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."

​

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

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 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.

Aye - again, we're down to codifying what a player can/can't do with a skill/during play. I can see why some tables might need such guidelines, but at least at our table, we're happy to run things a bit looser. Perhaps if the third part of these feats were simply added to the skills section, and didn't require a player to invest in them with such a limited resource.

Actually, heck, yeah - I'd go for that. UA Skills: A way of using/codifying the cool things folks can do with skills, to help speed things up during play/help the DM work with the system to create consist rulings.

Rather than, UA Skills: Hey, here's some feats!

 

[Imaro]

Aye - again, we're down to codifying what a player can/can't do with a skill/during play.

I'm confused how does adding this to the skill system change the complaint... now we've "codified" it in the skill section as opposed to making it an optional feat. Furthermore I'd argue since the skill is supposed to encompass everything you can do with a check we would need more codification once we begin down that road. IMO, if you already houserule to allow things like conditions, bonus actions, etc. with just the basic use of a skill... you really don't need these feats or can just use them as examples of what's possible... but for those who think there should be an opportunity cost for being able to do things beyond the norm with skills they seem to work pretty good.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

In each case this is 1 ability point, a proficiency, and a nifty ability. Assuming that most of us will have already taken proficiency in the skills we care about, this basically comes down to trading one point of a stat for a nifty ability.

Is that a good trade?

I'll go through the list more carefully next week when it's time to fill out a survey, but from my initial scan I wouldn't make the trade for the vast majority of these (Diplomat, for example, might be an exception.)

This is the problem with Feats and ASIs: the straight +2 (or +1/+1) is statistically better than almost all of the feats. I hate being forced to choose between cool flavor (I love Mage Slayer, for example) and making the optimal choice.

With all of these feats, I could imagine running a campaign where Feats are mandatory and ASIs are disallowed.

 

[Monayuris]

I'm confused how does adding this to the skill system change the complaint... now we've "codified" it in the skill section as opposed to making it an optional feat. Furthermore I'd argue since the skill is supposed to encompass everything you can do with a check we would need more codification once we begin down that road. IMO, if you already houserule to allow things like conditions, bonus actions, etc. with just the basic use of a skill... you really don't need these feats or can just use them as examples of what's possible... but for those who think there should be an opportunity cost for being able to do things beyond the norm with skills they seem to work pretty good.

Agree that these should be examples of what is possible with a normal skill proficiency, and I think it is useful to have some idea of things that are possible. But the codifying skill actions into feats or spells, goes against guidelines of 'rulings, over rules' that 5E is built on. The more actions that get codified, the more likely rulings will tread on codified rules. Then they have to codify more actions to compensate.

Perosnally, I believe the opportunity cost for doing something beyond the norm with skills is the creativity and imagination of the player to attempt it.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I'm confused how does adding this to the skill system change the complaint... now we've "codified" it in the skill section as opposed to making it an optional feat.

It's two separate stances, not one, which are not meant to be compatible. The first is with regards to codification, pros & cons, with regards to the material as presented in the UA and my take on it. The second is based on if we have to have codification, then we could remove the feat requirements and focus on codifying the skills - or providing guidelines for folks that wish to do so.

 

[SkidAce]

I have not seen this as a problem people have been worried about. Have you? I think most people thing the gradual improvement of ability in proficient skills as one levels up is a good thing.

This is how I thought it worked.

Being better at a skill was expressed as being higher level (i.e. more experienced).

 

[Blue]

Also, survivalist should get a cantrip in addition to alarm spell.

I suggest Move earth cantrip from Elemental Evil.

Exactly what I want on my non-magical character who wants to get better at mundanely survivng and tracking and such. Or are PCs only allowed to be really good at something if they cast?

Dangit, casters already get so many spells that can replace what skills can do, do we now go the other way and even skilled characters now have magic. Is there no place in D&D for competent non-casters so that if it looks like you might be we'll just make you a caster?

 

[Imaro]

Agree that these should be examples of what is possible with a normal skill proficiency, and I think it is useful to have some idea of things that are possible. But the codifying skill actions into feats or spells, goes against guidelines of 'rulings, over rules' that 5E is built on. The more actions that get codified, the more likely rulings will tread on codified rules. Then they have to codify more actions to compensate.

Perosnally, I believe the opportunity cost for doing something beyond the norm with skills is the creativity and imagination of the player to attempt it.

I disagree with both assertions. I dont think we need more examples of what mormal skill usage entails as I like it being nebulous (with a few exceptions) and left for tha DM and players to define wiithin the parameters of their campaign...

I also think the special abilities of optional feats dovetail with this nicely... if what we would consider superhuman feats are already allowed by the DM through regular usge of skills... well then he just disallows skill feats because they are redundant in that particular campaign. However for those of us who don't (which I would argue is probably the majority) well then the skill feats are useful in allowing and regulating that type of skill usage beyond regular proficiency and applications.

 

[Imaro]

It's two separate stances, not one, which are not meant to be compatible. The first is with regards to codification, pros & cons, with regards to the material as presented in the UA and my take on it. The second is based on if we have to have codification, then we could remove the feat requirements and focus on codifying the skills - or providing guidelines for folks that wish to do so.

See above for why i'm not a fan of either stance... even separately.