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."

​

 

[Prakriti]

1. You called it a realistic situation but instead it sounds like a silly situation. The king isn't just going to sit there and have a conversation for a minute.

Wow, really? Usually, when I introduce a ruler into a campaign, the characters find themselves conversing with them at some point. My players have met Laeral Silverhand of Waterdeep, Duke Maldwyn of Daggerford, the marchion of Mirabar, and others. And every single one of those conversations lasted a lot longer than a minute.

Also, another problem with this feat is that it's essentially charm person without the downside: "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you."

 

[cbwjm]

Really? You can't imagine this scenario? A minute is not that long, I've known people who could RP themselves introducing themselves to the king and letting him know how grateful they are for the opportunity for an entire minute.

While a minute isn't that long, entering the king's chambers or cornering them alone in a room (and locking the door) is not conducive to using this feat. The king isn't going to have a conversation, he will call for guards and then defend himself.

I missed it then, you didn't state it in any of your recent posts.

In any case you're just nitpicking details. It appears we're in agreement - the wording of the feat should change to make it clear that hostile actions towards the target break the charm.

I actually did mention it in recent posts. Both of them were when I quoted you.

 

[cbwjm]

Wow, really? Usually, when I introduce a ruler into a campaign, the characters find themselves conversing with them at some point. My players have met Laeral Silverhand of Waterdeep, Duke Maldwyn of Daggerford, the marchion of Mirabar, and others. And every single one of those conversations lasted a lot longer than a minute.

Also, another problem with this feat is that it's essentially charm person without the downside: "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you."

Go back and read the situation and see if you think it is reasonable that the king is just going to have a conversation with Charlie the rogue.

 

[Oofta]

Umm, so, why aren't the bunch of lower level mooks mobbing our intimidating hero, forcing him away from the commander so, that he cannot intimidate him next round? Remember, you have to be within 30 feet. Should be a pretty simple thing for the mob to block the PC while the NPC moves away (most humanoids DO have at least 30 feet of movement).

And, why does our commander NPC not have proficiency in Insight? Seems like a pretty common thing to have for leaders. Looking over some of the humanoid NPC's in the MM, we see the Cult Fanatic and the Knight both have advantage on fear saves (which I'd argue should apply), and our NPC Noble is trained in Insight.

Now, at the point where you're talking about this becoming an auto-success (because, remember, we're only talking a +2-5 on a skill check), we cannot really use ANY of the MM humanoids straight out of the book. Certainly not for any of the leaders. They just don't have enough CR to make an interesting encounter.

.... hang on a tick. How exactly are we getting intimidate scores that high? Even with a 20 Charisma, you're only talking about a +15 on the check with this feat at the absolute maximum. What else bumps Intimidate checks? It's not like perception where you can stack a bunch of other stuff on there.

So, using a standard array human, we're talking MINIMUM 8th level fighter or 10th level rogue or 12th level anything else to do this. 2ASI's in Cha and this feat. And, at that point, they're still only +11-13 on the check. Which is not an auto success. Unless they take 11 levels of Rogue to get Reliable Talent. At which point they are giving up sneak attacks (they only get one attack) to potentially frighten a single humanoid NPC 1/round.

And you think this is broken? Seriously?

I've seen menacing strike in play, it's quite powerful. It's also less likely to succeed than the feat in most cases, can be countered by legendary saves, and can only be used a limited number of times.

The menacing feat is far more powerful - a level 13 rogue could have a +15 to intimidate. With reliable talent they can't get anything less than a 25. Other characters may not be quite as good but will still succeed more often than menacing strike.

 

[Geeknamese]

Really? You can't imagine this scenario? A minute is not that long, I've known people who could RP themselves introducing themselves to the king and letting him know how grateful they are for the opportunity for an entire minute.

Are you really trying to say that this is how your game is run? That there is no intuition at all to the rules that tells you that just because it says you have to talk to the NPC for at least a minute means that you can't just talk about the weather for a minute and then expect that the DM will see that as enough to grant a skill check? Do you really play it that way? This reminds me of how arguments sometimes go with my gf where it becomes less of an argument about understanding the big picture and just an attempt to "win" on some technicality.

If one of my players tried to sell me on this at my table, my response would literally be, "Do you even roleplay, brah?"


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

Are you really trying to say that this is how your game is run? That there is no intuition at all to the rules that tells you that just because it says you have to talk to the NPC for at least a minute means that you can't just talk about the weather for a minute and then expect that the DM will see that as enough to grant a skill check? Do you really play it that way? This reminds me of how arguments sometimes go with my gf where it becomes less of an argument about understanding the big picture and just an attempt to "win" on some technicality.

If one of my players tried to sell me on this at my table, my response would literally be, "Do you even roleplay, brah?"


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I'm discussing the Diplomat feat ... the requirement is that you talk to the target for one minute. At the end of that minute the PC can call for an opposed check and if they succeed the target is charmed.

I don't like the feat (obviously). I dislike the mechanical "I talk for a minute therefore I can charm". I dislike the fact that there is nothing stopping the PC (other than DM fiat) from trying over and over again until they succeed. I dislike the lack of written rules for how to break the charm other than distance.

None of that has anything to do with the red herring of what the rogue is talking about for a minute.

 

[Geeknamese]

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I'm discussing the Diplomat feat ... the requirement is that you talk to the target for one minute. At the end of that minute the PC can call for an opposed check and if they succeed the target is charmed.

I don't like the feat (obviously). I dislike the mechanical "I talk for a minute therefore I can charm". I dislike the fact that there is nothing stopping the PC (other than DM fiat) from trying over and over again until they succeed. I dislike the lack of written rules for how to break the charm other than distance.

None of that has anything to do with the red herring of what the rogue is talking about for a minute.

"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

 

[Oofta]

"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

So your answer is to simply ignore the feat your player has invested in? Would you prohibit a PC from doing an athletics check because you don't want them to grapple an opponent? Knock an opponent prone? Climb a wall? Why would this be any different?

My reading of the rules is different from yours. If a PC is trying to do something I call for a skill check if I think they might fail. I'm not going to ignore what they are trying to do because I think they might succeed.

If the intent of a player is to charm charm someone, I cannot imagine just ignoring their clear intent. If I did, most players I know would scream bloody murder. It wouldn't be any different than if someone tried to cast the Charm spell and I simply said "no you don't".

Maybe everyone else on this thread plays with a different type of gamer than I've met.

 

[Geeknamese]

So your answer is to simply ignore the feat your player has invested in? Would you prohibit a PC from doing an athletics check because you don't want them to grapple an opponent? Knock an opponent prone? Climb a wall? Why would this be any different?

My reading of the rules is different from yours. If a PC is trying to do something I call for a skill check if I think they might fail. I'm not going to ignore what they are trying to do because I think they might succeed.

If the intent of a player is to charm charm someone, I cannot imagine just ignoring their clear intent. If I did, most players I know would scream bloody murder. It wouldn't be any different than if someone tried to cast the Charm spell and I simply said "no you don't".

Maybe everyone else on this thread plays with a different type of gamer than I've met.

The big difference is whether the DM is running his game like a board game or like a roleplaying game. If you're going to let your players play the game like a board game and say, I have this cool feat, I want to Diplomat the guy or I want to Persuasion check the guy and you go sure, roll you check. Success! Yay! He's charmed by you, let's roll initiative. That's like playing Magic the Gathering or Warhammer.

This is a roleplaying game where the designers in print tell you that the system is here to support your stories and empower you, the DM. The feat is called "Diplomat", the skill description says you're a master of diplomacy, the effects of the ability grants the Charmed condition from you talking to them...diplomatically? Persuasively? There a whole pillar of the game revolving social interactions and personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, etc. that come into play when you run these social scenarios. If you've come in without any effort of thinking about what you're going to say diplomatically to the king, no effort in perhaps offering something of value to pique his interest, nothing at all the convince him of why his guards shouldn't play piñata with you, then how can there be any chance of success? Why would I grant a skill check?

Why would the king sit for a minute listening to some blathering and not execute you on the spot for wasting his time?


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, the king did not "sit there" for a minute. The rogue had a discussion with him. After which the king is charmed and according to the charmed condition cannot attack the rogue.

Nothing in the feat says the charm can be broken by any means other than being more than 60 feet away from the rogue.

Before the feat becomes an official rule, the wording should be changed.

So, the king defends himself without attacking, and moves out of the room. Can't attack=\=stands there doing nothing.

Of course, the Charmed condition should just have an explicit note that attacking the target breaks the charm. That is a system issue. But since they hate errata now, they ought to clarify that in a new source.


Has anyone asked if the intent is for the double proficiency to stack with expertise?