D&D 5E PHB Feats taken - RESULTS

Satyrn

First Post
I really like that trained feat with the removal of the "Expertise" clause. I agree that should not be in a generic feat. Everything else looks really good though.

I'm gonna say ditto, sort of.

I'd like to see the Expertise made significantly more expensive. Like, 4 points. Maybe even 5. I just think that if it's cheap to buy - and if several players jump on the bargain - it'll devalue regular proficiency and encourage the DM to inflate DCs to counter widespread use.

That is, I'd be concerned that widespread Expertise would wreak a little havoc on bounded accuracy. So it ought to be expensive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

clearstream

(He, Him)
All expertise skills will improve greatly with proficiency bonus, even when not in a preferred stat.
As others have said, this will lead to a general problem against bounded accuracy.

Making expertise cost more implies that the Knowledge Domain's 1st level feature is overpowered relative to other Cleric Domains. Do you believe that this is the case?
Blessings of Knowledge has the important constraint that it only applies expertise to Arcana, History, Nature or Religion. Those don't impinge on the core skills for Rogue.

Yes, somewhat overshadowed by a Fighter who chooses not to improve his fighting. You mentioned Rogues getting Expertise at 1st level, but you left out Sneak Attack (and Thieves' Cant). At 6th, the Rogue gets two more expertise, and the Fighter gets his ASI/Feat, say Trained for 5 expertise.
Thieves Cant is a ribbon. Sneak Attack is reasonable, but doesn't compete with Fighters once they have their Extra Attacks, bonus action attacks (from various sources), and possible reaction attacks (e.g. Riposte). It isn't correct that Rogue out-damages Fighter.

6th Rogue with Rapier, Studded Leather, 18 Dex (ASI), AC 16
6th Fighter with Rapier and Shield, Breastplate, 16 Dex, AC 18, Shield Master

Rogue almost always one attack at +7, d8+4+3d6 = 8-30
Fighter two attacks at +6 (with advantage, opponent is prone), d8+5 (dueling) + 2d8+5 (superiority die) = 13-34

Expected AC 15, Rogue hits 0.65, Fighter hits 0.84 (advantage). Rogue expects about 12 damage, Fighter expects about 20. Shield Master is strong, but Fighter could be exploiting PAM or GWM and doing more than 20. And Fighter can at some point use Action Surge to spike their damage much higher (in practice Action Surge beats out Assassinate).

Uncanny Dodge is beneficial. Foe has an expected +5 or +6 to hit. Rogue is hit about 0.5 of the time. Fighter is hit about 0.4 of the time. Most foes are multi-attacking at 6th level. So Rogue mitigates one to 0.25 but not the other. In practice, Cunning Action for Dash or Disengage is the Rogues' greatest ally.

Rogues have better damage than Fighters
Rogues have much better damage mitigation than Fighters
Rogues get an extra language (1 point), but Fighters have expertise in one skill!
The analysis omits multi-attack and the superiority of the Fighter archetype features to those of Rogue. We need to remember that the Rogue is likely spending their 4th level ASI most profitably on Dexterity, while the Fighter can take Shield Master (which expertise in Athletics will make godly, as an aside). Thieves' Cant is a ribbon - I'm surprised you're including it at all - but Fighter has it from Spy in any case.

Taking Trained for 5 expertise, Fighters are weaker than Rogues.
Fighter out fights Rogue, and has an additional skill with expertise (five to Rogues' four).

All this is to say that I don't think expertise in this feat is unbalanced. But I think it is fine to keep a note there saying that DMs can adjust that if it causes problems at their tables. As discussing any feat, we always have to remember that there is always a trade off: the opportunity cost of the best other feat or +2 ASI to your most important stat(s).
The question most of all is what your design goals are? If it satisfies your design goals to make this feat much stronger and over-shadow Rogues, then you should do it. That's different from arguing that the feat is balanced or unbalanced. I think balance in RPGs is all about three things

1) Broaden options (make many different strategies viable)
2) Don't warp the narrative (nothing that forces every scenario to warp around it)
3) Let them shine (no overshadowing)

I think Trained narrows options by making Rogue less viable, while broadening options by giving other classes more to play with. My guess is, we lose more from loss of Rogues than we gain for other classes. Trained might turn out to warp the narrative, because it might pressure bounded accuracy. DMs might have to react by pushing up all their numbers. Finally, Trained clearly does not let Rogues shine. It lets Fighters (and other classes, no doubt) shine more, but for me the overshadowing of Rogues doesn't look well repaid because those other classes almost all already have their own ways to shine.
 

DeJoker

First Post
Hey all -- like to toss a curve ball out there and pose a question of my own about something similar but not what you are all talking about -- hope you do not mind

Currently for a nominal charge and some downtime a character can pick up any Tool Proficiency or Language that they want

What if that were broadened to allow them to pick up any Proficiency or Language that they wanted

1) Would this break anything overall ?
2) How much time and money should be charged for the various Proficiency Types (Skills, Tools, Weapon, Armor)
3) The most logical cap to this would be ones Intelligence but does that sound balanced (and if yes how to apply this to Weapons should they be categorized?)
4) Any other questions that you can think of that ought to be asked
 


ro

First Post
As others have said, this will lead to a general problem against bounded accuracy.

That is a fair question. If expertise creates a problem against bounded accuracy, is it ok for the rogue or bard to have it?

Blessings of Knowledge has the important constraint that it only applies expertise to Arcana, History, Nature or Religion. Those don't impinge on the core skills for Rogue.

Indeed. Nor does a general granting of access to expertise. The rogue's core skills are only impinged on if a player wants his character to be roguish. Even so, rogues have other class features that make them superior in these skills, even if others share expertise.

]QUOTE]Thieves Cant is a ribbon.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It is a language, and so I give it one point from Trained.

Sneak Attack is reasonable, but doesn't compete with Fighters once they have their Extra Attacks, bonus action attacks (from various sources), and possible reaction attacks (e.g. Riposte). It isn't correct that Rogue out-damages Fighter.

Notice that my break down includes Extra Attack and shows Sneak Attack to be stronger at level 6.

6th Rogue with Rapier, Studded Leather, 18 Dex (ASI), AC 16
6th Fighter with Rapier and Shield, Breastplate, 16 Dex, AC 18, Shield Master

Rogue almost always one attack at +7, d8+4+3d6 = 8-30
Fighter two attacks at +6 (with advantage, opponent is prone), d8+5 (dueling) + 2d8+5 (superiority die) = 13-34

Expected AC 15, Rogue hits 0.65, Fighter hits 0.84 (advantage). Rogue expects about 12 damage, Fighter expects about 20. Shield Master is strong, but Fighter could be exploiting PAM or GWM and doing more than 20. And Fighter can at some point use Action Surge to spike their damage much higher (in practice Action Surge beats out Assassinate).

Your analysis includes specific archetype features rather than looking at base classes. Yes, certain archetypes are more damaging than others, but the others have other benefits. When comparing classes as a whole, we should reasonably assume that the archetypes are roughly balanced having features that offset each other through various parts of gameplay.

As to advantage, the rogue can easily hide and gain advantage through that.

Uncanny Dodge is beneficial. Foe has an expected +5 or +6 to hit. Rogue is hit about 0.5 of the time. Fighter is hit about 0.4 of the time. Most foes are multi-attacking at 6th level. So Rogue mitigates one to 0.25 but not the other. In practice, Cunning Action for Dash or Disengage is the Rogues' greatest ally.

Also note that a stealthy fighter would have disadvantage from heavy armor, but with a shield would probably have an AC of 17 or 18. If the rogue took +2 Dex at 4th, he should have an AC of 16. (Studded leather is inexpensive.)

Even with your analysis, optimizing your fighter, he is only out-damaging the rogue by 4 out of 30.

Even more importantly, we are comparing fighter to rogue under the assertion that the fighter is outshining the rogue at roguish things. This implies that there is both a rogue and a fighter in the party. If there were only one, why would we care? But if both are present, then (depending on initiative order) your rogue would also gain advantage from his opponent being prone by Shield Master. The Fighter and the Rogue work as a team, not as adversaries.

Meanwhile, the rogue is still dominating checks, with a minimum roll of 10 on every check. The rogue is still the stealthiest and sneakiest, though maybe he has a teammate who can almost keep up. Now instead of scouting ahead of the party all alone, the rogue has a partner. When the partner fighter/ranger/whoever gets found out, the enemy says, "Ha! I knew there was a rogue in here!" Meanwhile, the even more stealthy real rogue stabs him in the back. Go rogues!

The analysis omits multi-attack

No, I included Extra Attack.

and the superiority of the Fighter archetype features to those of Rogue.

I did not compare archetype features, only base class features. If the archetypes are unbalanced, that is a different question, and we are then comparing subclasses. Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are fairly balanced. I don't know the others. I am not trying to optimize builds but compare base classes.

We need to remember that the Rogue is likely spending their 4th level ASI most profitably on Dexterity, while the Fighter can take Shield Master (which expertise in Athletics will make godly, as an aside).

You point out that the Fighter could pick Shield Master or other feats. The rogue, too could pick a feat, like Sharpshooter or Magic Initiate. Or Trained. There are lots of options that a rogue can do other than trying to be just like a fighter. The rogue's Dex would match the fighters then, but he'd have new abilities to compensate.

Thieves' Cant is a ribbon - I'm surprised you're including it at all - but Fighter has it from Spy in any case.

The rogue also has a background, which evens out Spy.

Fighter out fights Rogue, and has an additional skill with expertise (five to Rogues' four).

The question most of all is what your design goals are? If it satisfies your design goals to make this feat much stronger and over-shadow Rogues, then you should do it.

I don't think that allowing class to taste a little bit of flavor from each other overshadows any of them. Each is still better at its specialties, and each still has a role to play in the game. All choices have trade-offs, and no class is strictly superior to any other. Even the much maligned Ranger is great at what it does if he isn't a Beastmaster (and not completely terrible there, either), and if exploration and difficult terrain are included in an adventure. If we are comparing any class to rogue for roguish skills, the ranger rather than the fighter would be most likely to overlap.

Picking out the fighter's extra ASI assumes that the fighter is overpowered to get that ASI at all. What about the rogue, the only other class that gets bonus ASIs? Are rogues overpowered compared to everybody else?

That's different from arguing that the feat is balanced or unbalanced. I think balance in RPGs is all about three things

1) Broaden options (make many different strategies viable)
2) Don't warp the narrative (nothing that forces every scenario to warp around it)
3) Let them shine (no overshadowing)

I think Trained narrows options by making Rogue less viable, while broadening options by giving other classes more to play with. My guess is, we lose more from loss of Rogues than we gain for other classes. Trained might turn out to warp the narrative, because it might pressure bounded accuracy. DMs might have to react by pushing up all their numbers. Finally, Trained clearly does not let Rogues shine. It lets Fighters (and other classes, no doubt) shine more, but for me the overshadowing of Rogues doesn't look well repaid because those other classes almost all already have their own ways to shine.

Trained definitely broadens options, for every class, but your critique focuses on narrowing options to optimize the fighter. Yes, Trained allows fighters to gain expertise and be more roguish, but it also allows rogues to get better in armor and weapons. Looking at the classes as a whole, this feat offers something to everybody.

Trained doesn't warp the narrative, except for the worry about bounded accuracy which should already exist with rogues as it is: this can be mitigated with the most recent alteration I made, limiting the amount of expertise you can take at one time. But rogues are still rogues, and fighters are still fighters. Each class has its place.

Nor does Trained prevent rogues from shining, as they are still the best at every skill with a minimum 10 roll. If anything, it allows the Rogue to be even more phenomenal in skills at large, and to allows the Ranger to shine in its stealthy scouting, a core trait of the class!

It is vital to remember that each class is part of one character, but characters are on a team. You should be balancing your party, not competing player-to-player.
 


clearstream

(He, Him)
That is a fair question. If expertise creates a problem against bounded accuracy, is it ok for the rogue or bard to have it?
Yes, because it is a minority of characters who are intended to shine at skill use.

Indeed. Nor does a general granting of access to expertise. The rogue's core skills are only impinged on if a player wants his character to be roguish. Even so, rogues have other class features that make them superior in these skills, even if others share expertise.
Indeed, the Rogue's core skills are only impinged if she wants to play a Rogue :p

Also note that a stealthy fighter would have disadvantage from heavy armor, but with a shield would probably have an AC of 17 or 18. If the rogue took +2 Dex at 4th, he should have an AC of 16. (Studded leather is inexpensive.)
Please notice I gave the Fighter a breastplate. No stealth disadvantage. AC 18. I gave the Rogue studded leather, AC 16.

Even with your analysis, optimizing your fighter, he is only out-damaging the rogue by 4 out of 30.
Please note where I show that Fighter is dealing an expected 20 damage per round, and Rogue an expected 12, assuming Sneak Attack can be triggered every round. [Edited]

Even more importantly, we are comparing fighter to rogue under the assertion that the fighter is outshining the rogue at roguish things. This implies that there is both a rogue and a fighter in the party. If there were only one, why would we care? But if both are present, then (depending on initiative order) your rogue would also gain advantage from his opponent being prone by Shield Master. The Fighter and the Rogue work as a team, not as adversaries.
We will see far fewer Rogues, once they're no longer needed on the exploration pillar.

No, I included Extra Attack.
Multiattack isn't Extra Attack. Your assessment of Uncanny Dodge discounts that it only triggers once per round. Creatures at the relevant levels use multiattack: only one of their attacks can be mitigated by Uncanny Dodge per round.

You point out that the Fighter could pick Shield Master or other feats. The rogue, too could pick a feat, like Sharpshooter or Magic Initiate. Or Trained. There are lots of options that a rogue can do other than trying to be just like a fighter. The rogue's Dex would match the fighters then, but he'd have new abilities to compensate.
Please notice that I gave the Rogue an ASI to maximise her damage output and armor class. She has no spare feats at that level. If we drop the ASI, the Rogue will be no better at any of her skills than the Fighter, and also take more damage and deal less damage. Remember, the Fighter gets Trained + an ASI. The Rogue gets only an ASI.

The rogue also has a background, which evens out Spy.
The Rogue's additional skill picks are less valuable than the Fighter's because both have already picked up all of the most relevant skills. Nominate a background and take a look.
 
Last edited:

ro

First Post
Yes, because it is a minority of characters who are intended to shine at skill use.

True. Do you think most characters will take Trained to boost to expertise? Or will they prioritize other feats or ASIs?

Indeed, the Rogue's core skills are only impinged if she wants to play a Rogue :p

Haha. :) I meant, of course, if a non-rogue character wants to be roguish, that will impinge on rogues. But rogues could want to be tankish and impinge on others, too. It goes both ways.

Please notice I gave the Fighter a breastplate. No stealth disadvantage. AC 18. I gave the Rogue studded leather, AC 16.

I think I misread the Rogue number. I thought it said 15. My bad.

Please note where I show that Fighter is dealing an expected 20 damage per round, and Rogue an expected 12, assuming Sneak Attack can be triggered every round. [Edited]

I'm not seeing this. The numbers you have there are Rogue: d8 + 4 + 3d6 = 19 and Fighter: d8 + 5 + 2d8 + 5 = 23.5. How are you using a superiority die to get 2d8 + 5 damage? (I don't know superiority dice well.)

Multiattack isn't Extra Attack. Your assessment of Uncanny Dodge discounts that it only triggers once per round. Creatures at the relevant levels use multiattack: only one of their attacks can be mitigated by Uncanny Dodge per round.

I misunderstood what you were saying about multiattack. Yes, Uncanny Dodge applies only once per round, but it mitigates a good bit of damage each round. Second Wind, on the other hand, is once per rest. Uncanny Dodge overall will save a lot more HP.

Please notice that I gave the Rogue an ASI to maximise her damage output and armor class. She has no spare feats at that level. If we drop the ASI, the Rogue will be no better at any of her skills than the Fighter, and also take more damage and deal less damage. Remember, the Fighter gets Trained + an ASI. The Rogue gets only an ASI.

Yes, the Fighter, unlike everybody else, gets an extra ASI. The Fighter and Rogue, unlike everybody else, get extra ASIs later. Nobody potentially gains from feats like Fighters and Rogues, as they are both rather SAD, and they have more ASIs.

In your example, the extra ASI the Fighter gets is also a big boost to his Rogue ally. Is this a problem?

And again I raise the question, if this extra ASI makes Fighters too good, why do they get it?

The Rogue's additional skill picks are less valuable than the Fighter's because both have already picked up all of the most relevant skills. Nominate a background and take a look.

The Rogue can take things other than skills.

People don't play Rogues just for Expertise. Otherwise they'd leave after first level. The Rogue is a unique class with many special class features which are not at all limited to Expertise. Allowing other classes to do better at their skills will not harm the popularity of the Rogue.
 

Satyrn

First Post
True. Do you think most characters will take Trained to boost to expertise? Or will they prioritize other feats or ASIs?

That will depend on the table. I think a table with heavy - whatever definition of ueavy use you want to use - skill use will focus on the expertise part (and at 2 points per, one feat gets them expertise in all their proficiencies). Very quickly, most of the characters will have expertise in most of their skills. And it will start to feel like a feat tax. That's my guess, anyway.

At a table without heavy skill use, it won't matter, because few players will care enough to bother.

Now I know I've not presented this point terribly well, but I feel like I just argued myself into deciding I don't want feats of any sort to provide expertise.
 

ro

First Post
The more I think about Expertise and Bounded Accuracy, the more I want to limit Expertise. I do, however, think it is something that should be available, if in limited amounts. The Rogue and the Bard each get Expertise for only two skills at a time, and this feat should follow that same maximum.

TRAINED
You may take this feat more than once.

You gain any combination of the following benefits, adding up to 10 points:

5 points: Increase one ability score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
4 points: Learn a cantrip(1), or gain proficiency in light armor, medium armor(2) and shields, or heavy armor(3).
3 points: Gain proficiency in simple weapons, martial weapons(4), or shields.
2 points: Gain proficiency in a skill(5).
1 point: Gain proficiency in a tool(6), language, or weapon.

(1)If you learn a cantrip, you may choose Wisdom, Intelligence, or Charisma as the spellcasting ability modifier for that cantrip.
(2)You must be proficient in simple weapons before gaining proficiency in martial weapons.
(3)You must be proficient in light armor before gaining proficiency in medium armor.
(4)You must be proficient in medium armor before gaining proficiency in heavy armor.
(5)(6)Expertise: If you choose a skill or tool that you are already proficient in, then your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses that skill or tool. You may gain both proficiency and expertise in a skill or tool through one use of this feat. You may gain expertise in at most two skills or tools each time you select this feat.
(6)At the DM's discretion, proficiency for a particularly useful tool may cost 2 points rather than 1 point.​
 

Remove ads

Top