On the other hand, if I tweaked the rule to fit with my own version of NPC reactions. (Old school, Enemy>Hostile>Suspicious>Neutral>Open-minded>Friend>Ally is the scale I use for my games, and I would allow the skill to immediately bump the NPC's attitude *one* value. I could see especially good RP getting two bumps for one check, but that's the limit I would use.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I think both are cool (the "attacked but still charmed" loophole should go, obviously). I have no problem with skill use giving my players the opportunity to say how an NPC reacts to their actions, magic-using characters do that all the time. Sorry, but I believe your issue with these feats is just a skill-based version of the good old "fighters can't have cool things" discussion.

 

[Hussar]

Well, technically, the "Stealthy Move 10 Feet" feature closes the arguments that might arise from ... well... rather vaguely written stealth rules.

As per RAW, you can't hide if the viewer has a clear line of sight to you. Now, in [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]tym's example, the guard's back is turned, so, no clear line of sight. However, that can lead to some friction at the table, particularly if the DM is being a bit of a dick - "Oh, his back was turned to you, but, he turned around just as you broke cover." - sort of shenanigans.

This feat just makes stealth a bit more reliable.

But, in your case [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]tym, the feats aren't really problematic, they're just already incorporated into your play style. They don't add anything to the game. In your shoes, I'd just not use the feats because, after all, why bother? Not a major issue, just something you're not going to get much use out of.

For groups that are a bit more by the book, this kind of feat leans 5e back towards 3e and 4e where these kinds of things were codified. Just a play style thing more than anything.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, technically, the "Stealthy Move 10 Feet" feature closes the arguments that might arise from ... well... rather vaguely written stealth rules.

It don't see how it closes any argument at all, except by saying players can't even bother trying this without the feat. But then that opens up another argument - like "why can't I move 12 feet with this feet?" And "why do I need a feat to do this when the hiding sidebar say this is already possible?"

But you're right, there is an easy solution for me. These feats would simply never be available. My feedback for this survey is gonna be something like "These feats could work well in a rules module to make 5e more codified like 3e, but simply don't fit my style."




Also, just FYI, my screen name ends in 'r n' not an 'm' - though now I'm curious who SA is.