Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7713964" data-attributes="member: 57112">I was going to argue that this is complete and utter nonsense but then I re-read the feat and re-read the Charmed condition and... okay yeah, by RAW the effect only fails if you or your allies are attacking them at the time, and there's no condition about the charm status breaking once you begin attacking. That's a horrible oversight and poor writing. Of course, any suggestion that that would be the feat working as intended would be laughable. I'm confident that'll be fixed in a second pass. At the very least, it should probably carry the restrictions that Menacing has (humanoid only, if you fail the check they're immune from the effect for a set length of time).In any case, if you feel so enslaved by the RAW that you would allow such a thing to pass at your table, there's absolutely nothing that I can say to you. You are playing a fundamentally different game than I am, a game that I refuse to believe is supported by the stated design intentions or actual written rules of the system. It's fundamentally not 5e as intended. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that, but it's why there's no way we're going to see eye to eye about it. Which is fine. FWIW I agree that both feat abilities are broken, but I feel that has everything to do with it being an opposed kill roll (in a system that disadvantages NPCs and creatures in that regard), and nothing to do with half-baked absurd situations that either misunderstand the nature of ability checks or would otherwise never be allowed to happen in an actual, sensibly run game.You're also correct in that I have no experience with Adventurer's League play. Others with actual experience can verify or debunk how widespread that style of play is in AL, but if that's the typical way D&D is played in 5e I can say that I'm ecstatic to have never had the experience.</blockquote>

Verification