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]

I rather disagree with this point entirely. The reason for this is what I like to call the "blank page problem".

I teach creative writing (well, dramatic writing, so creative writing that's 95% dialogue) and I do a lot of in-class free-writing assignments. You know what free-writing assignment is consistently the most difficult for my students, every time?

Give them a blank page of paper and just tell them to "write."

Half the class will just stare at the page for a few minutes; the other half will start with something but most will hit a brick wall pretty early. Turns out having infinite possibilities with absolutely nothing to build on is pretty paralyzing, creatively speaking. But give them a prompt, any prompt, and the students will just write and write and some will even get upset when I tell them to stop. Parameters grease the wheels of creativity. Every time.

So when a feat or some other rule comes along and says "you can do X with Athletics" I don't (and I don't think my students would either) see "you can only X with Athletics". What we would all, collectively see, is a jumping off point. "Hey, if Athletics lets me do X, does that mean I can do Y also?" "Oh yeah! And what about Z?"

It's a pretty awesome thing to witness, really.

This. Well said.

I've never seen the "oh this feat/power exists" guess you can only do the thing if you have it!

Like...do some people's games not allow tripping without the battlemaster?

Are your arcanists totally blind to magical effects without the Detect Magic spell?

Like...there are codified abilities to show specialization, codified for a given character the fact they are especially good at a thing, etc, not to create an exclusive thing that only that character can even try to do.

 

[Satyrn]

That XP is for your barbarian player. I love playing half-orcs.


For me, it was 3e's skill system, not 4e, that made me welcome 5e. I'd been longing to houserule in 2e's nonweapon proficiency nonsystem, complete with the simple "roll under your ability score to succeed at, like, anything" mechanic.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So when a feat or some other rule comes along and says "you can do X with Athletics" I don't (and I don't think my students would either) see "you can only X with Athletics".

Not to discount your own experience (I couldn't of course because I don't know you), but I'm afraid that does happen, and did happen, a lot. When 3e came out with specific and highly narrowed skills and abilities, the "you can only do what's on your character sheet" was a very real problem that existed. Not only did it exist in the "you don't have acrobatics skills, so you can't do that", but also in the "your skill/power doesn't explicitly say you can, so you can't" and "since you don't have the highest bonus for that skill in the party, you should never be doing that." It's one of the driving factors as to why 5e's design went back to rulings over rules and more broad skill checks to be left to DM interpretation. Because the very thing you say you or your students would never do, did happen a lot.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In previous editions (4E in particular, but 3.5 also had this somewhat) the rules for how you could interact were very detailed. In 4E, we had powers which most people I played with would print out and put in card sleeves. The game became a tactical war game. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it wasn't what I play D&D for.

People stopped thinking "What would my raging half-orc barbarian do in this situation" they started thinking "what card can I play that would counter the card the opposition just played?"

I don't want to go there again.

Never saw that in 4e, even a little bit. And I credit both the actual text of the 4e core books, and good DMing, for that, so varying extents, but mostly I credit the players, whether I was a player or the DM.

People looked at their powers and asked, how can I riff off this? The rest of the time, it was, just like every other roleplaying game. The player wants to do a thing, checks if they have an ability that just lets them do it, and if not asks the DM.

The only time we came close to what you describe is brand new players (and brand new players do it in 5e just as much), which only lasts a session or two, and 1 DM we had who had a mindset toward 4e that it was more video-gamey, and we had to, as players, push back against that and point out things like page 42 of the DMG, and just the fact that the game is more fun when we improvise.

The fighter is better and more reliable at taunting enemies into attacking them, because he has powers that just *do that*. The rogue has to use skills and roll well, on top of making attacks, to pull it off, and even then it is going to work differently, because the rogue doesn't have extensive training and experience (class features) in being "sticky" in combat.

My point is, the issue that you and some others had in 4e was an issue your group had, not an inherent function of codified rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. I even quoted the rules above. You can ask for an athletics check as part of movement to do a stunt (jumping to land on the dragon's neck wasn't guaranteed). If you have multiple attacks, one of those attacks can be a grapple.

So stunt while moving required a check, grapple required a check as part of the attack, character has two attacks so I let her swing her axe as her second attack.

You hadn't clarified that the character had two attacks, yet, actually. Which is the only part that wasn't clear when I responded to it.

 

[Satyrn]

I've never seen the "oh this feat/power exists" guess you can only do the thing if you have it!

Like...do some people's games not allow tripping without the battlemaster?

Are your arcanists totally blind to magical effects without the Detect Magic spell?

I'm tired of trying to clarify myself to you. The last time you asked for clarification, it seemed like you simply attacked my response instead of looking to understand what I was saying.

And your questions here just look like argumentative hyperbole. I mean, we keep talking about how our games play out - [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] has an example in this thread, recently - and I'm sure you've seen me talk about my gnome battlemaster in other threads. So you can see some of how we do some things. Your questions seem to me to say you ain't listening.

 

[Oofta]

Never saw that in 4e, even a little bit. And I credit both the actual text of the 4e core books, and good DMing, for that, so varying extents, but mostly I credit the players, whether I was a player or the DM.

People looked at their powers and asked, how can I riff off this? The rest of the time, it was, just like every other roleplaying game. The player wants to do a thing, checks if they have an ability that just lets them do it, and if not asks the DM.

The only time we came close to what you describe is brand new players (and brand new players do it in 5e just as much), which only lasts a session or two, and 1 DM we had who had a mindset toward 4e that it was more video-gamey, and we had to, as players, push back against that and point out things like page 42 of the DMG, and just the fact that the game is more fun when we improvise.

The fighter is better and more reliable at taunting enemies into attacking them, because he has powers that just *do that*. The rogue has to use skills and roll well, on top of making attacks, to pull it off, and even then it is going to work differently, because the rogue doesn't have extensive training and experience (class features) in being "sticky" in combat.

My point is, the issue that you and some others had in 4e was an issue your group had, not an inherent function of codified rules.

All I can say is that I played with a wide variety of players and DMs in 4E (I was pretty active in LFR).

I was quite active in LFR, organizing or helping to organize a couple of gaming groups. I played with literally dozens of players, probably a dozen DMs, the entire lifespan of the edition. Everyone I discussed this with had the same issue. There were a handful of people that really liked 4E, but they almost all exclusively started with 4E.

So all I can say is your experience is different from what I, and many other people experienced.

I don't mean to slam 4E, I don't want to make this an edition war. It had some interesting ideas and I enjoyed it in many ways in the lower/heroic tier.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm tired of trying to clarify myself to you. The last time you asked for clarification, it seemed like you simply attacked my response instead of looking to understand what I was saying.

And your questions here just look like argumentative hyperbole. I mean, we keep talking about how our games play out - [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] has an example in this thread, recently - and I'm sure you've seen me talk about my gnome battlemaster in other threads. So you can see some of how we do some things. Your questions seem to me to say you ain't listening.

Then don't respond? I mean, the post you're responding to here quoted someone other than you, and yet you want to take it as if I'm somehow coming at you, specifically? Why?

I never attacked your responses to anything. im not sure what response you're even talking about.

And sure, the question you quoted is 100% rhetorical. I figured that was completely clear. The point of such questions, in pretty much any discussion, is to contrast against what is being suggested by others in a discussion.

The point, in this case, is that codification does not actually mean exclusivity, and if it does in your games, that is a thing you are allowing to happen in your games, not something the system is inherently pushing towards.

 

[Sacrosanct]

FWIW, in my own anecdotal experience, being a DM and player since 1981 and teaching new players since the mid 80s, I saw a definite shift in player expectations on what you could and couldn't do as the editions progresses. And my DM style didn't change, so I'm pretty sure it was due to the differences in rules. To explain:

In AD&D, you had two basic rules: If you want to attack something, it's an attack roll. Anything else you want to do that wouldn't normally be an automatic success for failure is an ability check. That's pretty much it. And "attack" was a lose term. It mean attacking with a weapon, grappling, punching, tripping, anything that was a hostile action toward the target. Leaping from railings, intimidation, recalling lore, etc were all just ability checks. Anyone and everyone could attempt these things.

Then 3e came along with clearly defined abilities/skills/powers. I immediately saw a shift in players who would then look at their sheet to see if they had the power/skill/ability to do what they wanted. I mean, it was pretty much immediate and dramatic.

Then the optimizer crowd quickly followed, and actively discouraged players from attempting something if they didn't have the highest score in it.

Since I didn't change my DMing style, and I doubt the newer generation of players are less creative than old school players, the most obvious answer is the change in the rules. It also makes sense from a human behavior standpoint. Most people want to stick within borders of a rule. And if there's a rule/skill/power for tripping and that player doesn't have it, it is natural behavior for that player to not try it.

I know this is just my own personal experience, but I am positive it's not limited to me because we've had MANY internet arguments over this topic since 2000. Heck, it's the basis behind the "fighters can't do anything" argument that always comes up. There's no way I can see how a person can say they have never heard that this is a problem and be an active forum poster. I'm not calling anyone a liar or anything, but there is no way I can see how someone can say that. Especially when they've been part of those discussions in the past.

 

[Oofta]

You hadn't clarified that the character had two attacks, yet, actually. Which is the only part that wasn't clear when I responded to it.

Post 459

I decided to treat the first as a stunt during her movement, the second check as a grapple attack and she still had one action to swing her axe.

Technically I misspoke. She still had one attack action.

Which I corrected in post 462

Her grapple check was one of her attacks. She has two.

I'm going to give you some free advice. Being free, it's probably not worth anything.

What you are doing is a faulty debate tactic. You aren't directly addressing the issue, you are picking at relatively inconsequential details. You know that barabarians can have two attack actions. I assume you know the rules that if you have multiple attacks, one can be a grapple.

If you disagree with my basic premise, that's fine. It's great to get different ideas and opinions. It's one of the reasons I post. But it would be appreciated if we discussed those opinions, not sideline sniping and not resort to red herrings or equivocation.