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."

​

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This drastically misses the points made.

Thanks

Does it? Rereading, I'm 90% sure it doesn't. It just disagrees with your point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This drastically misses the points made.

Thanks

Does it? Rereading, I'm 90% sure it doesn't. It just disagrees with your point.

 

[Corwin]

You forgot the most important scenario:
DM: <determines that the outcome is already certain> "Don't bother rolling, it's not going to happen. You have no chance of intimidating the hobgoblin king (even though your Intimidation modifier is +20, and mechanically, you absolutely WOULD intimidate him if I let you roll)."

Then it would seem your issue is with 5e, not me. Perhaps a different edition, or even entirely different system, would better suit your particular playstyle preferences? And there is nothing wrong with that.

Many players would feel cheated in that scenario, as I'm sure you know.

Are you implying that players I associate with would? Or just players somewhere in the world? You overspeak if the former. The latter is obvious and so goes without saying. Yet still doesn't validate any claims.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] is pointing out that there shouldn't be a check. You are assuming the player has made a check, which is only supposed to happen if the DM says "OK make an intimidation check". If the DM says there is no check, how can the player get mad about a "Successful check" if there was never one in the first place to be successful or unsuccessful? If they get mad about something completely reasonable, like some random Adventurer being unable to strike Terror into the heart of the Right Hand of Terror, then you have bigger problems than a poorly written ability.

The way you are describing these players, they follow Corwin's second scenario above. Player declares they are rolling a check, rolls, and asks for the result.

The way it is meant to be played, by raw, is that the Player declares an action (I want to try and intimidate him), and the dm decides if that is even possible. Otherwise, why wouldn't the player just say "I pick up the mountain and THROW it. *rolls Nat 20*". If the action is impossible, like intimidating the BBEG who knows he can tear you in half, and is literally afraid of nothing in the world, then the DM is supposed to say so, not allow a check anyway.

If you, the DM, have allowed the player to take the feat Menacing, without alteration, then you have already given permission for this check to take place. What you're advocating for here is arbitrary rescinding of previously given permission based on you correcting for situations that you just don't like how your previous permission will function.

Again: if you've allowed the feat, with the clearly stated use case, then you've given permission to use that use case already.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As a separate point, made as such to avoid any finger pointing, there seems to be a large theme of argument that boils down as such: "These new feats are fine as is, just nerf them as needed if they ever cause a problem." The idea that any issues with the design of the feats don't exist because you have a plan on how you'll houserule those issues away doesn't really strike me as actually engaging with the content of a playtest. If they were rules already, sure, but this approach seems more suited to shutting down discussion than honest engagement of possible problems with playtest material.

 

[Oofta]

Putting aside what should happen to intimidate checks against special NPCs for a moment.

If you take the feat as written you should be able to spend and action in combat to attempt to frighten a humanoid every round.

At a certain point the check will be virtually automatic (literally automatic for a rogue with reliable talent).

Assuming you're facing a run-of-the-mill melee brute, it means that certain characters will be able to remove the brute from combat since he cannot come any closer. The party can just kill them with ranged attacks while they stand there impotent and frightened.

For the cost of a single action every round. All day long. That seems broken to me.

 

[Corwin]

As a separate point, made as such to avoid any finger pointing, there seems to be a large theme of argument that boils down as such: "These new feats are fine as is, just nerf them as needed if they ever cause a problem." The idea that any issues with the design of the feats don't exist because you have a plan on how you'll houserule those issues away doesn't really strike me as actually engaging with the content of a playtest. If they were rules already, sure, but this approach seems more suited to shutting down discussion than honest engagement of possible problems with playtest material.

Using the rules, as presented in the 5e books, is not "houseruling" or "nerfing". What you are doing is either misunderstanding how 5e is designed and written, or being disingenuous. I can't say which, not my place.

Also, you seem to be implying that anyone is saying these feats should be published as-is. That no tweaks or revisions should be made at all. I have yet to see that argument. Are you perhaps erecting a strawman as well?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, that is why I responded. If I didn’t read what you wrote, I wouldn’t be responding to you.

Now, I might be misunderstanding you, but I clearly read it.

I simply disagree. 100%. A mouse is not going to frighten a hawk. It may startle it, the hawk may decide the meal is not worth it, but it is not going to frighten the hawk.
There are certain circumstances where intimidation won't work. It's a DM's call.
So we start an arms race? I just start adding new features to NPCs that I didn't need before? Our group hated that about the 4E AL campaign (especially the epics). I don't want to go there again.
I think all skills (in particular social ones) need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis based on the story and circumstances. Hard coded powers like these take a lot of fun out of the game. Taking an action to intimidate may work like the feat says. It may be better and cause multiple creatures to flee. It may have unintended consequences or none at all.

To get back to what you wrote about the Bard and Balor, you included the use of illusions, thaumaturgy, and deception checks. That is all great, and most players would immediately go for that sort of plan anyways, but why would that type of set-up be necessary for every intimidation check? When could player simply be intimidating? Only when they are the hawk? Being scary to something that is smaller and weaker than you isn’t hard. In fact, that’s one of the things that annoys me at times. I’m playing a 6’5” half-orc in Plate Mail with a massive bloody sword, finish ripping a guy in half and tell his friend to surrender, roll intimidation and fail the check, so the enemy laughs at me because I’m not scary. It’s happened to me in games before. But, I’ve also had times when I wanted to try something, had a good plan, had a good roll, and the DM said no, because he didn’t expect me to succeed so he won’t allow it.

The point being, before I end up ranting too much, your arms race seems to accept the premise that using Intimidation to scare enemies is new. That before the ability to Frighten on a check, you could not use this skill to Frighten Enemies. I disagree with that premise, it wasn’t hard coded into a single ability before now, but it did exist.

A mouse may not be able to intimidate a Hawk (unless we’re talking Mouseguard I assume) but can a man intimidate a Dragon?

I think they can. While never in the history of the world has a mouse beaten a hawk in 1v1 combat, humans in a fantasy setting have killed things vastly more powerful than them before. If they have the proper bearing, the proper look in the eyes, would the enemy not believe they truly could be destroyed by this individual? That’s intimidation to me, making the enemy believe you are capable of ending them.

The ability to do this already exists, so the feat isn’t really allowing something that has never been in the game before, it’s just saying it explicitly here.

I don't see how being able to automatically nerf virtually every melee based humanoid (that you haven't made immune to fear) in existence at a certain level is "weak" by any stretch of the imagination.

Because I think in terms of groups. No normal fight in DnD is 1v1, and boss fights that are 6v1 are already jokes.

So, You’ve got three orcs wailing on you and you’re a barbarian, giving up one of your attacks to get one to attack at disadvantage, leaving it alive to continue attacking, while still having 2 other orcs attacking you normally… that seems like a bad trade.

It is important to remember, Frighten doesn’t make them run, they just can’t move closer to you. So, for a melee character this likely means it translates into disadvantage on attacks against them from that creature. Powerful for 1v1, but when you have multiple enemies, much less so.

Make it a ranged character like you’ve been suggesting… Well, they have to be within 30 ft to be effected at all, so you’re going to have to keep that up every turn to keep it from reaching you, and if it has allies who are that close as well… you’ve got two orcs beating in your archer’s face. Sure, could have been 3, but you also could have attacked twice and maybe dropped one, instead of leaving it on the battlefield for later. And if they have a ranged attack themselves, disadvantage, but they can still attack you.

So, yes, a 1v1 fight against a humanoid who can’t beat your roll is made easier, but since most people don’t get into 1v1 fights, it really doesn’t seem like a good idea most of the time, IMO.

Except that the feat as written does not require any cleverness on the part of the player. It's automatic and does not take into consideration any circumstance. The rogue can sneak across the 10 ft hallway without being spotted. Period. Brightly lit hallway with 2 guards staring right at you? No problem. Ceilings 10 foot high with nothing to hide behind? No problem.

If the rogue is clever or circumstances allow I'm pretty lenient on stealth. But they aren't invisible.

Sorry, poor ordering on my part.

I meant, getting past a 10 foot gap with guards on the other side is something a rogue might already be able to do if they are clever or the environment supports it.

How often do you have the rogue stealthing and they have to cross a 10 ft gap, brightly lit, 8ft ceilings, with guards watching directly down that path and not distracted in the slightest, and the goal is simply to move past that gap and not into whatever area those guards are guarding.

It sounds very rare to me. Almost contrived to be a no-win situation. And if the player could win by acrobatics, or if you were trying to force them into dealing with the guards, make it a 15 ft gap.

This is one ability I kind of see to be a molehill, there will be very few places where darting from cover to cover wouldn’t have been allowed anyways, where this ability will break things.

Would you say that someone that won an athletics check to knock someone prone suddenly can't do it because it doesn't make sense for the story? Or that instead of being knocked prone they get pushed back 5 feet? Or that it has no effect?

Would you?

Heck, I would disagree with a DM that told me that the attack action I just used to knock someone prone had no effect simply because the DM decided it shouldn't be possible. Many people would not see this feat any differently.

Seems you wouldn’t, so why do that with Intimidation.


The conversation has moved into the order of events it looks like. So I want to be clear on my position.

I respect the idea that the player declares action, then the DM decides if they should roll. My inquiries have been assuming the roll is allowed to happen.

I do see [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] ‘s point in that the feat lists an action you can take, and does not limit it by saying the player may not take that action if the DM feels a roll is unneccesary, and that certain types of players feel that would override the general rule on rolling.

However, there is a third element here. If someone has a passive Intimidation of 28, they are terrifying. In fact, I don’t think most monsters have scores that high. Beholders have a passive 13, the Balor we talk about has a passive 16. This is, in part, the fault of the designers for not giving skills to enemies. This creatures should clearly have proficiency in Intimidation, but even then they aren’t going to touch a 28 passive.

If my character has a massive intimidation score, because I’ve invested in that, then being told you don’t scare someone like a Hobgoblin King or an honorless knight, it feels crappy. You should be able to scare them, your character is terrifying, that’s what you invested in. It’s within the DM’s purview, but I don’t think they should. Let the character strike fear into the normally fearless upon occasion. Let them be the bad@#$ instead of being scared of the bad@#$

Putting aside what should happen to intimidate checks against special NPCs for a moment.

If you take the feat as written you should be able to spend and action in combat to attempt to frighten a humanoid every round.

At a certain point the check will be virtually automatic (literally automatic for a rogue with reliable talent).

Assuming you're facing a run-of-the-mill melee brute, it means that certain characters will be able to remove the brute from combat since he cannot come any closer. The party can just kill them with ranged attacks while they stand there impotent and frightened.

For the cost of a single action every round. All day long. That seems broken to me.

If your Rogue wants to give up his attack every single round to prevent one enemy from getting closer so the party can snipe it once the fight is over... Yeah, go for it. I'd love my rogues to not be hitting that big sneak attack damage on the enemies that are in the party's face.

Also see Fear spell and Cause Fear spell and any other spell that can reliable remove your standard brute with low mental stats from the fight. May not be able to do it every single fight if you have enough fights, but the situation is similiar enough that the differences seem negligible to me.

 

[Lanliss]

Putting aside what should happen to intimidate checks against special NPCs for a moment.

If you take the feat as written you should be able to spend and action in combat to attempt to frighten a humanoid every round.

At a certain point the check will be virtually automatic (literally automatic for a rogue with reliable talent).

Assuming you're facing a run-of-the-mill melee brute, it means that certain characters will be able to remove the brute from combat since he cannot come any closer. The party can just kill them with ranged attacks while they stand there impotent and frightened.

For the cost of a single action every round. All day long. That seems broken to me.

I can certainly agree with that, and I can even agree that several of these feats are broken as written.

 

[Corwin]

Assuming you're facing a run-of-the-mill melee brute, it means that certain characters will be able to remove the brute from combat since he cannot come any closer. The party can just kill them with ranged attacks while they stand there impotent and frightened.

I suggest a more careful consideration of the frightened condition and how it plays in practice. Have you played 5e? With the frightened condition making an appearance? Because I have. And as much as it can occasionally offer a substantive benefit, briefly IMX, it is not as grand a "win button" as you seem to be making it out to be.

For the cost of a single action every round.

Um, how many actions do you get a round?

All day long.

I'm pretty sure, as a DM, if one of the PCs was doing this every round, all day, I'd have to reconsider the party strength for encounter difficulty purposes. Turn a 5 man party into, like, 4.5 or something. I'd probably have to start shaving encounters down. After all, the party would be weakened by such a thing. Not fair to punish the whole group for a single player choosing to gimp himself.

That seems broken to me.

A lot of untested, white-room hand wringing has being going on lately around here. So I am not surprised to see someone say something like this before even seeing the thing in question in play.