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."

​

 

[Mistwell]

Are you sure? Please provide a link indicating as much. I highly doubt that is their "whole point".

Because, if that's true, I've been doing it wrong. I will have to apologize to WotC for actually playtesting their UA material at the table, rather than just provide speculation.

It says the purpose is "for playtesting and to spark your imagination." Right in the document we're talking about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Note: The DM calls for the skill check, not the PC. The feat says the PCs "can" make a skill check and that can is only satisfied if the DM believes a skill check needs to be made. The DM calls for an ability check if it has a chance of failure. If you go in there, trying to play a rules mongering style and start filibustering for a minute to satisfy that condition, as a DM, I'm going to rule that nothing in your filibustering was persuasive, charming, diplomatic or playing to the King's Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, obligations, whatever and it's not a chance of failure calling for a skill check, it's no chance of success at all calling for no check.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Do you recall the other rule, "specific trumps general"? Because, in this case, the rule you just quoted in the general rule and the rule in the feat is the specific one. After a minute of talking about anything, an opposed check is made. The 'can' there is referring to player desire, not DM.

The upshot of this is that you're actually saying that there's nothing wrong with the feat because you can arbitrarily allow it to work in any given situation as you, the DM, want to. And, you can play like that, and I wish you all the funs in doing so (seriously, no joke, all of the funs), but the rules do not state that I have to play that way, nor do they really even imply that I have to play that way. There are many ways to play this game within the rules, yours isn't the only one. And one way to play would be to let character abilities function as they're presented (which would be hard to characterize as not following the rules, yes?), and, in that way, this feat (and some of the others) has serious problems. Pointing that out is a valid criticism of playtest material.

 

[Satyrn]

Running? How should I know? You are the one bringing it up. You tell us.

Eh?

Oh, I see. He reworded "shying away from" as "running away from" and you didn't notice:

...saying what though? That's the question being asked of you. One you keep shying away from.

 

[Oofta]

Eh?

Oh, I see. He reworded "shying away from" as "running away from" and you didn't notice:

I had actually noticed my mistake, but it doesn't seem worth it to reply to Corwin any more. He does not appear to be interested in discussing the playtest material or potential issues and I'm tired of being trolled.

 

[Corwin]

Eh?

Oh, I see. He reworded "shying away from" as "running away from" and you didn't notice:

Just one more example of someone trying to twist a conversation, or put words in others' mouths, hoping to recast what was said in a harsher light. I'm used to it. Thanks for the catch.

 

[Oofta]

Just one more example of someone trying to twist a conversation, or put words in others' mouths, hoping to recast what was said in a harsher light. I'm used to it. Thanks for the catch.

Or just making an innocent typo. Or have you never made a mistake in your life?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know, I popped in early, thought "feats that double proficiency for a skill? 'bout time" and didn't check back for a while.

Wow. Something is a 'spell like ability' because it imposes a condition? Where'd that come from? No one can ever be frightened or poisoned or anything without magic being involved?

It think it's cool a charming character can now be 'literally' charming and charm people - clearly the wording needs to be cleaned up, but it's a good idea in concept. Menacing seems fine, even a little meh - enemies die fast in 5e (or you do), so giving up an attack to impose a condition for one round?

 

[Corwin]

Or just making an innocent typo. Or have you never made a mistake in your life?

I gave you the first half dozen already. How many more should I excuse as "innocent"? Do we really need to activate the way-back machine and highlight some of your gems from earlier in this thread?

Look, I already gave you props for backpedaling and deciding on a better tact. That of actually discussing the stuff rather than unhelpful histrionics and hyperbole. What more do you want?

Heck, you even admitted you will be making a point, like most of us, in the feedback to address the two feats in question needing a bit of polishing and clarification. Why you want to otherwise continue to die on this hill, I'll never know.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The upshot of this is that you're actually saying that there's nothing wrong with the feat because you can arbitrarily allow it to work in any given situation as you, the DM, want to. And, you can play like that, and I wish you all the funs in doing so (seriously, no joke, all of the funs), but the rules do not state that I have to play that way, nor do they really even imply that I have to play that way. There are many ways to play this game within the rules, yours isn't the only one. And one way to play would be to let character abilities function as they're presented (which would be hard to characterize as not following the rules, yes?), and, in that way, this feat (and some of the others) has serious problems. Pointing that out is a valid criticism of playtest material.

If we are just talking about the Diplomat feat here, then I would say that.... ugh I don't know what to call it. Table dynamics? Plays a big part

Essentially, if you want to activate this ability, you have a plan. I can't imagine a player walking up to someone, and not realizing they can activate this ability if they went through the trouble of getting it. So, they likely have a conversation topic in mind. Most players aren't going to open their plan with the equivalent of reading the phone book.

And even if they did, the nature of "charmed" means it could actually work. "Charmed" means they like you, you have advantage on social checks. Kind of like that charming old man you meet at the bus stop, you like the guy, he's got good stories, talks well, and you don't mind continuing the conversation another time. You are also not likely to suddenly stab him, it'd be a hard thing to do, you like the guy, you don't want to hurt him.

Charm however, is not dominate, it is not the suggestion spell, it is not geas. You have done nothing to effect the targets personality, goals, desires, or anything else. A coward is still unlikely to follow you into a dungeon, a priest is not going to renounce his faith, a knight will still hold onto his honor. These still require further rolls, they just have advantage because of the charm.


So, if you want to read the phonebook, and someone decides to listen to you for a full minute of droning on, go ahead and roll. Now you have advantage on your future rolls, what do you do with it?

 

[Satyrn]

Just one more example of someone trying to twist a conversation, or put words in others' mouths, hoping to recast what was said in a harsher light. I'm used to it. Thanks for the catch.

Well, now I'm sorry for doing so, since I seem to have given you ammunition for your accusation that he's twisting the conversation.