Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 9564769" data-attributes="member: 72555">Yes, the core thing I'm trying to address is that risking your action to Talk or Think is almost always a trap.As a DM, either I have to give the PC the ability to change their mind (before you roll make an insight check ... they don't look ready to break), have the PC regularly waste their turn (on something that is not going to be nearly as effective as a standard combat action), or make it really good really often (because, honestly, a default action by a D&D PC has huge impact on the game state).Lets look at intimidate.  If the PCs are in an obviously winning position, it makes sense for intimidate to have a decent chance of breaking the enemy's morale.  But if they are in an obviously winning position, a single round of attacks is probably going to nearly wrap up combat; the PCs are probably going to take very little damage from the remaining forces, and if the remaining forces have any brains "1/3 of your allies turns into a fine mist of blood" is a lot more intimidating than "roar, surrender!".If the enemies aren't about to be overrun, the intimidate action isn't likely to succeed.  And if it fails it is going to make the PCs position worse, as they just lost an action by someone on their side to do nothing.  The result?  Intimidate turns out to really only be useful when you want to avoid killing your foes, which "I deal non-lethal damage" is even better at doing.I could make Intimidate reasonably likely to succeed and cause demoralization even against foes who aren't about to be overrun; if it succeeds regularly, it starts being "skip combat" button, which is somewhat of anti-fun.  If it just causes a disruption relatively reliably (except when it doesn't), I guess it can work.So now I need to invent a mechanism for intimidate to disrupt enemies reasonably reliably without causing them to flee combat at a level similar to what a full attack action by a PC would do, and give it a chance that the enemy flees.  Ie, there is a whole bunch of balancing work I have to do to make the Intimidate Action fit just right.  I am unaware of anyone's house rules in D&D that have succeeded; do you know of any?Meanwhile, if Talk is something you can do, the PC can try to do something.  They can roar, they can threaten, they can bluster, they can give a suggestion to an ally.  I can ask for a roll against a nearly arbitrary DC and don't have to worry about balancing it against the main action of the character.I fully expect this to result in PCs wanting to say something each turn.  Great - encouraging in-combat banter sounds like a good side effect!Think - having a PC ask about enemy culture, fighting styles, things in the room, motivations of enemies, etc - is also something I'd welcome happening more often in combat.I similarly don't want to make Think be the centerpiece of someone's turn.  You can make mechanics for this, but the weight is heavy.  4e Warlords had "think+talk" actions on that scale - abilities like "your ally gets advantage on their next attack and deals 2x damage" as you point out a weakness in the foe.  Dungeon World has "spout lore".Rather than invent mechanics at that scale, saying that "Think" is a free action means that on their turn, the player can ask me something about the situation, which in turn gives me an excuse to tell them about the encounter, possibly gated behind a check.  And they aren't risking "sorry, you spent your turn making that knowledge check" or similar.It also means I get to feed Players information - when they hit or miss a creature, ask for a check, and depending on the result reveal information about the creature they attacked.These are all things that I have seen DMs do.  In games where DMs demand full actions for intimidation or knowledge checks I rarely see them used; in games where they don't, I see them used quite often.  And I don't see the game breaking down.I mean, I get how it could cause problems - people being analysis paralyzed by "I have to think up a think and a talk!" - but analysis paralysis is best dealt with through other options in my experience.  (And, offering A or B causes more paralysis than A and B in my experience)And, if all that happens is I get players saying "I yell out 'we got this', encouraging my allies" and "are there any flaws in their combat style?" or "how is the enemy morale?" on their turn, I'd consider it a decent result.</blockquote>

Verification