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

[Corwin]

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).

I see a lot of these kinds of hyperbolic examples. In all honesty, I don't see Han's player trying it. How and why? It violates the setting and story buy-in, IMO. Where Han's player declaring he was doing it, IMO, it would be in bad faith. On top of that, I keep hearkening back to the notion that this argument is perpetuated by the belief that the player is declaring that he is going to roll a d20 to do a thing. That's ain't 5e. Han's player is free to roleplay. Absolutely. If he even wanted to lob a threat at Vader, cool, I guess. But why is he picking up a die, declaring an Intimidate check, though? Again, not 5e. Threaten Vader all you want, at your own peril. But I'll let you know when, what you are saying, has moved into die rolling territory. In this example? Highly unlikely. But that doesn't mean we aren't roleplaying, with you snapping off something tough at Vader, and me coming up with his suitable retort.

 

[Oofta]

I see a lot of these kinds of hyperbolic examples. In all honesty, I don't see Han's player trying it. How and why?

How? He makes an intimidate check vs Vader's insight. The feat is clear.

Why? Because they're trying to escape and he wants to save Obi-Wan? Because Vader is primarily sword guy?

It violates the setting and story buy-in, IMO. Where Han's player declaring he was doing it, IMO, it would be in bad faith.

You have a different view of D&D than I do then. I'm creating the world for the characters, if they want to do something like try to intimidate the BBEG they can.

On top of that, I keep hearkening back to the notion that this argument is perpetuated by the belief that the player is declaring that he is going to roll a d20 to do a thing. That's ain't 5e. Han's player is free to roleplay. Absolutely. If he even wanted to lob a threat at Vader, cool, I guess. But why is he picking up a die, declaring an Intimidate check, though? Again, not 5e. Threaten Vader all you want, at your own peril. But I'll let you know when, what you are saying, has moved into die rolling territory. In this example? Highly unlikely. But that doesn't mean we aren't roleplaying, with you snapping off something tough at Vader, and me coming up with his suitable retort.

So basically you are ignoring the rules. House ruling when you think the player can use their feat.

In other words if Han had tried to shoot Vader you would have just said "Nah, I'm not going to let you try". Now if Han does try to shoot Vader we know the man in black will just block them. But Han didn't know that.

I don't dictate what my characters do. I just determine results of those actions.

 

[Corwin]

How? He makes an intimidate check vs Vader's insight. The feat is clear.

Your interpretation of how to apply the feat in play is definitely clear. That is for sure.

Why? Because they're trying to escape and he wants to save Obi-Wan? Because Vader is primarily sword guy?

Vader is primarily sword guy. Brilliant. I love it.

You have a different view of D&D than I do then.

It would appear so.

I'm creating the world for the characters, if they want to do something like try to intimidate the BBEG they can.

I just covered this. Absolutely they can. And if you, the DM, want to take it to a die roll because the result is uncertain, that's your prerogative. Otherwise, you are engaging the player in a thing called "roleplaying". Its something some of us do around the table while playing these sorts of games.

So basically you are ignoring the rules. House ruling when you think the player can use their feat.

Don't make me quote the book. Really? You just tried that argument? Are you familiar with 5e at all?

In other words if Han had tried to shoot Vader you would have just said "Nah, I'm not going to let you try". Now if Han does try to shoot Vader we know the man in black will just block them. But Han didn't know that.

This is not only a strawman, but attempting to paint my argument as the opposite of what I've actually been saying. Well done.

I don't dictate what my characters do.

More clever use of a strawman. Are you sure you are reading my post before replying? Or is this more of a comprehension thing? Perhaps agenda driven, rather than a good faith conversation?

I just determine results of those actions.

Based on what you are saying, I disagree. You do not determine the results, the players' dice do. Because you seem inclined to defer to them for everything. And at the players' declaration, at that.

I mean, look, play 5e the way you want. But please don't tell us we are the ones "houseruling" when you are clearly the one deviating from the system's intent.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION], I'm tired of this. You keep stating that the DM can just ignore the stated action of the player, I think that's a very adversarial role.

As far as "the DM decides when", all I can think of is that you're referring to the ability checks section of the rules.

Page 58 basic rules:

Ability Checks
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate
talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results.​

The only reason the outcome of an intimidate check would be certain is because you've decided that it will automatically fail, even if the target is not immune to fear. You've decided that because of the plot, the target cannot be intimidated.

That's no different than saying "you can't attempt a grapple attack because it's important to the plot that they escape." It's not the way I play the game, nor would I want to participate in such a game.

 

[Corwin]

@Corwin, I'm tired of this.

It would appear not...

You keep stating that the DM can just ignore the stated action of the player, I think that's a very adversarial role.

Show me where I said that. Cuz I'm tired of being strawmanned.

As far as "the DM decides when", all I can think of is that you're referring to the ability checks section of the rules.

Again, no. I've yet to say that a DM tells a player when they can do something. The DM determines what. Not when.

The only reason the outcome of an intimidate check would be certain is because you've decided that it will automatically fail, even if the target is not immune to fear.

Not quite. I also do not ask for a roll when I've determined that the action is an automatic success.

You've decided that because of the plot, the target cannot be intimidated.

Have I? That's a broad claim that is difficult to answer. Are we still talking specifically about Han trying to intimidate Vader? Or have you moved on to generalities again? Its hard to say which.

That's no different than saying "you can't attempt a grapple attack because it's important to the plot that they escape." It's not the way I play the game, nor would I want to participate in such a game.

Nor the way I play the game. If you'd stick to what I'm actually saying, perhaps we'd get somewhere. With the added benefit that perhaps you'd be less "tired" from knocking down all those strawmen?

 

[Satyrn]

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.

It's the bolded bits where we differ.

I'm saying those distinct or upgraded uses that these feats give are already available to all characters in my game.

By making them distinct or upgraded I'd be taking something that is already available and gating it behind a feat.

 

[Gradine]

@Corwin, I'm tired of this. You keep stating that the DM can just ignore the stated action of the player, I think that's a very adversarial role.

As far as "the DM decides when", all I can think of is that you're referring to the ability checks section of the rules.

Page 58 basic rules:

Ability Checks
An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate
talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that
has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain,
the dice determine the results.​

Yep, that's the one.

The only reason the outcome of an intimidate check would be certain is because you've decided that it will automatically fail, even if the target is not immune to fear. You've decided that because of the plot, the target cannot be intimidated.

Incorrect. We've decided that not because of plot but because of the importance of maintaining the very internal logic consistency you and others have complained are the problems with these feats in the first place.

Which is the whole point of that passage you quoted.

That's no different than saying "you can't attempt a grapple attack because it's important to the plot that they escape." It's not the way I play the game, nor would I want to participate in such a game.

It is not at all like that. A more appropriate comparison would be "you can't attempt a grapple attack because they're way too big for you to effectively grapple." (I'd actually re-phrase that as "you can attempt a grapple attack, but because of their size and/or shape you're not going to be successful".)

There is a clear and obvious difference between DM fiat to maintain a sense of realism, immersion and internal consistency (something supported by that rule you quoted) and DM fiat because the DM wants the "plot" to unfold in a certain way (the strawman you've been arguing against).

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION], I'm done.

To summarize:

• The feat is clear. The player can do an intimidate check opposed by an insight check instead of an attack action.
• The DM calls for a dice roll if the result of a skill check is uncertain.

During a combat

• A player declares an action, that they are using their attack action to intimidate.
• You are not allowing that action, or you are telling the player that it automatically fails.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

Thank you for comprehending. That is exactly what I was getting at.

 

[Oofta]

It is not at all like that. A more appropriate comparison would be "you can't attempt a grapple attack because they're way too big for you to effectively grapple." (I'd actually re-phrase that as "you can attempt a grapple attack, but because of their size and/or shape you're not going to be successful".)

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.