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."

​

 

[cbwjm]

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?

I recall when the tool proficiencies came out that on twitter someone asked and I think someone at WotC said they might allow it to stack up to 3x but it wasn't a hard and fast rule.

I think a section of the PHB has been quoted which only allows proficiency bonuses to be doubled or halved once. Similar to how advantage/disadvantage can only be applied once (although nothing can cancel out expertise as far as I know).

 

[Oofta]

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

We agree that we don't want to play 5E like a board game. That's why I dislike some of the feats in the UA. That's been my whole point all along.

Please stop with the red herring argument. It's getting old. The point is that a PC can charm any creature that understands them. The PC setting up the situation where they can talk with someone for a minute is part of the game.

 

[Oofta]

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

There are many, many ways of trapping someone in a room. My scenario (one of a nearly infinite number possible) was that the rogue secretly locked the door.

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.

We agree. I also think it also should probably answer more questions. Can you repeat the check? Does the person know they were charmed? Is it like the charm person spell where they consider the person a friendly acquaintance like the charm person spell?

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

Page 7 basic rules

Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die
roll or other number more than once. Occasionally,
your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or
halved, for example) before you apply it. If a circumstance
suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than
once to the same roll or that it should be multiplied more
than once, you nevertheless add it only once, multiply it
only once, and halve it only once.

Expertise doubles your proficiency bonus.

 

[Corwin]

Please stop with the red herring argument. It's getting old. The point is that a PC can charm any creature that understands them. The PC setting up the situation where they can talk with someone for a minute is part of the game.

...saying what though? That's the question being asked of you. One you keep shying away from. What is required of the Diplomat PC to say in order to benefit from this feat? You seem to think it reasonable that the Diplomat PC can stand there for a minute saying random words in alphabetical order. Or naming every mammal they can think of. And if they can do so for exactly one minute, they get a magical charm power out of it. Balderdash, I say! The feat says no such thing.

 

[Geeknamese]

We agree that we don't want to play 5E like a board game. That's why I dislike some of the feats in the UA. That's been my whole point all along.

Please stop with the red herring argument. It's getting old. The point is that a PC can charm any creature that understands them. The PC setting up the situation where they can talk with someone for a minute is part of the game.

I guess that's where we differ. You treat it like a spell, I treat it like a skill. In my games, social encounters are handled by dialogue, not die rolls or skill checks. If the PC has roleplayed convincingly enough, I won't call for a Persuasion, Deception or Intimidate check. I'll continue to roleplay the NPCs and continue the dialogue as if it was an auto success. If what the PC is trying to accomplish is in opposition of the NPCs background traits or obligations, then I will call for a skill check and if they roleplayed really well, I'd probably grant Advantage on it too. I'd never treat it like a spell and rule by RAW on social encounters or treat it like Combat with declared actions resolved by rolls. That trivializes the Social pillar of the game. It's really the difference between wargaming and roleplaying.

But we've got different play styles and expectations of the game so we're not going convince each other of anything. I'll just agree with you that there's verbiage that needs to be corrected with the Skill Feats. I just think what some people in this thread want, in terms of codifiying everything to make everything as air tight as possible, is not possible with the design intention that the developers have. They want the DMs to make the intuitive call, not codify everything in stone with a bunch of rules which in turn makes this 3.5e again where rules lawyers can use the rules to try and overrun other players or the DM.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

...saying what though? That's the question being asked of you. One you keep shying away from. What is required of the Diplomat PC to say in order to benefit from this feat? You seem to think it reasonable that the Diplomat PC can stand there for a minute saying random words in alphabetical order. Or naming every mammal they can think of. And if they can do so for exactly one minute, they get a magical charm power out of it. Balderdash, I say! The feat says no such thing.

What am I "running" from?

The feat clearly states

If you spend 1 minute talking to someone who
can understand what you say, you can make a
Charisma (Persuasion) check contested by the
creature’s Wisdom (Insight) check.
​

It doesn't specify what you talk about. It doesn't matter if I discuss the botanical classification of toe fungus, the meaning of the number "7" or spend a minute in pure flattery. It doesn't give any additional criteria other than

If you or
your companions are fighting the creature,
your check automatically fails.
​

Finally it states how the charm condition can end

If your check
succeeds, the target is charmed by you as long
as it remains within 60 feet of you and for 1
minute thereafter.​

If you want clarification on what the PC has to say during that minute, ask the writers of the feat.

If you want to change the rule, talk to the writers of the feat.

But if we're going to discuss the feat, let's discuss the feat instead of arguing that your PC could never talk to an individual for an entire minute.

 

[Oofta]

I guess that's where we differ. You treat it like a spell, I treat it like a skill. In my games, social encounters are handled by dialogue, not die rolls or skill checks.

For the umpteenth time, the reason I dislike the feats Menacing and Diplomat is because they change a social encounter to a spell like ability.

We agree. I don't want feats that say "If I do X then I get an opposed skill challenge. If I succeed Y happens".

That is exactly what these feats say.

 

[Leatherhead]

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

http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/uafeat/

The short of it:
That is not the intent.

 

[Geeknamese]

UA: Skill Feats

For the umpteenth time, the reason I dislike the feats Menacing and Diplomat is because they change a social encounter to a spell like ability.

We agree. I don't want feats that say "If I do X then I get an opposed skill challenge. If I succeed Y happens".

That is exactly what these feats say.

"Ability Checks
In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.
Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC’s attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC’s reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM’s discretion.
Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills. If the group needs to trick a guard into letting them into a castle, the rogue who is proficient in Deception is the best bet to lead the discussion. When negotiating for a hostage’s release, the cleric with Persuasion should do most of the talking."

From the PHB, using your skill whether it be through descriptive roleplaying or active roleplaying should require that you're making some attempt to alter the NPCs reaction. The DMG goes further to explain the process of Starting Attitude, Conversation and Charisma Check in resolving social encounters. Diplomat is a Skill Feat. It should still follow the process of how a Skill is resolved; the only difference is that it results in a spell like effect on success. The dialogue should give them DM some sense of uncertainty to call for a skill check. Filibustering makes no attempt at altering an NPCs reaction/attitude. Don't want to speak for the rest of you but as a DM, I'd say with certainty that's an auto fail and would grant no skill check which in turn means no Skill Feat attempt. I don't want the developers to have to spell out how to run a social encounter for every Feat. I don't want a table with every Feat that codifies every potential scenario so some DM can feel more confident in presenting a ruling to his players.

Edit: Basically, my point is if it calls for any kind of social encounter skill check, it's should be handled like a social encounter. It's not just, "I Persuasion the NPC or I want to Deception the NPC." There's a social encounter system that leads up to a DM possibly calling for that check.

Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

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.

Let's examine things shall we? Looking at the costs for what you're asking:

Menacing Attack Character Costs:

• Can be taken as 1 of 3 options at 3rd level.
• Not limited to type affected.
• Can be saved against, making it less of a sure thing.
• Does not cost any action - it's a bonus added to an attack.

Menacing Feat Character Costs:

• Requires minimum 11th level rogue.
• Requires 2 ASI's to be spent on Charisma
• Requires the character's highest stat to be Charisma (thus reducing the character's effectiveness to do anything else - Max 14 Dex/Str for example, greatly reducing combat effectiveness)
• Requires a 3rd feat to be spent
• Replaces the rogue's single attack for the round, meaning the 13th level rogue is forgoing 7d6 sneak attack.
• limited to humanoids only and also limited by any effect that renders a target immune to frightened (ie, a paladin for example)

You seriously think this is overpowered? That this isn't just a bag of rats white room theorycrafting? The costs for doing this are astronomical. The idea that a player is going to build towards doing this, and isn't actually achieving the goal until ELEVENTH level is extremely unlikely.

I'm really, really not seeing the issue here. This is just a non-problem. The idea that a rogue is going to forgo sneak attacks to give a single target disadvantage on attacks for one round is not going to happen. This is no different than the cleric perception issue that was raised earlier.

--------------

On the Diplomacy thing? Ok, fair enough. Need to add a line saying attacking a charmed NPC ends the charm. Duh. Not a major issue. Add a few words and done. It's a good idea to clear up the language, particularly for new DM's who might not realize just how powerful this might become. Outside of that though, there's no real issue.