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."

​

 

[Gradine]

I've mostly, mostly come around on these. I still have a few concerns. There are also problems that are not problems at all. But let me try to encapsulate all of that.

+Expertise & Inflating DCs
Here's the thing; if you're the kind of DM who feels the need to keep inflating DCs in order to keep PC's from succeeding at things, and you think that that's bad for the game... just... stop doing that? I don't really understand this mindset at all. I can at least wrap my head around the adversarial arms race optimization treadmill; people seemed to generally enjoy that, and I'm not going to judge. But if you think that there's problem with inflating DCs but you're the one responsible for inflating them... don't. Let players who've made the investment have a win once in a while.

I'd like someone to name me an adventure that can ruined by a single skill check, whether easily made or not. The idea is absurd, right? Even Perception, that skill most accused of "game-breaking", isn't really. It may have to change how you handle traps or ambushes (and an encounter that is designed to only work if it is successfully an ambush is not a well-made encounter) but I have to wonder how many games that is fully breaking. Honestly as a DM I worry more about Insight than Perception, but that may be more on me and how I run my own games.

+But my traps!
Traps that PCs have no way of spotting in advance are not traps, they are an HP tax. I'm not necessarily against HP taxes, but why bother with the illusion that it's a thing the PCs could have prevented but really can't because you set the Passive Perception DC too high? It's basically arbitrary damage for the sake of damage. So why not use environmental hazards as your HP tax? Force adventurers to wade through a pool of scalding water or a patch of thorny brambles. Yes PCs have ways around those too, but then they get to be clever and find solutions and solve puzzles and feel like they accomplished things. Alternatively, you could make the Passive Perception check only notice clues of the trap's existence, but still force the players to figure it out from there. Or you could just say bees. Bees everywhere. Take 10 damage.

-Codifying "Skill Tricks"
I was actually just thinking about 3.5's Skill Ticks the other day, right before this UA dropped. I remember really liking them, but I also remember really liking 3.5, you know? There's a definite problem with putting an action that really anyone trained in the skill should be able to do into a feat. It means that without the feat, you can't do the action. And granted, a lot of these feats mitigate that by being a bit more specific about the action economy of the action granted (a lot of bonus actions, a few "one of your attacks" mixed in) that don't codify the action but simply the ease and speed at which you can do it. I like that. But there are some that don't bother with this. Performer is the worst offender by far, but there are others.

+Historian
I love this feature. @doctorbadwolf has the right of it; it's yet another stealth Warlord ability. I've both played and DM'ed for PCs that would get a decent amount of mileage out of something like this. I can imagine a PC or group of PCs justifying the bonus as being extra-motivated to complete the task quickly so Professor Monotone will just. Shut. Up. Already. But then my groups tend to be a bit sillier than most.

+BeesMagic. Magic Everywhere
Now for the elephant in the room. Hi, welcome to 5e, where everything is magic and magic is everything. Your revolution is over! Condolences! The martials lost! My advice is, do what the rangers did! Get some spells, sir! The martials will always lose, do you hear me Lebowski? THE MARTIALS WILL ALWAYS LOSE!

Ahem. I can appreciate and at least partially empathize with the pro-martial crowd, but the sad and unfortunate truth is that 5e has left them behind. In 5e magic suffuses everything. It's practically a part of the natural world, if not for the fact that it's defined as separate from that (of course there is also nature magic, so <shrug>). And everyone seems to have a little ability to do a little bit of magic (or at least the potential) to. And frankly, I love that about 5e. I can understand the idea of wanting a game where magic is rare and powerful and wondrous but that is not the fantasy world that 5e has chosen to represent. So in that context I don't really see a problem with Arcanist/Naturalist/Theologian at all.

If there is a problem, it's that these three skills (Arcana, Nature & Religion) are too broad. The skills cover knowledge both mundane and otherwise. But the way I see it is; these feats represent something more than simply knowledge base. They represent knowledge not only of the subject matter but of the practitioners as well, and their skills and gestures and rituals. That's why they grant the cantrips they do (the most basic magical tricks of their respective practitioners), plus the once-a-day 1st-level divination that represents the character momentarily transcending that knowledge and talent and focusing it into a single, simply magical effect. There's a ton of flavor there and I rather like it.

As for the specific problem with Theologian, I am seeing absolutely nothing in 5e SRD that says divine magic has to be granted by a deity or similar power. Cleric spells are as much up for grabs by the Magic Initiate feat as anyone else. If I recall my AD&D 2e lore only the highest-level spells were granted by deities themselves; mid-levels through intermediaries (angels and the like), and the lowest levels weren't "granted" at all so much as they represented skill and knowledge of traditions and rituals which... sounds like what being really good at the Religion skill does.

Now, if you want to grab the torches and pitchforks over Survivalist, I'll be right there with you.

-Survivalist
Alarm? Really? That's the best you could come up with? I'll just continue to echo here what I and others have said about this. Some trick about actually surviving would have been nice. Maybe some additional benefits for tracking? Dealing with extreme environmental hazards? Survival is an odd duck of a skill because it seems to be the one that's made redundant by class features, so I can appreciate how difficult this might have been, but alarm? Really?

 

[flametitan]

I don't usually contemplate building a new class wholesale, but this has got me thinking of a Mentor class (with subclasses based on fighters, barbarians, rangers, rogues, and paladins) for the old timer who can still swing a sword (not as fast as he/she used to), but who is mostly there to guide the "young pups" on their adventures. I think that avoids the leadership issue of the warlord (since in fantasy the mentor's leadership is usually short lived: time for the chosen one(s) to step up to leadership) and fits the 1-20 class structure a little better (the mentor is learning how to be a better mentor [translate experience into teachable lessons/advice] as the party progresses--also reflecting a switch from mentor to advisor as the party gains more xp). I am not sure if it will happen (or when), but it has got me thinking.

I tend not to be heavily into adding new 1-20 classes, but that actually sounds like it'd be a great addition to the game. I feel like its starting abilities would have to reflect that they're starting much more experienced than other level 1 characters, but its scaling would eventually drop it out of being the character the party depends on, reflecting the character getting to old for this thing as passing the torch to the next generation.

For example, perhaps give it slightly more hit dice than other classes get at first level (so 2d6 or 2d8), but as it levels up it gets fewer hit dice of relatively low value (say 1d6 per level up), that way they're a front liner character at the beginning, but eventually ages out into the supporting role.

 

[Prakriti]

There are so many people in this thread who don't understand bounded accuracy or what it is meant to do. When you start adding bonuses like this, it breaks the parameters of the game. Specialized characters become even more specialized. The result is that Clerics are better Clerics, Rogues are better Rogues, and the average party is objectively more powerful than it was before. Instead of improving orthogonally by spending an ASI on a secondary ability score or a less specialized feat, everyone gets better at what they already do best.

That's called power creep, and if you keep piling it on, then the game breaks. And once the game breaks, previously published adventures become obsolete, because they're written with different assumptions in mind, and 6E becomes a necessity just to sweep away all the rubbish and reset the board. So if you actually want 5E to remain the evergreen edition, then you need to tell the developers that you don't want crap like this.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

There are so many people in this thread who don't understand bounded accuracy or what it is meant to do. When you start adding bonuses like this, it breaks the parameters of the game. Specialized characters become even more specialized. The result is that Clerics are better Clerics, Rogues are better Rogues, and the average party is objectively more powerful than it was before. Instead of improving orthogonally by spending an ASI on a secondary ability score or a less specialized feat, everyone gets better at what they already do best.

That's called power creep, and if you keep piling it on, then the game breaks. And once the game breaks, previously published adventures become obsolete, because they're written with different assumptions in mind, and 6E becomes a necessity just to sweep away all the rubbish and reset the board. So if you actually want 5E to remain the evergreen edition, then you need to tell the developers that you don't want crap like this.

But now we can win D&D!

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I thought about including this in my last comment, but I am not crazy about making two separate comments in one post where one may get more attention than the other. lol

But anyway, as someone else posted to remind people, feats are an optional system, but so is multi-classing. It seems like everyone posting in these forums plays in or runs "anything goes" games, but I am sure there are plenty of groups out there that either do not allow feats or multi-classing, or even neither, especially groups of all new players. So for those people who allow feats but not multi-classing, this worry about double proficiency and expertise and stepping on the toes of other classes is meaningless.

Also keep remembering that UA articles are not yet balanced to mix in with all the other rules, so I am sure final versions of these would be more balanced to take into account that they might be used in a game that allows multi-classing.

 

[Corwin]

There are so many people in this thread who don't understand bounded accuracy or what it is meant to do. When you start adding bonuses like this, it breaks the parameters of the game.

I find these two sentences hilariously ironic. Well done!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I thought about including this in my last comment, but I am not crazy about making two separate comments in one post where one may get more attention than the other. lol

But anyway, as someone else posted to remind people, feats are an optional system, but so is multi-classing. It seems like everyone posting in these forums plays in or runs "anything goes" games, but I am sure there are plenty of groups out there that either do not allow feats or multi-classing, or even neither, especially groups of all new players. So for those people who allow feats but not multi-classing, this worry about double proficiency and expertise and stepping on the toes of other classes is meaningless.

Also keep remembering that UA articles are not yet balanced to mix in with all the other rules, so I am sure final versions of these would be more balanced to take into account that they might be used in a game that allows multi-classing.

I find telling others, in regards to playtest material, that they don't have to use it if they don't like it to be rather in opposition to the point of playtest material.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Always remember to fill out the survey when it gets released. Also, remember that these UA playtests are not for establishing final and balanced rules, but for gathering opinions on how well-liked the rules were as a concept. So make sure to let them know whether making Expertise-equivalent features for characters is a good idea, or whether it steps on the Rogue's and Bard's toes.

For me personally I have absolutely no horse in this race, as I wouldn't use any of these feats as written even if they eventually appeared in the BBo'M. I use the variant skill rule of any skill can be applied to any ability score depending on circumstances, and thus these skill feats that grant a +1 bonus to an ability score that I don't treat as part and parcel to the skill is not something I'd bother to care about. And as I've already created my own feats that grant Expertise-equivalent bonuses, those parts of these 18 feats aren't any big deal for me either.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I tend not to be heavily into adding new 1-20 classes, but that actually sounds like it'd be a great addition to the game. I feel like its starting abilities would have to reflect that they're starting much more experienced than other level 1 characters, but its scaling would eventually drop it out of being the character the party depends on, reflecting the character getting to old for this thing as passing the torch to the next generation.

For example, perhaps give it slightly more hit dice than other classes get at first level (so 2d6 or 2d8), but as it levels up it gets fewer hit dice of relatively low value (say 1d6 per level up), that way they're a front liner character at the beginning, but eventually ages out into the supporting role.

I like that. I was also thinking of an overcharge ability where you could do something higher level from your former class, but it comes with 1 level of exhaustion (and probably some other stuff), so the mentor could make the big save once a day, but very rarely more often (and as the party levels this becomes less important), which I have dubbed "I am too old for this...stuff".

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Always remember to fill out the survey when it gets released. Also, remember that these UA playtests are not for establishing final and balanced rules, but for gathering opinions on how well-liked the rules were as a concept. So make sure to let them know whether making Expertise-equivalent features for characters is a good idea, or whether it steps on the Rogue's and Bard's toes.

.

That is true. I suspect WotC's goal is two fold: are we interested in feats that affect skills in general, and are interested in feats that affect skills in this particular way? I like the advantage idea that someone mentioned early in the thread more than double proficiency, but feats that affect skills (in general) seem like a good area to expand feats into.