Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7714847" data-attributes="member: 6801845">At least we agree on something.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; I just think Diplomat and Menacing are just as terrible.&nbsp; Acrobat is simply annoying.I simply disagree.&nbsp; Many of the feats are not giving examples.&nbsp; They give very specific powers.Acrobat: Bonus action make DC 15 Acrobatics to ignore difficult terrainDiplomat: Persuasion vs Insight on success target is CharmedPerformer: Performance vs Insight on success target has disadvantage on perception and investigateMenacing: Instead of an attack make Intimidate vs Insight on success target is FrightenedThose are not &quot;examples&quot;.&nbsp; They are specific results to specific actions.&nbsp; Charmed and Frightened in particular are conditions.By implication you can only way to get around difficult terrain in combat is with Acrobat. The only way to get advantage on social checks is Diplomat, to distract someone by playing a song is Performer, to intimidate in combat is to have Menacing (and the result of that intimidation is always going to be Frightened).Obviously as DM I can override any condition or rule.&nbsp; I can tell the bard that no matter how pretty their song is they are not going to distract the highly trained veteran guard.&nbsp; But I should not have to do so.But I think arguing semantics is kind of pointless.&nbsp; Having a feat that says if you win an intimidation contest the target will be frightened has very real in-game mechanical consequence and one I'd rather not introduce into my campaign.And ... that's my story and I'm sticking to it!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7714847, member: 6801845"] At least we agree on something. :D I just think Diplomat and Menacing are just as terrible. Acrobat is simply annoying. I simply disagree. Many of the feats are not giving examples. They give very specific powers. Acrobat: Bonus action make DC 15 Acrobatics to ignore difficult terrain Diplomat: Persuasion vs Insight on success target is Charmed Performer: Performance vs Insight on success target has disadvantage on perception and investigate Menacing: Instead of an attack make Intimidate vs Insight on success target is Frightened Those are not "examples". They are specific results to specific actions. Charmed and Frightened in particular are conditions. By implication you can [I]only[/I] way to get around difficult terrain in combat is with Acrobat. The only way to get advantage on social checks is Diplomat, to distract someone by playing a song is Performer, to intimidate in combat is to have Menacing (and the result of that intimidation is always going to be Frightened). Obviously as DM I can override any condition or rule. I can tell the bard that no matter how pretty their song is they are not going to distract the highly trained veteran guard. But I should not have to do so. But I think arguing semantics is kind of pointless. Having a feat that says if you win an intimidation contest the target will be frightened has very real in-game mechanical consequence and one I'd rather not introduce into my campaign. And ... that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :p [/QUOTE]

Verification