Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7714871" data-attributes="member: 57112">I don't really follow that flow of logic. I've never seen a feat that said, either explicitly or implicitly "and by the way this is now the only way to accomplish this". I'm not even sure I'd buy that argument about a 4e feat, to say nothing of 5e. Even if I did, what you're claiming is implicit is only so if you look at these feats from outdated action resolution frameworks. 5e works differently from that.This is the heart of 5e. DM empowerment. Rulings over rules. If you feel you have a responsibility as a DM to maintain verisimilitude and internal consistency in your world, you are empowered to do so, to the explicit extent that you can declare that a PC's proposed action has no chance of success. This is made as clear to the players as it is to the DM. Presumably your players also care about verisimilitude and internal consistency; if not they might not be at the right table.Now this I can absolutely respect. I'd been giving this some thought and I think one of the biggest problems is the use of conditions. Because conditions are such a hard-coded and clearly-defined part of the game system, I don't think they should interact in the more nebulous world of ability checks. Certainly not to the extent that these feats suggest. I'd like the option to decide if your action, your target and the context of the scene in question warrant a specific condition like charmed or frightened. There are obvious situations where they don't seem to be warranted; I'd like the riders to be a bit more nebulous and "DM determines results of the ability check"-esque. I don't blame them doing so; it's an easy resolution and I still don't really see how either effect would be game-breaking in any game run by a DM with half a pulse. It's just that I don't think conditions and ability checks mesh well together. So yeah, I've come around to the idea that the conditions ought to be removed from Diplomat and Menacing.They're still not anywhere near as terrible as Performer though <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    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification