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."

​

 

[Chaosmancer]

I blame the developers for breaking their own design philosophy. Expertise cannot co-exist with bounded accuracy; the two are mutually exclusive. And tying more combat maneuvers to skill contests, which are already polluted by expertise, just exacerbates the problem.

To see just how broken these feats are, imagine a feat that gives you "expertise" in your spell save DC. Then imagine that the game already HAS a feat that also gives you +5 to your DC, allowing low-level characters to achieve a spell save DC of 25 or higher. Every Hold Person, Dominate Monster, or other spell is an auto-success.

Broken, right? Yet that's exactly what we have now with Observant and these UA feats.

Yes, absolutely broken. But I can hear the responses already... "What do you mean a 25 spell save DC is broken? The player INVESTED in it!" -- as if that had any relevance at all.

But what skill use has the same effect of paralyzing or dominating the enemy?

I’ll agree Diplomat is broken by RAW without saying that causing harm breaks the charm. But also, RAI is incredibly clear in how it is supposed to work.

Skills =/= Spells.

You keep cracking me up. The only disagreement you have with me is that you would overrule the text of the rules which is what I expected.

All I'm saying that we should raise the flaw in the wording of the feat as an issue to the developers.

Do I expect this feat to be fixed? I hope so. Will it be fixed if nobody points it out? Probably not.

But my pointing out that the text of the feat is flawed just brings out Corwin The Insult Machine(tm).

I think you are missing intent here.

No one disagrees that the feat isn’t mis-written at this time. Of course it is, that is a glaringly obvious problem. What we disagree with is because this glaringly obvious problem is there that the feat needs to get scrapped. Even if the devs decide that they do not have to spell out this obvious of an answer in the feat (to save space perhaps) it is clear what the intent is supposed to be.

Yes, charm without a break condition is a problem, clearly an oversight, noted for survey let us move on.

So, no, what you are saying doesn't actually work that way. You could potentially frighten ONE target for the duration of the fight, but, you'd have to give up an attack every round. And, all it has to do is move away from you.

Technically incorrect, unless you mean all they have to do to no be feared next turn is move away so they aren't within 30 ft.

A creature under fear does not have to run away. I abused the heck out of that with my sorcerer when we fought a dragon once. I was completely feared, but since I didn't have to flee I just stood my ground in the corner of the room. Also, since it is only disadvantage to rolls, my spells with a save DC went off just like normal.

It was a silly scenario (the room was barely big enough for us and the dragon in the first place) bu perfectly RAW.

To using menacing. I'd be just as likely to have the guy you frightened hang back and chuck spears for a few rounds at disadvantage. Most enemy humanoids are smart enough to realize they need some way to attack at range in case they can't reach the thing they want to kill.

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.

First point. Then don't play it like a board game. Nothing in the feat requires you to stop role-playing, and most players who want stuff like Diplomat will have some idea of what they want to say.

Second point. Great they can charm anybody anywhere, no problem. Once the issue of the obvious oversight of attacking the charmed target is removed, I say to you.... so what?

Knowing that attacking them will break the charm and cause massive problems (after the rule is rewritten for those RAW rules lawyer types) is it really so terrible if the character gets advantage on those checks after a minute of talking to the king? If he can reliably pass the check to get the advantage... then why does he need that advantage?

Perhaps they have a hard sell and they want to warm him up to the idea first. Perfectly reasonable, and I love that the rules are pre-coded to give advantage for a good lead in towards what they want. But beyond that... I just don't see this massive benefit. Again it just looks kind of meh.

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.

So... at a minimum a sleight of hand, and depending on the tech level and type of lock this could be an impossible task. After all you don't have the key to the king's bedchamber do you? Or what if the door needs to be barred. No way to do that secretly, it is a massive log of wood.

So, that's a major issue. What other way could you covertly trap the king in a room without him knowing so he can't alert the guards?

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?

Weren't asking me, but I shall answer.

Yes, it looks repeatable by RAW
No, it does not look like they know they were charmed
No, it says nothing about being a friendly acquaintance.

 

[Hussar]

Technically incorrect, unless you mean all they have to do to no be feared next turn is move away so they aren't within 30 ft.

A creature under fear does not have to run away. I abused the heck out of that with my sorcerer when we fought a dragon once. I was completely feared, but since I didn't have to flee I just stood my ground in the corner of the room. Also, since it is only disadvantage to rolls, my spells with a save DC went off just like normal.

It was a silly scenario (the room was barely big enough for us and the dragon in the first place) bu perfectly RAW.

To using menacing. I'd be just as likely to have the guy you frightened hang back and chuck spears for a few rounds at disadvantage. Most enemy humanoids are smart enough to realize they need some way to attack at range in case they can't reach the thing they want to kill.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?541511-UA-Skill-Feats/page35#ixzz4erK16uR4

Yes, that is what I meant. So long as they stay outside of that 30 feet, you cannot fear them. You also couldn't do it if silenced some way, as well. Let's not forget, you need line of sight to the target too. Generally speaking, it's not that hard to break line of sight. Good grief, if we're being all rules lawyery about it, all the target has to do is close his eyes on your turn and poof, you are incapable of menacing. Congratulations, you just blew your actions for the round for nothing. I mean, if we're going to insist on RAW readings of other feats, why not this one?

This is why Rulings not Rules is in place. To stop this sort of shenanigans.

Otherwise, why not play as RAI, the character with this feat probably has something in the neighbourhood of +8-+10 on the check, is giving up an attack (or a spell for the round) to frighten one target for one round. Not a problem.

 

[Hussar]

I blame the developers for breaking their own design philosophy. Expertise cannot co-exist with bounded accuracy; the two are mutually exclusive. And tying more combat maneuvers to skill contests, which are already polluted by expertise, just exacerbates the problem.

To see just how broken these feats are, imagine a feat that gives you "expertise" in your spell save DC. Then imagine that the game already HAS a feat that also gives you +5 to your DC, allowing low-level characters to achieve a spell save DC of 25 or higher. Every Hold Person, Dominate Monster, or other spell is an auto-success.

Broken, right? Yet that's exactly what we have now with Observant and these UA feats.

Yes, absolutely broken. But I can hear the responses already... "What do you mean a 25 spell save DC is broken? The player INVESTED in it!" -- as if that had any relevance at all.

Apples and oranges though. A DC 25 Spell save is broken, because DC is what DEFINES the bounds of bounded accuracy. A DC of 25 in anything is something that should be extremely rare.

Additionally, you really are comparing apples to oranges.

Say with your feats, I can jack up the DC to 25, but, in order to be a fair comparison, that DC requires 1 minute to achieve. Is it broken now?

How about if you can jack up the DC to 25 but, your spell can only affect a single humanoid within 30 feet of you. Is this still broken?

And, how about spells that do not have saving throws at all? I can plug away with magic missiles all day long and there's virtually nothing anything can do to stop that damage. Broken no? How about all the half damage spells? I mean, the save DC doesn't actually block damage, simply mitigate it. If I deal double the target's HP on a 1/2 save spell, the DC doesn't matter. The target automatically dies. That's broken too no?

So, I'm a 5th level mage, facing off with our putative CR 19 humanoid, and, no matter what, I'm going to deal damage to him with my fireball. But, this is perfectly acceptable, but, my 13th level rogue who's spent 3 feats intimidating him for 1 round is far too powerful?

I really think people need to revisit what bounded accuracy means again.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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).

Interesting. I'd forgotten that twitter exchange. Thanks!
It seems to not be clear enough for everyone, and then there is that twitter interaction. IMO, they don't stack, so it isn't a problem. At least from that angle.

I also don't buy the niche protection argument. Expertise in a skill should never have been part of any class' protected niche. And I don't care anyway, because players should be able to mix concepts in multiple ways and to varying degrees.

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]: how could he rogue lock the door in a way the king can't easily undo? Who says there is a lock, or that it can be locked without a key, or without being very obvious, like a bar or similar? If it is allowed, why isn't it involving multiple skill checks, some of which are at disadvantage? (Seriously, you seem opposed to adv/disad based on circumstance and that confuses me greatly)

Why is the King even allowing this alone time to happen at all? Has the rogue already weaseled into his circle of trust somehow before this? Why doesn't the king get Insight checks to realize he is being steered into an easily locked room alone with a relative stranger?
Why are his guards or advisors allowing any of this?
Why do you assume the king can't hold the rogue off by fighting defensively for long enough for the effect to end?
Can't attack=\=can't defend!

Look. I don't normally have any patience for nitpicking, at all. I will straight up, with blatant rudeness, tell someone who nit-picks at me that I don't care about any nit picking based argument, and they can either find a better arguement or find someone else to argue with. I honestly kind of despise pedantic lawyering over wording and similar minutiae. And by kind of, I mean I really strongly despise it. It makes me think less of people who do it habitually.

But this is an incredibly weird edge case. It doesn't make sense, the solutions to it, if it needs any, exist regardless of these feats and are plainly obvious, and it is too strange+rare an edge case to base the game's rules on.

Everyone agrees that the charmed condition should always end if the target is attacked by you or your allies.

Expertise doesn't break the game, and these feats (probably) just give expertise by another name.

I'm not sure why your remaining objections even are, if any, bc this one example is dominating the thread for no good reason. lets argue about one of the other feats for a page or two, eh?

 

[Prakriti]

But what skill use has the same effect of paralyzing or dominating the enemy?

Grapple comes close.

I’ll agree Diplomat is broken by RAW without saying that causing harm breaks the charm.

And Menacing?

Skills =/= Spells.

When you attach spell-like effects to skills via skill contests, and allow those skills to be pumped sky-high via expertise and feats, then, for all intents and purposes, skill modifiers = spell save DCs. And there are no monsters or NPCs in the game -- be it warlords, Ancient Red Dragons, or Pit Fiends -- that were designed to stand up to these kinds of numbers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

The short of it:
That is not the intent.

Ok, that is about what I originally thought, before this thread had me second guessing myself.

So....are we worried about...like...high level rogues with reliable talent? Is that the issue? Bc....I don't see how that is a problem.

wdit to add: if I read that discussion correctly, it is literally RAW that they don't stack, not just RAI.

No one is using feats to get skill checks "sky high". They are just getting the equivalent of expertise with one skill, and a situational bennie.

 

[Corwin]

What am I "running" from?

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

It doesn't specify what you talk about.

I should hope not. What a nightmare that would be, to have the feat list all the topics appropriate in any situation. If only there were people at the table telling a story rather than just reading a sentence out of the book, state the mechanic being invoked, rolling a die, and moving their meeple to the designated space...

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.

Clearly not true. Because if it is you playing such a character (implied by the pronouns you chose), talking in that way (as you describe), you are clearly not the DM. Therefor incapable of making that claim (that what you decide to say doesn't matter).

Speaking for me and my group, I can tell you this: Neither me, nor my fellow players, would accept such a clearly ridiculous pandering to the basest, blind RAW reading, of the feat. You make zero effort to consider the need (or desire) for contextual roleplaying or any effort by the player to interact with the NPC. You think you can just spew random words at someone to achieve the social interaction pillar. I just realized what your interpretation reminds me of: filibustering. You basically think your character can filibuster for one minute to trigger the "magic trick". I see nothing in the rules, nor this feat, telling me that is the intent.

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

Nah. I'll just play D&D as intended and interact with my DM, as proxy to the NPC, to achieve the social pillar of the game. I'm not going to tweet the devs every session, describe what the scene is about, and ask for roleplaying advice from them.

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

I have. I do. And I will again. In this case as well.

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.

I never said any such thing. You really need to quit arguing from a position of disingenuousness. Its unbecoming. And rude. I ask that you please stop erecting strawmen in a desperate attempt to somehow "win" on the internets (as if that's even possible).

 

[Gradine]

Ok, that is about what I originally thought, before this thread had me second guessing myself.

So....are we worried about...like...high level rogues with reliable talent? Is that the issue? Bc....I don't see how that is a problem.

wdit to add: if I read that discussion correctly, it is literally RAW that they don't stack, not just RAI.

No one is using feats to get skill checks "sky high". They are just getting the equivalent of expertise with one skill, and a situational bennie.

You basically have the right of it.

What it boils down to now is nit-picking the situational bennies. Several of which are... not well-written, to say the least. Ultimately I'd be happier if they were something that very situationally beneficial but are instead more flavorful, stuff like you get from Actor or Keen Mind. FWIW, I think Arcanist, Naturalist & Theologian are perfect examples of this, however I don't think they're a good model for any of the other skills, so I'm not sure how I'd go about fixing them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You basically have the right of it.

What it boils down to now is nit-picking the situational bennies. Several of which are... not well-written, to say the least. Ultimately I'd be happier if they were something that very situationally beneficial but are instead more flavorful, stuff like you get from Actor or Keen Mind. FWIW, I think Arcanist, Naturalist & Theologian are perfect examples of this, however I don't think they're a good model for any of the other skills, so I'm not sure how I'd go about fixing them.

My issues with the spell granting ones is, I'd rather they expand the uses of those skills to include similar effects. I want Arcana to do what it did in 4e, I'd let you examine magical effects and properties, and even interact/interfere/sabotage/hack such effects. If you want to mess with a portal, shut down a magical "bomb" or trap, etc, you use Arcana.
I want Nature to allow you to speak with Nature, purify water, heal plants. Maybe allow some herbalism regardless of herbalist kit
I want Religion to let you find the weaknesses of undead and "outsiders", temporarily Hallow an area, or perform exorcisms.

Granting spells just strikes me as lazy. Idk.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And Menacing?

The only scenario where forcing one humanoid creature to attack at disadvantage and not be able to close with the party is a significant factor is when you have 1v1 or 6v1 situations.

6v1 situations already do not work in the game as written, they are close but they don’t really work. 1v1 already has lots of ways it can go horribly wrong.

So, no it isn’t broken and I honestly think it may be a little weak for the cost of an attack, or an entire action if you don’t have multi-attack.

When you attach spell-like effects to skills via skill contests, and allow those skills to be pumped sky-high via expertise and feats, then, for all intents and purposes, skill modifiers = spell save DCs. And there are no monsters or NPCs in the game -- be it warlords, Ancient Red Dragons, or Pit Fiends -- that were designed to stand up to these kinds of numbers.

They weren’t designed for skills in general, if you just pull things straight from the stat block. Actually, this has been a problem for a long time, but the skills description in the beginning of the MM does not prevent you from giving skills or even expertise (which it specifically mentions) to these creatures if it makes sense.

To highlight my point, take the Balor and the Pit Fiend. High level fiends, the scariest, the most silver tongued, ect ect ect. They have no training in Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation. So, even though their natural charismas are +6 and +7 respectively, a level 17 bard without expertise has +11 to those checks, with it they get +17. Insight is even worse, the Pit Fiend, who should clearly be able to tell when someone is lying since he is a lying devil himself, only gets a +4 to insight. A level 1 bard with a high charisma is more than likely able to fool the highest ranked Devil in the book just from RAW numbers, because they’ll have a +8 to deception, double the Pit Fiends ability to see through their lies.


Now, there is a simple reason for this. This is the limits of the stat block, I think the devs considered these sort of events would be sort of rare, and that DMs would just give proficiency since it is clear those creatures should have it, but they needed room for the attacks and other special abilities, so they didn’t give them any skills. It was a space issue, and I have no qualms about giving proficiency or Expertise to these creatures because it makes sense. The Devil that has made deceptive contracts with mortals for a thousand years has expertise in deception and insight, because they’ve seen every trick in the book already, they are hard to fool and harder to catch in a lie. Makes perfect sense and it is perfectly within the intentions of the design.