Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Get Better At Skills With These Feats

The latest Unearthed Arcana from Jeremy Crawford and again featuring guest writer Robert J. Schwalb introduces a number of feats which make you better at skills. Each increases the skill's primary ability score, doubles your proficiency bonus, and gives you a little bonus ability. "This week we introduce new feats to playtest. Each of these feats makes you better at one of the game’s eighteen skills. We invite you to read them, give them a try in play, and let us know what you think in the survey we release in the next installment of Unearthed Arcana."

​

 

[ShadoWWW]

Finally an easy way to get a skill proficiency on higher level. Sweet!

 

[OB1]

I agree in principle, but have a question for you. You say you'd let characters without the feat do these moves. Would you still let them do the moves as a bonus action? Because that is what a lot of these feats allow. You can do what other characters can, just faster/better. At least, that's how I see it.

Some of them I'd allow without an action or a bonus action!

But I do agree with your point more broadly, the ones where you are clearly turning something that is normally an action into a bonus action aren't as concerning. Perhaps all that is needed is a single feat.

Skill Mastery - (prerequisite, you are trained in the skill you are mastering) You gain +1 in the primary ability of a skill, can add double your proficiency with the skill, and any use of the skill that previously cost an action can be done using a bonus action instead.

With that you are opening up the game and the players to be more creative with their skills!

 

[thalmin]

I tend to like what they have done with these, but have issue withthe 3 spell-granting feats. +1 to ability score, proficiency or expertise in a skill, one cantrip and one 1st level spell (both specified). Compared to Magic Initiate: TWO cantrips and one 1st level spell (your choice), no ASI, no skill. I think the 1st level spell throws off the balance.

 

[ccooke]

I tend to like what they have done with these, but have issue withthe 3 spell-granting feats. +1 to ability score, proficiency or expertise in a skill, one cantrip and one 1st level spell (both specified). Compared to Magic Initiate: TWO cantrips and one 1st level spell (your choice), no ASI, no skill. I think the 1st level spell throws off the balance.

I think free choice makes a big difference in terms of power, to be honest. I'd definitely still pick it for a number of builds.

However, the language on the three spell-granting feats could do with being tightened up; the actual difference between them and Magic Initiate is that with Magic Initiate, the spell you get is associated with one class list, and only counts as learned for that class if you have levels of it. It also provides one spell slot - which these new feats do not. The slot can only be used to cast that one spell... unless you have levels in the requisite class, in which case you get an extra 1st level slot.

 

[Blue]

Fairly against this article. It fails several showstopping ways.

1. Many of these are the sorts of things that a character can already try. Now it's a gate where you can only do these with the appropriate feat.

Another category is "I want to become better at skill (non-magical) use, so no matter my concept you grant me magic". Hey, I want to become better at survival or knowledge(nature), so the solution is to give me a magical spell instead. This hits one of my hot-buttons (I lambasted several spells-replacing-skills in the recent spells UA feedback).

2. These are leveraging the "half-feat" mechanism to only give out a smaller benefit, but really feats are so scarce that these become rather wimpy. Sure, if you really want that ability score AND you have planned (probably from character creation) that a +1 will bump you to the next modifier, it's not bad. But otherwise it's trying to have lesser feats, which works better in a system with more frequent feats.

The corollary is that if you are now high levels and have already maxed you ability score can now afford to take second choice feats, there's a whole category of ones you won't take because you're already capped.

Sorry, dislike this whole article.

 

[castlewise]

This UA seems fun (double proficiences are already very powerful in the hands of a skilled rogue or bard) but it touches on an issue I have. My players have trouble keeping track of their non-spell abilities. Class and feat abilities tend to be a hodge podge when it comes to recharge times, costs and conditions. It would be nice if there was a way to standardize things a little bit. Something like spell cards but for abilities and features.

Edit: Will the non-cantrip spells offered by this feat follow the ruling for the 1st level Magic Initiate spell? That is, if you have a spell from one of these feats on your spell list then you can cast it using a spell slot?

 

[Mercule]

Finally an easy way to get a skill proficiency on higher level. Sweet!

You mean, other than the Skilled feat?

I'm particularly curious what other people think about the doubling of proficiency bonuses. I've been kinda skeptical whenever I've seen this particular rule used, because I feel like if it gets too common, it'll just lead to DC inflation. Basically, more skill checks that will be almost impossible to succeed on unless you're rocking a double proficiency.

I don't mind the idea of feats that grant a pattern of a) proficiency in a skill, b) a +1 to the base attribute, and c) a cute trick with that skill. I do not like the "double it if you've already got it", though. Expertise is a cute feature for classes that have an element of specialty to them. I actually don't even like the Bard's variable expertise and would prefer to see it restricted. Additionally, it actually changes the nature of the feat for those who already have the skill vs. those who don't. I don't like that dichotomy.

If you've already got the skill, don't take the feat. The cutesy perk should be a total ribbon, so that it doesn't actually matter -- or, it should be the point of the feat so that the proficiency isn't as critical. The prior pattern (for, say, background + class) was to allow the character to learn a different skill where there was an overlap. That could work here, too. Without the extra "double it" verbiage, that would be the implicit way to handle it.

I'm really surprised no one caught how much Observant + Perceptive could break things, too. By 20th level, that's a 32 Passive Perception (6*2 proficiency + 5 stat + 5 observant + 10 base). The impossible becomes routine.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

On a quick look, it appears just about perfect. This is a lot closer to what feats should look like in 5th edition than most of the current array in the PHB.

 

[nswanson27]

I'm kinda bummed they didn't offer buffed versioned of the existing feats that are underpowered but otherwise cool and thematic in theory.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm particularly curious what other people think about the doubling of proficiency bonuses. I've been kinda skeptical whenever I've seen this particular rule used, because I feel like if it gets too common, it'll just lead to DC inflation. Basically, more skill checks that will be almost impossible to succeed on unless you're rocking a double proficiency.

Up until now, I don't think it's felt too overused, but if these feats were put into the game...?

What do you think? Is this an unfounded concern?

I don't like it, and have reduced it to a +2 bonus for anything that is Expertise or doubling the proficiency bonus in our campaign. I also put a maximum proficiency bonus of +6.

This means that at 1st-level you have the equivalent proficiency level of a 9th-level character. At 5th level you are the same as a 13th-level character, and 9th level the same as a 17th-level character.

The cap is because I think there is a limit to how good you can be at something, at least from skill. That is, a 20th-level character represents the pinnacle of what a mortal can do. You just happen to reach it 9 levels earlier than most.