I would say it's simply easier to ban the feat that sets up something I don't like than to start modifying every bad guy.
Why? I mean, it's your call put if I just arbitrarily give disadvantage on something like this (especially in a game store/living campaign) the player will cry bloody murder. Perhaps rightfully so.
Let's set up a scenario. I have my PCs sneaking around in a dungeon. It's supposed to be tough and not one of those scenarios where they could reasonably win at this point. I want to set up this place at the headquarters of DOOM Inc. There's a pet Balor blocking the exit and I'm waiting for the group to do something creative and fun.
Instead the player of the party's high charisma rogue yawns and says "I step out and intimidate him. Yada yada boo". Looking at his character sheet he says "The lowest I can get is a 25. Do I need to roll?"
And that's against a creature with a relatively high insight check. Unless I change the rules for the Balor on the fly to nerf the character it is guaranteed to work.
Obviously I can work around it. The point is I shouldn't have to do so, it seems to go against the whole concept of bounded accuracy and the intent of 5E.
I would never run my encounter like this. This is a case where the DM needs to be a DM. As a Dungeon Master/Game Master my role is exactly that, master of the story and master of the game. When you sit at my table, you are playing in my game. I just happen to be using 5e to facilitate the story and the world. I don't work for the 5e system, it works to help me provide the best shared narrative experience I can give to my players. An emasculated DM is one that is beholden to the print, who needs codified rules for everything to make a decision or judgment calls. What's the point of a DM, if all you are is a rules inventory specialist or rules librarian?
In the example above, the lowly players are facing a mighty Balor, a friggin general of demon armies. People, for the most part, of carrion that he stomps on while on his way to the Porto-Potty. I could possibly give him Advantage on his +9 roll just for that fact. But I'd leave it in the hands of the player instead. So your level 5 or 7 or 10 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation strolls up to the Balor and tries to Intimidate him with his Cha (Intimidate) of +9-12. You let your player just walk and say I Intimidate him and roll dice? Or let them say "Yada yada boo!" and let's resolve the action? That's like a video game. My players know they're not playing a game when they play with me, they're part of a story. For me, skills, expertise, etc represent your potential to be really deceptive, charming, intimidating, whatever. You still have to roleplay the situation and it's got to be plausible. Unless that Rogue has something of value to say to that Balor which would make it fear him, or have some insight into the Personality, Ideals, Bonds, or Flaw of that Balor or can setup some kind of situation, maybe through a combination of skills checks involving lying, deception, whatever, he's getting Disadvantage on that Intimidation skill check.
I don't let my players just Persuade NPCs. I make them roleplay out the dialogue to see what they are saying or how they are saying it. Same thing with Deception or Intimidation. Have they gotten any insight on the NPCs through the dialogue or with their Insight abilities to maybe hint at their Personality, Ideals, Bonds or Flaws? I never let my PCs just go, "I want to Perception this, can I roll? I want to use Deception on the NPC, what do I need to roll?" I have them play it out and I adjudicate based on that.
Sent from my iPhone using
EN World mobile app