D&D 5E PHB Feats taken - RESULTS

[DeJoker]

No, the still aren't equivalent. "Grants me proficiency bonus" doesn't make things equal,

Okay so you argue that the Skill Proficiency History is not equivalent to Skill Proficiency Stealth even though they are definitely equivalent but History is not all that useful in most games? Or are those two actually equivalent and the only thing lacking is someone implementing something within a game to make the need for History as prevalent as the need for Stealth?

So again I disagree with you as you are simply discounting something due to players not using them very much and that is extremely game dependent for instance you are in a game were every door you encounter is not only locked but trapped that Theives Tool proficiency is going to become EXTREMELY useful conversely if you are in a game where you never encounter a locked or trapped anything that proficiency will be next to useless. Same applies to the Stealth Skill Proficiency if you are in a game where sneaking around never comes into play that skill becomes completely useless much like many of the Intelligence skills are and many folks have argued that point as well but again the issue is not with the Skill Proficiency nor the Tool Proficiency as to whether they are or are not a viable ability in a game that aspect entirely rests on the shoulders of the GM. Thus just because they are not "commonly used" in most folks perspectives just means most folks seem to lack the imagination as to how to make them viable.

I know this why... well because I am right now trying to outline things that you can use all those fairly "useless" skills to make them just as important to a player as Perception and Stealth are for most players.

 

[ro]

Bards and Rogues are both skill-focused, but Bards are less intruded upon by making expertise available to all, because they have more strings to their bow. 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 a similar benefit 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.

Is it correct to understand that you think background skill should be lesser than class or race skills?

You could change the feat to say, "You gain +1 to the ability score of your choice and proficiency in three skills or tools of your choice. Instead of gaining proficiency in a skill or tool, you may gain expertise in a skill or tool you are already proficient in through your class or race."

But why are backgrounds inferior? All of the backgrounds are past careers. Isn't a class just your present career? Why shouldn't you be able to build on past career experience by improving your skills and keeping them fresh?

Honestly, it makes more sense for race and background skills to be *stronger* than class skills. Your race you have had your whole life. You have had your background for many years. You have been adventuring for... a few days? A dozen combats?

 

[DeJoker]

But why are backgrounds inferior? All of the backgrounds are past careers. Isn't a class just your present career? Why shouldn't you be able to build on past career experience by improving your skills and keeping them fresh?

You can by having the players start at a higher level then 1 and implement a class to correspond to the back ground they chose, something I am actually planning on doing because I tend to run a rather dangerous game and as such I prefer to start characters at 3rd level using those 1st 3 levels to fully reflect there background skills -- that most folks put into their background stories but then are not reflected in that characters 1st level character because it is impossible to do.

 

[clearstream]

Is it correct to understand that you think background skill should be lesser than class or race skills?

I think the answer is "no, they are the same" but I might not be following your intent with this question. For the first couple of picks, a skill is a skill. Then they have diminishing value i.e. your seventh skill pick is likely something you wanted a lot less than your first couple.

You could change the feat to say, "You gain +1 to the ability score of your choice and proficiency in three skills or tools of your choice. Instead of gaining proficiency in a skill or tool, you may gain expertise in a skill or tool you are already proficient in through your class or race."

My take on it is ""You gain +1 to the ability score of your choice and proficiency in three skills or tools of your choice." No expertise. We have to keep in mind her that those three possible expertise picks are going to go into the most valued skills, and will converge on picks that step hardest on the toes of bards and rogues. People aren't going to play nice and take History (unless that's forced, as a Lore Wizard), they're grabbing thieves' tools, stealth, perception, persuasion etc.

But why are backgrounds inferior? All of the backgrounds are past careers. Isn't a class just your present career? Why shouldn't you be able to build on past career experience by improving your skills and keeping them fresh?

There seems to be some confusion here. Who introduced the argument that background skills are inferior? That sure wasn't me!

 

[ro]

I think the answer is "no, they are the same" but I might not be following your intent with this question. For the first couple of picks, a skill is a skill. Then they have diminishing value i.e. your seventh skill pick is likely something you wanted a lot less than your first couple.


My take on it is ""You gain +1 to the ability score of your choice and proficiency in three skills or tools of your choice." No expertise. We have to keep in mind her that those three possible expertise picks are going to go into the most valued skills, and will converge on picks that step hardest on the toes of bards and rogues. People aren't going to play nice and take History (unless that's forced, as a Lore Wizard), they're grabbing thieves' tools, stealth, perception, persuasion etc.


There seems to be some confusion here. Who introduced the argument that background skills are inferior? That sure wasn't me!

Confusion is very possible.

I'm trying to look at it this way: Regardless of the source of your skills, your character spent time to become proficient in them. The choice of a career (class) grants additional skills. You cannot gain expertise without first having proficiency. If you have perception at all, for example, then you are a gifted Perceiver and it should be possible for you to improve on your perception to the level of Expertise. You could do so officially as part of your job (Rogue, Bard), or unofficially as outside-of-work training (a Feat). Maybe your employer sent you to conferences and a night class on improving perception. It makes sense that a character would gain expertise in the skills most useful to him.

I think your objection is more to skill choices in the first place as an RP matter. Should every character really be proficient in Perception? Probably not. And, not all classes and backgrounds offer that option. The only PCs who can maximize a certain skill are the ones who chose it in the first place.

Now, I agree that your Rogue should be the most stealthy character in most cases, and in maxing not only stealth with expertise but also dex, that is a reasonable result. Even a super expertised Cleric is unlikely to match a Rogue, having less dex.

Maybe class skills should be done entirely differently:

What if for every class skill your character gains a +1 for every two class levels? Then, don't grant proficiency for those skills: your proficiency is your class level. A Level 20 Rogue will have + Dex + 10 Stealth and a Wizard + Int + 10 Arcana. A wizard could obtain stealth through race or background, and proficiency and expertise could work as normal there, or maybe instead you would have half proficiency and full proficiency.

 

[clearstream]

I'm trying to look at it this way: Regardless of the source of your skills, your character spent time to become proficient in them. The choice of a career (class) grants additional skills. You cannot gain expertise without first having proficiency. If you have perception at all, for example, then you are a gifted Perceiver and it should be possible for you to improve on your perception to the level of Expertise. You could do so officially as part of your job (Rogue, Bard), or unofficially as outside-of-work training (a Feat). Maybe your employer sent you to conferences and a night class on improving perception. It makes sense that a character would gain expertise in the skills most useful to him.

Ah, I see what you mean and now understand your emphasis on class, race and background. That all escaped me before because I thought you intended that a player could pick up a new skill and become an instant expert in that skill. So I make my first pick (of three) Thieves' Tools, and then my second pick (of three) Expertise in Thieves' Tools, and my third pick (of three) whatever.

I think your objection is more to skill choices in the first place as an RP matter. Should every character really be proficient in Perception? Probably not. And, not all classes and backgrounds offer that option. The only PCs who can maximize a certain skill are the ones who chose it in the first place.

Now, I agree that your Rogue should be the most stealthy character in most cases, and in maxing not only stealth with expertise but also dex, that is a reasonable result. Even a super expertised Cleric is unlikely to match a Rogue, having less dex.

With rolled stats, who knows? Our cleric rolled horribly and our fighter is great at everything! However, I think there is another problem. When balancing and constraining, we always have to interpret the player as an intelligent and foresightful actor, capable of planning. A player who sees a pathway to Expertise can prioritise their background choices differently. They can focus on something that is going to benefit along the Skilled pathway. Grabbing Spy and then Skilled, a Variant-Human Fighter who is planning on the finesse duelist route (so high Dexterity), has about outmoded the Rogue, at level 1.

 

[ro]

Ah, I see what you mean and now understand your emphasis on class, race and background. That all escaped me before because I thought you intended that a player could pick up a new skill and become an instant expert in that skill. So I make my first pick (of three) Thieves' Tools, and then my second pick (of three) Expertise in Thieves' Tools, and my third pick (of three) whatever.

Yeah, I agree. I think going from nothing to expertise all in one shot is too much and should not be allowed.

With rolled stats, who knows? Our cleric rolled horribly and our fighter is great at everything! However, I think there is another problem. When balancing and constraining, we always have to interpret the player as an intelligent and foresightful actor, capable of planning. A player who sees a pathway to Expertise can prioritise their background choices differently. They can focus on something that is going to benefit along the Skilled pathway. Grabbing Spy and then Skilled, a Variant-Human Fighter who is planning on the finesse duelist route (so high Dexterity), has about outmoded the Rogue, at level 1.

Yes, but... The Rogue has expertise in more than one skill, and similarly could take the Skilled feat to get expertise in even more skills. That Fighter has to use two feats to get what the Rogue can get for free.

If you agree that it is odd for a Rogue to easily surpass a Wizard in Arcana and that it would make sense for other classes to have access to expertise in their specialties, what would then set the Rogue apart? Here are two things:
1) The Rogue has more skills with expertise: not surpassing a Wizard in Arcana perhaps, but matching many classes at their best.
2) The Rogue's expertise could be replaced with advantage on certain skill checks. Advantage preserves the theoretical maximum but allows more opportunities: maybe rogues are excellent multitaskers and abnormally swift at their decisions. A wizard might know more than the rogue, but the rogue might be faster at recalling all kinds of information.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, but... The Rogue has expertise in more than one skill, and similarly could take the Skilled feat to get expertise in even more skills. That Fighter has to use two feats to get what the Rogue can get for free.

If you agree that it is odd for a Rogue to easily surpass a Wizard in Arcana and that it would make sense for other classes to have access to expertise in their specialties, what would then set the Rogue apart? Here are two things:
1) The Rogue has more skills with expertise: not surpassing a Wizard in Arcana perhaps, but matching many classes at their best.
2) The Rogue's expertise could be replaced with advantage on certain skill checks. Advantage preserves the theoretical maximum but allows more opportunities: maybe rogues are excellent multitaskers and abnormally swift at their decisions. A wizard might know more than the rogue, but the rogue might be faster at recalling all kinds of information.

Hmm, starting with 2) I think we don't want to rewrite Expertise in order to buff a feat. That feels like the wrong way to go about things. Regarding 1) remember I'm arguing that the first pick is more important than the nth. We're not wrangling over expertise in an edge skill like Nature or History, we're wrangling over key skills and tools like Stealth, Perception and Thieves' Tools, and Persuasion and Deception. That Fighter used one feat, Skilled, not two. And with it, they invalidated the Rogue (because Fighters are also better single target strikers than Rogues, for better or worse). For me, it is the Rogues combination of first-class efficacy along the exploration pillar with reasonable (but by no means outstanding) efficacy in the combat pillar, that makes them appealing. That first-class efficacy is fundamentally facilitated by Expertise.

We also need to think about how much we are buffing the feat. Players take feats purposefully, with planning. So we're not going to see one edge skill get Expertise here, we're going to see our Fighter with Spy/Skilled applying Expertise to the trifecta of Thieves' Tools, Stealth and Perception. Or to Acrobatics or Athletics to make their Shield Mastery godly. I believe the correct evaluation of Expertise is that it three Expertise picks are worth hugely more than your fourth, fifth and sixth skill picks.

Skilled
Increase one ability score of your choice by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You can gain proficiency in any combination of three skills or tools of your choice, or you can choose one skill or tool that you are proficient with and your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses that skill or tool.

 

[ro]

I mentioned two feats for the Fighter because you said he is a Variant Human with Spy, which I assumed was one feat, and Skilled be a second one. What is Spy?

Skilled
Increase one ability score of your choice by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You can gain proficiency in any combination of three skills or tools of your choice, or you can choose one skill or tool that you are proficient with and your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses that skill or tool.

I think this is on the way to the goal, but though it is general and offers the three skill option, it is less powerful than any one of the UA Feats for Skills. I think there ought to be something more to it.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I have more reasons but I don't need them. It's a good reason. You have not refuted it.

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.

You have not tried to refute it though. All you've said is, "examine the feats and such and you will see" which isn't a refutation it's just you asserting you're correct.

250gp plus time is not as precious a resources as a feat slot, or an ASI, or a level in a class, which are the only ways to get better at a skill after first level. Other people have crunched the numbers and similarly found tool proficiency is not as valued by the designers as skill proficiency. So, there are good arguments supported by good math against your opinion.

Assuming you disagree, WHY? How does my argument hold no water, when it sure seems to be a pretty darn good argument that you have not disputed other than asserting your disagreement. [Edit - and I see someone else said almost the same thing to you over this same issue - so I am not alone in believing you're not supporting your argument and simply asserting it].