D&D 5E PHB Feats taken - RESULTS

[DeJoker]

What Skilled really needs is the ability to gain expertise if you already have the proficiency. This makes it less, "I'll pick up a few extra skills that aren't core to my concept." and more, "I'm going to be the best [your skill here] on the planet!"

A +1 wouldn't hurt, either.

I think creating a Feat that does half of what a Rogue gets for free, is rather fair. It would most likely be a Feat a Rogue would never take but I could see other classes doing so. Of course the proponents of "stealing some aspect from another class degrades the class" are not going to like it at all. Of course I am not one of those proponents, I designed a system for DnD 3.0 to 3.5/Pathfinder that basically had 9 generic class types and every class ability was turned into a Feat -- thus you could, as you leveled up, literally build any concept you wanted. It worked beautifully, I had players mapping out a fairly balanced character all the way up to 20th level and still want a few more feats to round out their idea but were ecstatic that they could do as much as they could since the base system did not allow anything nearly as flexible. To me build what you want systems, with logical structure restrictions works a whole lot better than the cookie cutter method that DnD has always used and still does.

 

[ro]

It seems that class features are often roughly equivalent to feats. The Cleric domains seem well-balanced overall, and so using them for reference, in comparing Cleric domains, it seemed to me that 1st level features, excluding domain spells, are roughly designed on a 5-point scale. Some features are noticeably worse, but this seems to be the guideline:

1/2 point: language
1 point: skill, tool, or expertise in existing proficiency
1 1/2 points: martial weapons (not just four!), wrath of the storm, war priest
2 points: cantrip, skill and expertise, heavy armor proficiency
3 points: warding flare, disciple of life, blessing of the forge, shield of the faithful

In balancing or designing feats, it would make sense to compare them to a similar scale.

 

[clearstream]

What Skilled really needs is the ability to gain expertise if you already have the proficiency. This makes it less, "I'll pick up a few extra skills that aren't core to my concept." and more, "I'm going to be the best [your skill here] on the planet!"

A +1 wouldn't hurt, either.

I like the +1 over expertise because for me the latter steps too hard Rogue's toes. With expertise reserved for Rogues that really protects their strength under the social and explore pillars (and makes up for slightly lower power in combat, compared with martials and casters). For example, any 5th level character can have Stealth, but only a 5th level Rogue can have Stealth +11.

Here are my current proposed revisions http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?583968-Complete-Revision-of-PHB-Feats-(wiki-thread)

 

[DeJoker]

Say there was a feat that gave you +10 AC but slow your movement by 10'. People would say that it wasn't balanced against the other feats. For a 10 Dex Wizard or Sorcerer, picking up heavy armor + shield would give you exactly that - 10 points of AC at the cost of 10' of movement. (Hmm, could get 11 AC if you only had an 8 DEX.)

I understand where your generalizations are in levels, but 4 levels of armor proficiency is automatically full + shield for even those who start without, and that's a huge jump in AC. Enough that it wouldn't be okay if you wrote it up as a feat.

In other words, it seems you're saying that each step is reasonable, and I'm replying that the final result is not.

Correct and that is why you would most likely never create a Feat such as that and I never suggest that one should. However that does not remove the game balance of what the designers implemented. I mean shoot if we went to that extreme with just about anything within the game design you would pretty much break everything. For instance if you made Tough equivalent to a +2 Con you would probably end up with a +6 or more to your hit points per level and most folks would say that was not balanced as well and is why you do not see any Feats that do such a thing. Aka just because you can does not mean you should.

This is why I commented somewhere either here or a similar thread as this one, that a +2 Attribute uses a Shotgun technic and a Feat uses more of a Rifle technic and because of this you have to be very careful as to how much you put into a Feat because it can quickly get out of hand and break the system without really trying to.

So in respect to armor, if it were me I would build a more shotgun version of a series of feats so that in order to go from No Armor to Heavy Armor and Shield would take 4 Feats and I do not think you would argue that is not fair since that is sort of what is being done now.

 

[ro]

I like the +1 over expertise because for me the latter steps too hard Rogue's toes. With expertise reserved for Rogues that really protects their strength under the social and explore pillars (and makes up for slightly lower power in combat, compared with martials and casters). For example, any 5th level character can have Stealth, but only a 5th level Rogue can have Stealth +11.[/url]

But Bards get expertise, too, as do Knowledge Clerics. The expertise granted by the Lore Master Wizard (which I am playing right now) is by far the most useful and interesting part of the class: the changing damage types is very situational and saving throws is a nice touch, but the int skills really add flavor and fun. All this is to say, Rogues aren't quite that special when it comes to expertise. Besides, should a Rogue have better Insight than a Cleric, better nature than a Druid, better athletics than a Barbarian, or better arcana than a Wizard?

There is more to Rogues than expertise, and giving other classes a chance to be great at what they do fits their niches rather than detracting from the Rogue. And this at the cost of a feat.

 

[guachi]

So in short you have no other reason than you can pick up a Tool Proficiency within the game during downtime and you cannot do that with a Skill as your sole reason for why they do not equate to being equivalent. Instead of restating it with so many words why did you not just say. No I do not. As such your argument holds no water and as such I will at this time simply choose to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that as I am not a proponent of beating my head on a brick wall.

They aren't equivalent. Someone has done iterative analysis of races and derived point costs for everything. Tools/languages cost less than skills do.

If you have evidence other than "because I say so" for their equivalence, please provide it.

"I can learn a tool/Language" is at least actual evidence.

EDIT: Hunting down the actual analysis, tool/language proficiency is less than I thought. The author values both at zero points. A skill is valued at two points, the same as +1 to an ability score.

 

[DeJoker]

If you have evidence other than "because I say so" for their equivalence, please provide it.

Thieves Tools give you a Proficiency Bonus to doing Thiefy things that you cannot get any where else

Stealth (Skill) Proficiency gives you a Proficiency Bonus to doing Stealthy things that you cannot get any where else

Those seem pretty dang equivalent to me

"I can learn a tool/Language" is at least actual evidence.

But you missed the main point where I said, if you removed that option (because you can) from the game would it still not be equivalent? And the reply was basically I can learn a Tool proficiency -- ad nauseom

 

[ro]

Thieves Tools give you a Proficiency Bonus to doing Thiefy things that you cannot get any where else

Stealth (Skill) Proficiency gives you a Proficiency Bonus to doing Stealthy things that you cannot get any where else

Those seem pretty dang equivalent to me




But you missed the main point where I said, if you removed that option (because you can) from the game would it still not be equivalent? And the reply was basically I can learn a Tool proficiency -- ad nauseom

You are right that tool proficiencies are quite similar to skills. The problem with tool proficiencies is the lack of in-game importance for most of them. Whereas skills have a dedicated section in the PHB about all the ways they can be used, tools are pretty much ignored and thus rare to include in a campaign. Thieves' tools is the one exception. More guidance needs to be offered on how to make most tools an important part of most adventures. Otherwise, tools are ribbon features.

As it is, you could have a perfectly balanced tool proficiency feat:
You gain +1 to Dexterity and proficiency in all tools.

 

[clearstream]

But Bards get expertise, too, as do Knowledge Clerics. The expertise granted by the Lore Master Wizard (which I am playing right now) is by far the most useful and interesting part of the class: the changing damage types is very situational and saving throws is a nice touch, but the int skills really add flavor and fun. All this is to say, Rogues aren't quite that special when it comes to expertise. Besides, should a Rogue have better Insight than a Cleric, better nature than a Druid, better athletics than a Barbarian, or better arcana than a Wizard?

You are right to point out that Bards and Rogues are both skill-focused, my argument is intended to include them both. The Lore Wizard isn't free to have expertise in anything a rogue cares about, only in arcana, history, nature, or religion: that's an important constraint that speaks strongly to my argument. Rangers have similar benefits on Intelligence and Wisdom skills in favoured terrain.

Anyone can get the skills they need for their character concept via backgrounds. Being great at those skills though should go to the classes with that as their core tenet.

 

[guachi]

No, the still aren't equivalent.

"Grants me proficiency bonus" doesn't make things equal, but it does make them easier to compare. A first level spell and a ninth level spell may both take an action to cast, but that doesn't make them equal.

From a character creation stand point, tools and languages are rated equally during background selection. And, as stated above, analysis rates them equal for race selection - at zero.

Now, no class receives huge numbers of tools or languages for free, so there's no real test for how much getting, say, fifteen tool proficiencies would cost.

The skilled feat would seem to indicate that skills and tools are equal. But backgrounds indicate tools/languages are equal. And the linguist feat indicates that one skill is worth a bit more than two languages. So if you pick tools with the skilled feat you are intentionally picking something less valuable (in general. Presumably that tool is valuable to you)