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."

​

 

[Li Shenron]

Why do characters improve their ability scores? For Skills, primarily.

Really? In my experience >90% of the players take ASI to boost either their attacks or spellcasting.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Well, on the plus side, it's optional material, as are all feats!

On the other side, as folks have said - at our table at least, we don't need additional steps taken to codify things that our players can generally attempt with some roleplaying and DM support.

For example, a player chooses Menacing. The 'demoralize' ability challenges characters who don't have the feat. Can a player attempt to demoralize an enemy when their character does not have the Menacing feat? If they can, it makes the last part of the feat redundant.

If they can't, then we're introducing limits on general play, for the sake of a specific character concept. Where as before, a player who wished to play an intimidating bad ass could try to scare the willies out of a target with some clever roleplaying and DM support, now only those with the feat can do such a thing. Sure, we could decide that an enemy could be scared away, but to a lesser effect but see here, again, the feat when brought into play, has influenced an option, potentially reduced the effect of an action, simply through its attempt at codifying a possible roleplay result that was before available to all.

And I do appreciate that some folks are terrified/horrified of the idea of players and the DM having to work in unison, preferring to have clearly defined options so that they can better understand what they're character can and cannot attempt at a given moment. Personally that's not for me - I both DM and play, as does everyone at our table and we've had a fair amount of time to get a grip of where our game is at. And of course, a DM still needs to approve both Feats, and the use of playtest material.

So, this UA, is not for our table. For tables that embrace them - more power to you! Enjoy!

 

[Dualazi]

Man, I opened this one up with such high hopes, and then they were summarily dashed. I’m starting to get a little miffed with the quality of the UAs of late, because once they cleared the subclass options it really seems like the team is just out of steam creatively.

Most of these shouldn’t be feats at all, they should just be updated to the standard list of skill usages. Skills are already somewhat under-valued in my opinion, and creating more robust sub-systems for their use would just be way better than trying to gate questionable effects behind feats. Like the Medic feat, you can’t honestly tell me a fallible DC 15 check to maximize one HD is going to break the game, but it’s definitely another way to showcase the skill for small semi-reliable benefits.

Others are incredibly annoying, such as diplomat being a consequence-free spammable charm that I certainly won’t get tired of adjudicating as a DM at all. Some are ridiculous stretches of imagination, such as relating historical facts somehow making another person better at a given task.

However, the absolute worst element of this UA is that it is yet again a prime example of creatively bankrupt designers slapping spellcasting onto a problem and calling it a day. Being a skilled survivalist does not mean that you rely on spellcraft to do so.

As for the ongoing discussion about perception specifically; yes, it is in fact unacceptable in my opinion to reach such high levels of passive perception. Traps are a storied element of D&D history and I find the game to lose a lot of tension and excitement when they are essentially removed from play, without the PC in question even needing to try. Other skills are not as bound by this because they usually don’t have as wide-reaching effects on the party as a whole, but perception has been given undue importance for a long time and this only adds to that.

 

[cbwjm]

The issue of expertise can be framed two ways:

(a) there is a problem that needs fixing, and that problem is the distinctive Rogue ability of Expertise, shared to a lesser degree by the Bard and the Knowledge cleric. From that perspective, these feats weaken those specific classes, and dilute their niche. These classes are also less likely to draw on the skill specialization feats than any other class, having less choice.

(b) there is a problem that needs fixing, and the problem is character dipping into Rogue for 1 level in order to take advantage of Expertise and +1d6 Sneak Attack. From that perspective, these feats reduce the incentive to dip.

So, given that both of these views (or ones closely related to them) have been expressed in this thread, the question is, which of them better describes an issue faced by the majority of players?

In my experience there's no contest: I have seen very few 1-level Rogue dips in actual play (theory, sure, but not when people play through the levels). If that is generally true, then the net result of these feats is weakening the Rogue. Does this help in the long run? I would say no.

A third option is that literally neither a nor b are an actual problem that needs fixing.

 

[unknowable]

Personally I am alllrright with the general concept but I don't think it has been implemented all that well. Not all of these skills need feats and I would argue for cutting the list down.
Some are stupidly powerful and reliable in combat, menacing and silver-tongued I am looking at both of you.

Acrobatics - I am not a fan, too many combat implications and ignoring difficult terrain while not game destroying seems powerful and of regular use to an already powerful feat with a powerful ASI. It really doesn't need that ASI.

Animal handler - Stomps all over beast master rangers even further. (hey guys, one feat makes your class feature inept). I would argue that this one doesn't need an ASI either. It is niche, but powerful for the niche.

Arcanist - Would be better off with detect magic and identify, no ASI and no presti. I know it might seem powerful with two level 1 spells but the spells are still 1/pd and of very specific usage. Great for "magic scholars" who aren't wizards, or parties that don't have any arcane casters but still want to identify/detect magic.

Brawny, too powerful... doesn't need to be in the game imo. The double carry capacity has little or large implications depending on the DM running limits on how much a character can carry or not. But athletics expertise is too much to get with the ASI and as a feat.

Diplomat - Decent, arguably nothing special though. Generally getting advantage on subsequent interaction rolls with someone who is willing to talk to you politely for 1 minute isn't hugely important.

Empathic - I would rather this be called "insightful", but that aside... The bonus action is generally weak. It is humanoids only, an action and can fail.

Historian - Not a fan of the bonus feature. Thematically it seems irritating "oh you want to pick that lock, let me tell you about locks".

Investigator - No problems here, a bonus action search is situational but expertise in search is great and the ASI is great.

Medic - Weak, very weak. Medicine checks are already kinda moot with spare the dying and healers kits existing as well as the DC being a mere 10 normally. The bonus is really weak too and I would direct anyone to the Healer feat without a second thought.

Menacing - WAY too powerful, frightened is a powerful effect and the fact that this replaces an an attack means a fighter can spam it out without too much fear of failure due to expertise. The lack of real limits and the cost a measly attack is the problem here.

Naturalist - The spells seem odd, I would probably remove the ASI and bonuses while combing this and survivalist.

Perceptive - Doesn't need to be in the game. We have alert and observant already. The bonus ability is also kinda weak.

Performer - Very very weak and the bonus effect isn't something I would codify, I would argue this makes it seem like you cannot distract with a performance normally. Which means performance has even less uses that require a roll than normal.

Quick-Fingered - This is fine, again though probably drop the ASI... It doesn't have to appeal to everyone and rogues already get an equivalent. Appealing to niche builds with feats is fine.

Silver-Tongued - Good lord no, coupling this with menacing makes for a horrible fighter that WILL lock down single enemies in the most horrible of ways. Too many benefits from that bonus ability.

Stealthy - I am fine with the bonus ability, I am not a fan of giving out easy stealth expertise though as it really is powerful and if someone were to get expertise I would argue that the ASI is probably too much given the regular benefits they are getting anyway.

Survivalist - As I said before, I would remove the ASI and roll this into Naturalist while removing the spells. Survival RAW has a lot of uses aslong as the GM doesn't hand wave them all, but none of it is really combat or role breaking.

Theologian - -shrugs- I like detect evil and good, but am not a huge fan of thaumaturgy. Not because I think it is broken. I just don't think it fits.

I have mixed feelings here...
One open question is actually whether this 'double bonus' could be allowed to stack with Expertise. I don't think this is the RAI, but it might be an idea to preserve the Rogue's edge on skills, at the expense however of increasing that edge even more up.

RAW = No
RAI = No

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. For example, the rogue's Expertise feature doubles the proficiency bonus for certain ability checks. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still add it only once and multiply or divide it only once."

 

[Ath-kethin]

Man, I opened this one up with such high hopes, and then they were summarily dashed. I’m starting to get a little miffed with the quality of the UAs of late, because once they cleared the subclass options it really seems like the team is just out of steam creatively.

This exactly the opposite of my reaction. I've been happy with the most recent ones because I had absolutely no need for more (and more redundant and increasingly uninspired and/or unnecessary) subclasses. I've been really digging the UA's since they pulled back out of that ditch.

 

[Dualazi]

This exactly the opposite of my reaction. I've been happy with the most recent ones because I had absolutely no need for more (and more redundant and increasingly uninspired and/or unnecessary) subclasses. I've been really digging the UA's since they pulled back out of that ditch.

Right, I was mostly the same. While there were some really good ones, there were a lot of duds and there are areas of the game in more dire need of help. That's the problem though, most of the recent offering for non-class related stuff sucks, and I was hoping for it to be the real meat and potatoes of the UA run. Some stuff just doesn't even function (mass combat), there are redundancy and math issues (downtime activities), and now this with what should have just been a generic skill expansion being gated behind feats of questionable value. I'm honestly a little depressed that the spells expansion was one of the better UAs, since it gave a lot of new good options like Zephyr Strike.

 

[dwayne]

Seeing as feats are optional an not as common as they are in 3.x edition i don't see an issue. As per players book feats are an option, just like these are up to the DM to use or not. If all else adjust them as you see fit after all part of it that is required is to use your imagination

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

For example, a player chooses Menacing. The 'demoralize' ability challenges characters who don't have the feat. Can a player attempt to demoralize an enemy when their character does not have the Menacing feat? If they can, it makes the last part of the feat redundant.

I'm not sure whether you have understood the wording of that feat. A player can attempt to demoralise an enemy without the feat. This would usually take an action I believe, and might get the creature to back off, or a number of other effects.
With the feat, it only requires an attack, allowing a character with multiple attacks to inflict the Frightened condition on more than one creature, or hit one and scare another etc.

If they can't, then we're introducing limits on general play, for the sake of a specific character concept. Where as before, a player who wished to play an intimidating bad ass could try to scare the willies out of a target with some clever roleplaying and DM support, now only those with the feat can do such a thing. Sure, we could decide that an enemy could be scared away, but to a lesser effect but see here, again, the feat when brought into play, has influenced an option, potentially reduced the effect of an action, simply through its attempt at codifying a possible roleplay result that was before available to all.

If you would normally allow a character to inflict the full Frightened conditioned on a creature in place of an attack, then the feat isn't going to be as useful in your game.
A player might still want to take it because they want to play the intimidating badass and don't want to splash rogue or bard. At which point they can talk to you and you decide whether the rest of the feat is worthwhile, or tweak the last point so that it is useful in your game.

 

[Henry]

I'm torn by these prospective feats because, on one hand, double proficiency feels "too good", and putting bounded accuracy at some risk, but on the other hand, I've also felt since 5e debuted that skill bonuses are too low. A +5 or +6 sounds good at first level; however, by level 5 or level 9 a +9 sounds far too piddly to represent a level of high proficiency, and that represents the Pinnacle of human ability coupled with training. (Note I'm leaving out perception and Observant/Perceptive feats here; I'm speaking more of the non-combat feats like History, Animal Handling, Arcana, etc.)

However, a +13 or 14 feels like way too much; you've destroyed all but DC 25 challenges and up.DC 20 and less are trivial at that level. I really don't know what the best answer is.