Ua 4/17/2017: Skill Feats

[Arenabait]

Woohoo! I got to make the thread this time

EDIT: And it's out! (http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/do...SkillFeats.pdf)

[jaappleton]

SPECULATIOOOOOON!

Archetypes for the Mystic. Like Fighter / Mystic.

And / Or revisions of other UA, like Kensei v2.

[Arenabait]

I know they just did one on spells, but I'm hoping for MOAR! MOAR MAGICKS!

[Beechgnome]

Want: Mystic revision, more Metamagic, Spells or Feats, Feats, Feats.

Likely get: Additional rules on Exhaustion, extreme environments.

[Aett_Thorn]

My guess is either a few more mid-level spells (levels 2-4), or some new feats. We just got a DM US last week, so it should be more player-focused this week is my thinking.

Now, wishlist for me is still:

1) Spells for melee Rangers

2) Spells for ranged Paladins

3) Character race options for fey races (Centaurs, pixies, satyrs, etc.)

4) New weapon types and fixes to weapon damage for a few imbalanced weapon types

[DivisibleByZero]

I still want an rocking Official Key Lime Pie recipe.

[Dman]

I would be happy with something player oriented, but theres so many characters ive got lined up for future games theyd have to wait in line.

otherwise its been the same as my other wishlists

[nickl_2000]

I still want an rocking Official Key Lime Pie recipe.

But then we will be spending all our time arguing if the "Dash of salt" should be RAW or RAI. Also when they say whipped cream, does that mean it is heavy cream whipped or whipped cream out of a can.

[jitzul]

Boy Oh boy I can't wait from some poorly writing and designed player options or poorly writing and designed dm options.

[DivisibleByZero]

Boy Oh boy I can't wait from some poorly writing and designed player options or poorly writing and designed dm options.

I can't wait for some poorly writing critique of said options.

[Specter]

Skiiiiiiills.

[Arenabait]

Honestly, I just want options that preexisting characters can use, like the spells! (Downtime doesn't count, that was garbage)

[DivisibleByZero]

Honestly, I just want options that preexisting characters can use, like the spells! (Downtime doesn't count, that was garbage)

There was actually quite a bit of interesting and useful options in that one. But players were unhappy with it because those interesting and useful options were aimed at DMs instead of players, and when UA gets aimed at DMs once in a friggin blue moon, players cry for a week straight.

[Arenabait]

There was actually quite a bit of interesting and useful options in that one. But players were unhappy with it because those interesting and useful options were aimed at DMs instead of players, and when UA gets aimed at DMs once in a friggin blue moon, players cry for a week straight.

Okay, let's not turn this thread into another thread to argue about it.

[Trum4n1208]

Feats would be awesome. Spells are always good. Magic items would be great.

[rbstr]

I want to feast on feats!
In particular a look at weapon mastery feats again with a bit better mind to balance against existing feats and the ASI. Like, less +1 to accuracy. If you're gonna do that make it a half-feat instead. Blade mastery was particularly meh. Like, it's basically a worse dex ASI for mostpeople.
Or really, anything that could be considered like more spells for martial classes.

More spells could be cool too.

[Arenabait]

Or really, anything that could be considered like more spells for martial classes.

Okay, I think I know what I want in place of mere spells now.

[jaappleton]

Don't forget, they did Feats once before.

Just not part of this 'UA Blitz with stuff every week!', it was awhile ago. But it was solid. Most people missed it.

[Steampunkette]

I'm hoping for Environmental Effects rules, Exploration options, and rules for Defiling...

Yes, I want Dark Sun. Sue me.

[jaappleton]

I'm hoping for Environmental Effects rules, Exploration options, and rules for Defiling...

Yes, I want Dark Sun. Sue me.

You'll be hearing from my lawyer.:smalltongue:

[Beechgnome]

Don't forget, they did Feats once before.

Just not part of this 'UA Blitz with stuff every week!', it was awhile ago. But it was solid. Most people missed it.

It was good, except for all the +1 bonuses they handed out for the weapon feats. I'm hoping they take another crack at it and clean it up a bit. Because I do want to play a flail, or meteor hammer, master.

And If environmental effects were part of a larger Campaign World UA, I'd be cool with that.

[LordCdrMilitant]

There was actually quite a bit of interesting and useful options in that one. But players were unhappy with it because those interesting and useful options were aimed at DMs instead of players, and when UA gets aimed at DMs once in a friggin blue moon, players cry for a week straight.

No, it's because the stuff was crap.

It was a bunch of rules to cut out all the not-stab-face and actual playing of the character as more than a numerical combat efficiency exercise.

Anyway, with regards to what I desire from UA, I can't say for sure. I do want to see stronghold construction rules, and rules for managing estates and enterprises and kingdoms, but from the general idea of 5e, and especially given the latest UA, that's never going to happen.

Spells that aren't damage-onto-target(s) are decent too. There are too few feats issued to players this edition to make taking any feat other than those that improve combat efficiency worthwhile, though noncombat feats that actually are worth not getting another +2 to a stat are nice.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, it's because the stuff was crap.

It was a bunch of rules to cut out all the not-stab-face and actual playing of the character as more than a numerical combat efficiency exercise.

That's one way to look at it.
Another way would be to say that there were decent guidelines for doing things in down time if your group like to Roll play rather than Role playing.
I'm not saying that I'd ever use those rules, but for their target audience they were pretty good.

[Steampunkette]

That's one way to look at it.
Another way would be to say that there were decent guidelines for doing things in down time if your group like to Roll play rather than Role playing.
I'm not saying that I'd ever use those rules, but for their target audience they were pretty good.

My group loves Roleplaying. But without a central tentpole during downtime we invariably wind up in one of two situations:

1) Hour by Hour descriptions of what people are up to each day during the 2 weeks they'll be in town...
2) Players skipping over the downtime because it feels like a waste of time for the above mentioned situation.

The first one freaking sucks, and the second one creates a harsh feeling of disconnection between the characters and the world.

Using the system, we were able to speed through downtime while still touching on what people were doing, use it as informative parts of defining where characters are/what they're doing when the plot kicks in, and things of that nature.

It's a great solution to the issue of Choice Paralysis. I'm not sure if it plagues -your- groups. But it certainly does with mine.

[DivisibleByZero]

See?
There you go.
While some DMs may have found them less than appealing, for their target audience (and apparently that applies to more than the one that I first envisioned), they were pretty good, as I said.

[RickAllison]

That's one way to look at it.
Another way would be to say that there were decent guidelines for doing things in down time if your group like to Roll play rather than Role playing.
I'm not saying that I'd ever use those rules, but for their target audience they were pretty good.

For our group, it became useful for mediating time in town where the party splits up. Rather than taking time from everyone to mediate the arena combat (initiative and all) of our Druid, we can now work on the results and the roleplay while the roll play is streamlined. Oh, and it makes it much easier to arbitrate such activities between sessions. Say what you spend your time doing, roll the checks, compare the results to the table, and then the DM addresses any complications or foils.

[Belac93]

Dark sun playstest pleeesse! (I want it so bad!)

[jaappleton]

Dark sun playstest pleeesse! (I want it so bad!)

I'd bet that one isn't happening.

You'll get Dark Sun. But not a full, dedicated book to it. It'll be part of the 'Manual of the Planes' or something.

[toapat]

I'd bet that one isn't happening.

You'll get Dark Sun. But not a full, dedicated book to it. It'll be part of the 'Manual of the Planes' or something.

Why would Dark sun ever come in a Manual of the Planes, when its basically locked off from the Great Wheel and the elemental planes, and the only Spelljammer able to reach across the void of Spheres is THE spelljammer

[Belac93]

I'd bet that one isn't happening.

You'll get Dark Sun. But not a full, dedicated book to it. It'll be part of the 'Manual of the Planes' or something.

Well yeah, but they aren't going to release the full manual of the planes playtest as a UA. They would probably focus on 1 plane at a time, (ebberon, dark sun, spelljammer, planescape), and I'm hoping today they do dark sun.

Dark sun: Thri-keen, Mul, Half-giants, gladiators, spelless bards, defilers and preservers.

I've been waiting, wizards! Deliver!

[Trum4n1208]

Don't forget, they did Feats once before.

Just not part of this 'UA Blitz with stuff every week!', it was awhile ago. But it was solid. Most people missed it.

I thought it was a fine UA, but it was somewhat centered around building your own feats, and I'm just not confident my DM would buy into that. That's the biggest reason why I'm advocating for an expanded list of decent new feats.

[JumboWheat01]

I wouldn't say no to more skills, but I'm pretty open on what I want to see for players' toys. Might be more DM's toys this week though, who knows.

[Steampunkette]

Why would Dark sun ever come in a Manual of the Planes, when its basically locked off from the Great Wheel and the elemental planes, and the only Spelljammer able to reach across the void of Spheres is THE spelljammer

^This


Well yeah, but they aren't going to release the full manual of the planes playtest as a UA. They would probably focus on 1 plane at a time, (ebberon, dark sun, spelljammer, planescape), and I'm hoping today they do dark sun.

Dark sun: Thri-keen, Mul, Half-giants, gladiators, spelless bards, defilers and preservers.

I've been waiting, wizards! Deliver!

I would love this!


I'd bet that one isn't happening.

You'll get Dark Sun. But not a full, dedicated book to it. It'll be part of the 'Manual of the Planes' or something.

I also think it won't happen. But for a variety of reasons I think you're wrong about the Manual of the Planes. The first one is above.

The second is: Curse of Strahd. We'll probably see a foray into Dark Sun at some point in a similar manner, an adventure book with a plethora of little adventure areas scattered across the Tyr region as a sort of 5e primer on the setting, with some new rules for players and DMs to tinker with.

The third: Dark Sun was one of the last, and most inexplicably wonderful, campaign settings for AD&D. It was created during a period of upheaval within the D&D community where the older worlds, Toril, Krynn, Oerth, Mystara, etc, began to get "Stale". People were looking for something new and fantastic compared to the old style Tolkien Fantasy.

Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape each explored a new style of fantasy within the game system while playing with the assumed roles of different characters in the world through race, class, and societal fantasies. And between the hammering of fantasy the media has been hit with, including a wide variety of vampire eye-banging TV shows and films, there hasn't been much in the way of swords and sorcery.

Dark Sun could help fill that gap, and play with that whole genre while it's not being beaten to death in theatres.

[Hrugner]

Mostly I'd like to see a broader rule philosophy framework so we know how to interpret stuff that's colossally under described. It'd be boring and a little disappointing, but useful. Also, I'd like to see some feats focused on producing a wider variety of statuses and/or supporting the other combat maneuvers, as well as some feats for resource building(ki, superiority dice etc). Hopefully they don't waste time on more chart rolling bull like last time. I like to include that stuff in joke posts, because it's just so terrible.

[Dudewithknives]

What I want:

Feats
Fixed Kensei
A new Warlock Pact or fixed current pacts considering what they did in the last UA for warlocks
Weapon variants that use more than just a basic roll 20, double dice on damage. Give them traits, crit ranges and actual traits.
Martial class options

What I expect:
More primary caster options
Time wasting filler entry
Options to make certain classes even more pointless than normal

[jaappleton]

At this point a small part of me is hoping that in the midst of the article, there's a recipe for key lime pie.

[toapat]

What I want:
Fixed Kensei

What I expect:
More primary caster options
Time wasting filler entry
Options to make certain classes even more pointless than normal

1: Thats basically what i want too, although i want a whole Monk rework, where they get a Monastery (Patron), Discipline (Pact), and Maneuvers (Invocations).

Granted, thats why ive been making a bit of work on Homebrewery, to fix the problem where monk's Sub classes dont really work well with the base Bruce Lee of the class.

http://i.imgur.com/A3PA09d.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/HIdnzs3.png

2: Yep

Edit: clarity

[Arenabait]

at this point a small part of me is hoping that in the midst of the article, there's a recipe for key lime pie.

key lime pie rules or riot!!!

[Anderlith]

It's gonna be Feats. Like a feat to make a really good Cheesecake

[Arenabait]

It's gonna be Feats. Like a feat to make a really good Cheesecake

Or a key lime pie!!!

[Dudewithknives]

Article is up, it is pretty nice.
Makes playing a variant human much more interesting.

Feats that give a skill and +1 to a stat.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm elated to see that my desire for a most excellent key lime pie recipe has not gone unnoticed, nor am I alone in my desires.

[Belac93]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf

Link for the lazy.

[Steampunkette]

These are looking tasty...

I don't have a Twitter... someone ask Crawford if the proficiency doubling stacks with Expertise?

[Trum4n1208]

I like what I've read so far.

[JumboWheat01]

I rather like this list of feats. Simple, fun, tasty. Gives you another thing you can slot into an ASI to take care of an odd ability score.

And it allows ANYONE to have Expertise in skills of their choice if they already grabbed said skill. That may devalue bards and rogues (and knowledge clerics) very slightly, but opens up for more roleplaying, I think.

[DivisibleByZero]

These are looking tasty...

I don't have a Twitter... someone ask Crawford if the proficiency doubling stacks with Expertise?

No need to ask. The answer is no. Like it says in the rule books, no dbl'ing of dbls, only one dbl applies.

[Callin]

NEAT! Diplomat, and Menacing are really good feats. Historian can make Skill Checks a breeze. All in all I really like this.

[Matticusrex]

Why is the link never in the first post.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why is the link never in the first post.

Here's your link. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana) Bookmark it, and you'll never have to search through threads again.

And maybe, just maybe, you take into account that the person who created the thread may not have been able to check and update the OP in the vast 15 friggin minutes you gave him before complaining about it.

[Beechgnome]

These are the feats I was looking for. I like how Feats for less commonly used skills are balanced with cooler secondary abilities. I might even take perform now and distract the guards with my juggling.

[toapat]

In order:

Stat bonus + Proficiency or Expertise: Fair, as long as we dont see any 4 component feats, unless 3+4 kinda suck

Acrobat: Acrobatic Charge, woo!
Animal Handler: seems powerful with ways to charm beasts
Arcanist: Versatility and detect magic, gets you a Know check which is always useful if never typically taken
Brawny: very good for anyone planning to make Shove or grapple checks, as Fighters and monks dont get expertise in Athletics normally.
Diplomat: 1 Minute friendly chat = Mind Control? seems incredibly powerful if Talking is a free action
Empathic: Action requirement seems to be way too high for a 1/round Advantage on attack rolls/ability checks.
Historian: +6 bonus to target's next action in addition to advantage? Possibly broken on an Int character?
Investigator: Perfectly fine
Medic: Maximize healing on hit dice per short rest, looks mandatory for making Medicine not suck?
Menacing: this might be too much with +1 Cha, Expertise, + 1 Weapon attack attempt to inflict Frightened
Naturalist: Slightly worse Arcanist
Perceptive: Powerful effect, but lightly obscured is poorly defined IIRC
Performer: can someone explain how this isnt completely useless?
Quick-Fingered: Ludicrously powerful, if acrobatics and Slight of hand coult reach 130 checks, other wise cute?
Silver Tongued: Like Menacing, seems slightly too powerful
Stealthy: Cover Hopping: DM dependent power
Survivalist: You can wring your camp with an alarm bell 1/day. yay
Theologian: If Naturalist is worse Arcanist, This is better arcanist.

[Arenabait]

Why is the link never in the first post.

Because I went 15 minutes without checking :P

It's there now though, so go crazy.

[Sariel Vailo]

this is a fine article it will allow my players more roleplaying might even get my goliath and orc player. he is either a or b for powerful build. he can now have it anyway.

[D-naras]

this is a fine article it will allow my players more roleplaying might even get my goliath and orc player. he is either a or b for powerful build. he can now have it anyway.

Or he could get Brawny on a Goliath or Orc and carry the entire party!

[Hrugner]

This is interesting. Not what I was hoping for exactly, but certainly some quality additions to the feats. Removing the need for a dip in bard or rogue for expertise is really nice.

[Dudewithknives]

Am I the only one who is pretty sure the performance one is only there because Mike Mearls is a huge GOTG fan and he wanted a way to do the dance off distraction?

[toapat]

Am I the only one who is pretty sure the performance one is only there because Mike Mearls is a huge GOTG fan and he wanted a way to do the dance off distraction?

its not like mike hasnt made content ripped from other sources before.

it also explains why the check seems useless

[Aett_Thorn]

The only one I'm not a fan of is Brawny. Str gets very few +1s from feats, and while the Expertise helps a lot with Shove attacks, I feel like the other bonus is a bit weak.

[thepsyker]

Am I the only one who is pretty sure the performance one is only there because Mike Mearls is a huge GOTG fan and he wanted a way to do the dance off distraction?See I was thinking the fan-dance from Star Trek V.

Edit: I'm not seeing how this is bad, you distract someone to give other party members bonuses to do thing without the distracted party noticing.

Edit: Edit: Diplomacy seems like it is meant to represent spending time smoozing to get advantage on the check for what it is you really want. Given that it seems like it should take longer, 10 minutes of small talk to build up to whatever the real final check is maybe?

[Arenabait]

I'm going to say one thing. Brawny+Goliath=Huge size weight capacity. Brawny+Goliath+Enlarge/reduce=Collossal size capacity (If it existed ;-;)

[RumoCrytuf]

I really like this. Aside from some of the obvious bombs in the new feats (Perceptive because Perception is a must have for almost any character. Medic is amazing for some tougher dungeons) is the level of fluff we have now. My OoT paladin is going to love the Theologian feat. Arcanist is another good one. Prestidigitation is among one of the best cantrips in the game IMO.

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm going to say one thing. Brawny+Goliath=Huge size weight capacity. Brawny+Goliath+Enlarge/reduce=Collossal size capacity (If it existed ;-;)

Would it work that way, though? I mean, would these stack? Based on the way they're written, it would (they both say "one size larger" and not "as if you were the next size larger"), but I don't think that my DM would let me do that.

[toapat]

The only one I'm not a fan of is Brawny. Str gets very few +1s from feats, and while the Expertise helps a lot with Shove attacks, I feel like the other bonus is a bit weak.

the other bonus is weak because expertise in Athletics without Rogue/Bard is extremely powerful for Monks and Fighters. its basically the Fochlucan Lyrist of 5E, where getting in without penalty is the problem.

[rbstr]

I like the idea here. Not really what I was looking for, but I'll take it.

Though, is proficiency/expertise in athletics so strong as to give that super lame rider in Brawny? Any strength character already has a bunch of capacity.
If it has to be nearly useless it'd be cool if it was flavorful, at least. Hardly anything more boring than carrying capacity.

Strength is already second fiddle to dex. Just making it worse here.

[Plaguescarred]

I think they're very evocative and especially like Investigator, Perceptive and Stealthy.

[mephnick]

Though, is proficiency/expertise in athletics so strong as to give that super lame rider in Brawny? Any strength character already has a huge capacity.

Only because the basic encumberance rule is stupidly high to the point that it might as well not exist. I urge everyone to use the variant or something inbetween.

"Hmmm we need to add encumberance but not have it do anything. Let's make the carry limit a million pounds!"

[D-naras]

I like the idea here. Not really what I was looking for, but I'll take it.

Though, is proficiency/expertise in athletics so strong as to give that super lame rider in Brawny? Any strength character already has a bunch of capacity.
If it has to be nearly useless it'd be cool if it was flavorful, at least. Hardly anything more boring than carrying capacity.

Strength is already second fiddle to dex. Just making it worse here.

Athletics is the go to skill for doing any kind of stunt in combat, so yeah. I think the carrying capacity rider is fair considering you can now grapple, shove and disarm proficiently or expertly. Plus it's funny to be able to literally carry as much as an ox.

[Beechgnome]

I'm going to say one thing. Brawny+Goliath=Huge size weight capacity. Brawny+Goliath+Enlarge/reduce=Collossal size capacity (If it existed ;-;)

Brawny + Goliath + Mystic Giant Growth (Giant Form, aka Huge) = 2 x Gargantuan lifting. Rhino tossing, anyone?

[thepsyker]

I like the idea here. Not really what I was looking for, but I'll take it.

Though, is proficiency/expertise in athletics so strong as to give that super lame rider in Brawny? Any strength character already has a bunch of capacity.
If it has to be nearly useless it'd be cool if it was flavorful, at least. Hardly anything more boring than carrying capacity.

Strength is already second fiddle to dex. Just making it worse here.

I can't remember does carry capacity cover lift/push as well? Boosts to those seem like they could be useful.

[Arenabait]

I can't remember does carry capacity cover lift/push as well? Boosts to those seem like they could be useful.

Carry capacity (For regular gear hauling) is 15xstr, lift/push/pull is 30xst, doubled for each size category above medium, halfed for tiny (15x for tiny, 30x for small/medium, 60x for large, 120x for huge, etc.)

[Aett_Thorn]

Carry capacity (For regular gear hauling) is 15xstr, lift/push/pull is 30xst, doubled for each size category above medium, halfed for tiny (15x for tiny, 30x for small/medium, 60x for large, 120x for huge, etc.)

However, since the feat specifically mentions only carrying capacity, I wouldn't think that it would apply to lift/push/pull. Basically, you're a pack mule, not a Clydesdale.

[jaappleton]

Huh.

I expected Feats or Skills, not an amalgamation.

It's fine. I'm not excited over it, but I understand the reason for this, and I'm glad they did something for the people that want it.

[thepsyker]

However, since the feat specifically mentions only carrying capacity, I wouldn't think that it would apply to lift/push/pull. Basically, you're a pack mule, not a Clydesdale.
How does powerful build normally phrase it? Does it mention lift/pull/push sep r ate from carry capacity?

[Dr.Samurai]

Extra Attack+Menacing+Ranged Attack = Pinging someone for damage while preventing them from moving any closer to the party and imposing Disadvantage on ability checks/attack rolls.

Do you think it should be limited to melee attacks or does the fact that you need to make the check each round and failure kills it for the rest of the encounter make it ok? (I'm not a balance guy.)

[Chunkosaurus]

I think Quick fingered can be alot of fun for an evil campaign or a political campaign where you need to plant evidence or stick some sort of tracker on an enemy. I think that one is being slept on

[Sariel Vailo]

Or he could get Brawny on a Goliath or Orc and carry the entire party!
thats his choice if he chooses to be a taxi

[Lonely Tylenol]

The only one I'm not a fan of is Brawny. Str gets very few +1s from feats, and while the Expertise helps a lot with Shove attacks, I feel like the other bonus is a bit weak.

Pardon? Doesn't Strength get the most +1s from feats? In addition to Resilient, they get Athlete, Lightly/Moderately/Heavily Armored, Heavy Armor Master, Tavern Brawler, and Weapon Master. Sure, some are just "gain proficiency" secondaries that a lot of martial characters get, but there are also secondaries specifically for those who have those proficiencies (Heavy Armor Master, Tavern Brawler). Athletics is also the go-to for grappling as well as shoving, which means it has better combat applications than the average skill. Strength-based characters already have a lot, and they don't need Brawny to do a lot to be good.

EDIT:


I think Quick fingered can be alot of fun for an evil campaign or a political campaign where you need to plant evidence or stick some sort of tracker on an enemy. I think that one is being slept on

No joke. A bonus action to turn Locate Object into Locate Creature? Sign me up.

[Tanarii]

Pros: I like the concept. Extra half feats is good. Things to give skills a boost is good. (Edit: although for the most part I'd prefer all non-combat boosts for the skills, unless that makes absolutely no sense.)
The ones I'm okay with: Arcanist, Historian (may be too powerful?), Investigator, Medic, Naturalist, Perceptive, Performer, Quick Fingered, Stealthy, Theologian.
I really like Stealthy, although it'd be even cooler, although possibly overpowered, if it let you leave cover and approach an enemy within 10ft without revealing yourself prior to attacking. (Edit: Note I realize this contradicts my non-combat thingy above.)

Cons:
Acrobat and Animal Handler seems like they doesn't do anything a DM couldn't already have Acrobatics and Animal Handling do.

I don't like Brawny, because the benefit has so nothing to do with Athletics. Carrying capacity is raw Strength, not Strength (Athletics).

Diplomat: For some reason, a non-magical, or at least non-class feature, what to Charm someone makes my skin crawl. (This may be a personal problem. :smallwink: )

Empathic forces the opponent to be deceptive? Why should a Feat have the ability to decide how your opponent acts like that? Totally bizarre. :smallconfused:

Menacing seems like it makes the level 10 ability of Path of the Berserker pointless. Not that the majority of people don't already regard that Path as a waste of time.

Silver Tongued just seems silly in combat. It's like having a Prestige Class to allow you a better chance to hit if you crack a pun while attacking. :smallyuk:

I find it annoying that Survivalist teaches how to cast a magical spell. I'd be fine if it was explicitly non-magical but mimicked the spell. (Again, this may be a personal problem.)

[RickAllison]

How does powerful build normally phrase it? Does it mention lift/pull/push sep r ate from carry capacity?

Doesn't need to. Lift/pull/push is a modifier based on the carrying capacity, with the comparison to the Strength score being secondary. So if carrying capacity is increased, those are increased.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Empathic forces the opponent to be deceptive? Why should a Feat have the ability to decide how your opponent acts like that? Totally bizarre. :smallconfused:

A good way to think of it is that the deception is just concealing information. It's not purposeful disinformation; it's just concealing something about you that you don't want others to know, which a particularly empathic creature can see through.


Silver Tongued just seems silly in combat. It's like having a Prestige Class to allow you a better chance to hit if you crack a pun while attacking. :smallyuk:

What, like some sort of Dashing Swordsman? What's the point in that?

[Unoriginal]

Can you use Brawny to lift an Ogre with one hand and throw them away?

[toapat]

What, like some sort of Dashing Swordsman? What's the point in that?

i think it could ask some very piercing questions

[Lonely Tylenol]

i think it could ask some very pointed questions

No matter how you slice it, it gets too much for a few cutting remarks, if you get the thrust of my argument.

[Lombra]

Can you use Brawny to lift an Ogre with one hand and throw them away?

Ogres weigh close to 450kg (~1000lb), I'm not saying that's impossible, but those are the numbers to beat.

Edit: if it stacks with powerful build yes, you can, but I doubt that it does:

20STR × 15 = 300 lb
With powerful build it's 600lb
If it stacks with Brawny it reaches 1200lb, enaugh to carry and presumeably throw an ogre. If you just want to lift it you only need one size multiplier since the base lifting capacity is 30×STR, and a DM with good taste for rule of cool.

[Unoriginal]

Take the Historian feat.

See Fighter attempting grapple

"Kick him in the groin to make him fall! Like how King Richmond was defeated by the goblin warlord Gubuz in 1342".


And knowing is half the battle.

[Misterwhisper]

A breakdown:

1. Acrobat: Always good to get an extra Dex. Bonus action to ignore rough terrain for movement is not bad, I find it odd it does not have a downside if you fail the check.

2. Animal Handler: Who cares, nobody will ever take it. Never in the 20 years I have played D&D have I ever seen someone put any focus in Handle Animal, and they will not start now, and if one of the many people who will want that +1 in wisdom from the feat they will take one of the other ones that give wisdom instead.

3. Arcanist: Not bad, +1 Int is not as common as some others, and free prestidigitation is always useful. However so few classes use Int that I really just see wizards taking this if they have an odd INT score, however that poses an issue I will mention in a bit.

4. Brawny: +1 Str is more common but lo and behold effective expertise in Athletics... barbarian grapplers will sing the praises of this feat all day long. Battlerager just got a lot better.

5. Diplomat: This is borderline OP, +1 Cha is good for many classes, however the 1 min casting of Charm Person with no downside of them knowing they were charmed after and it lasts as long as they stay close is pretty crazy.

6. Empathic: Very nice, +1 Wis is great for everyone. Insight check to get advantage for a turn is very nice... outside combat where you can use this all day long in social circles and things, also it is very good for getting that first painful attack in for the first round of combat.

7. Historian: This is why arcanist will never be taken + 1 Int same as arcanist, however it gives you the ability to give someone +2 to +6 check all day long to your ally's skill checks. This is like having Guidance but better bonuses soon, but with the downside of you might miss the check.

8. Investigator: The other reason nobody will ever take arcanist. Bonus action investigate is very nice.

9. Medic: Not bad, but if you want the +1 wis, there are better feats. If you want to go all gung ho healer as a cleric, I guess you could take it.

10. Menacing: Really needs to say melee only or people with multiple attacks and archery can really cause issues with fear. Also not a fan of a skill check that makes you give up an attack like this because it would be great on a Rogue, who never have the extra attack to give up.

11. Naturalist: Nobody will take this, so who cares.

12. Perceptive: So I get +1 wisdom, training or expertise in the most important skill in the game to the point that there has never been a character that did not have training in it, AND I essentially get to have normal sight while in torchlight, or other vision impairing places... yeah that is some kind of great.

13. Performer: Mike is a huge GOTG nerd so he made a feat so he could make the Dance Off work. Pathetic, but still the skill is never going to get taken because nobody bothers getting performance due to the fact that the skill does nothing, if it covered performing with an instrument tool use, sure.

14. Quick Fingered: This is a great one, however it all kinds of steps on the toes of the Thief subclass for rogue. Now the other classes that love Dex, which is plenty, can get one of their best subclass abilities in a feat that also gives a stat.

15. Silver Tongues: Makes the Actor feat pretty redundant, also this is another feat just like Menacing that looks tailor made for a Rogue, especially a Swashbucker, however because it makes you give up an attack when you use the attack action, it makes it borderline unusable for the class it would be best for.

16. Stealthy: Just all around great. I can so see someone humming the Spy Hunter theme song while using this.

17. Survivalist: Not bad, not great. The alarm spell can be handy, but the other feats that give +1 wisdom are better.

18. Theologeon: Give a stat that no cleric or paladin will care about, and a skill that only a cleric or paladin will care about. This might as well say "for Theurgy wizard only" on the side of it.

Overall good entry for UA, however it needs some tweeks.

[Unoriginal]

...Is it me, or the Animal Handler feat just makes the Beastmaster ranger a lot better?

[RickAllison]

Take the Historian feat.

See Fighter attempting grapple

"Kick him in the groin to make him fall! Like how King Richmond was defeated by the goblin warlord Gubuz in 1342".


And knowing is half the battle.

And now I'm taking this feat... "Tmave, why does every historical anecdote of yours involve someone getting kicked in the groin?" "For the same reason I know so much about succubi, teenage years were rough..."

[Tanarii]

A good way to think of it is that the deception is just concealing information. It's not purposeful disinformation; it's just concealing something about you that you don't want others to know, which a particularly empathic creature can see through.Yes, but it's still forcing a creature to act a certain way. As opposed to the non-forcing-behavior way around, which is to allow the creature to allow to decide to conceal information, then have it be opposed by a creatures innate paying attention to how you're acting.


What, like some sort of Dashing Swordsman? What's the point in that?

i think it could ask some very piercing questions

No matter how you slice it, it gets too much for a few cutting remarks, if you get the thrust of my argument.
This is the hell I deserve to live in for making a reference to the Dashing Swordsman. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

And now I'm taking this feat... "Tmave, why does every historical anecdote of yours involve someone getting kicked in the groin?" "For the same reason I know so much about succubi, teenage years were rough..."

"...Now, where was I... how yeah, the warlord was swinging his greatsword, we called 'hem longsword of greatness in those days. Or longsword of great. Give me my longsword of great, squire, you'd say. And the important thing was that he had an onion tied to his belt, which was the style at the time."

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, but it's still forcing a creature to act a certain way. As opposed to the non-forcing-behavior way around, which is to allow the creature to allow to decide to conceal information, then have it be opposed by a creatures innate paying attention to how you're acting.

Sort of like one does in an interrogation?

Interrogator: "Tell me, do you have any family?"
Victim: (says nothing, tries not to make eye contact)
Interrogator: "A... Son, perhaps?" (Insight check opposed by Deception and succeeds. Despite the victim's best efforts to remain stone-faced, a flash of panic crosses their eyes in the brief moment they made eye contact, which our intuitive interrogator read)
Interrogator: "A son, then, probably safely tucked away in some village. It would be tragic if a foul end befell them. Now, that doesn't need to happen..." (Intimidation check, made with advantage)

[Steampunkette]

...Is it me, or the Animal Handler feat just makes the Beastmaster ranger a lot better?

http://geekleagueofamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BEAST_MASTER-2.jpg

[Dudewithknives]

Sort of like one does in an interrogation?

Interrogator: "Tell me, do you have any family?"
Victim: (says nothing, tries not to make eye contact)
Interrogator: "A... Son, perhaps?" (Insight check opposed by Deception and succeeds. Despite the victim's best efforts to remain stone-faced, a flash of panic crosses their eyes in the brief moment they made eye contact, which our intuitive interrogator read)
Interrogator: "A son, then, probably safely tucked away in some village. It would be tragic if a foul end befell them. Now, that doesn't need to happen..." (Intimidation check, made with advantage)

Or you could just use Diplomat and take one minute talking to them and make them Charmed for as long as you are around, and they do not hate you afterwards.

[some guy]

Cons:
Acrobat and Animal Handler seems like they doesn't do anything a DM couldn't already have Acrobatics and Animal Handling do.

I agree with most of your points, but these two really stand out.
It's cool enough, but I think these two feats bring the mechanics of skills back in the 3.5 era (in a possible bad way). While I know that my DM's will always allow me to distract people with performance or try to command animals with animal handling, I'm a tad afraid* new DM's might look to these feats as a requirement.

*Not that afraid, but I'd really would like it more if the bonuses would give a bit more unique mechanic to the skill instead of something a reasonable DM might allow anyway.


Edit: I also feel that Medic might make Durable even less attractive. As well as with Perceptive and Skulker.

[MasterMercury]

The question is, does the additional carrying capacity stack with being a Goliath bearbarbarian? Because if it does, that's
20*15*2*2*2 = 2,400 lbs of capacity.

My weapon is now a boulder that I just carry around with me.

EDIT: Just realized that this had been discussed a lot. Still though, I think that feature is great.

[Tanarii]

Sort of like one does in an interrogation?

Interrogator: "Tell me, do you have any family?"
Victim: (says nothing, tries not to make eye contact)
Interrogator: "A... Son, perhaps?" (Insight check opposed by Deception and succeeds. Despite the victim's best efforts to remain stone-faced, a flash of panic crosses their eyes in the brief moment they made eye contact, which our intuitive interrogator read)
Interrogator: "A son, then, probably safely tucked away in some village. It would be tragic if a foul end befell them. Now, that doesn't need to happen..." (Intimidation check, made with advantage)
No. Because in this example, you've got a victim under the power of an interrogator, which is a materially different situation. That's Intimidation, not Insight.

But yes, both as a DM and a player I disagree with allowing active Insight to 'attack' someone and force them to use Deception to prevent a 'reading'.

[Malifice]

The only one I'm not a fan of is Brawny. Str gets very few +1s from feats, and while the Expertise helps a lot with Shove attacks, I feel like the other bonus is a bit weak.

Not if your DM uses encumbrance.

[Prince Zahn]

I really like the Historian feat, I can actually see a point in a Mastermind Rogue with this - help an ally within 30 feet, give'em adv., and +2~6 on whatever skill he needs to make, as a bonus action. not bad if I do say so myself.

With Quick Fingered... I'm a little disappointed, it's nice that there's a feat that lets you pick an enemy's pockets in the heat of the moment, but I think it would be nice if they let you make a Sleight of Hand contest against, say, perception/athletics or acrobatics to take an object from someone (even if it's held). I guess I just hoped for something more.

some of these are meh, like the medicine one though, but I'm happy they made Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft a little bit more accessible. I always told myself if I make a wizard I'm gonna want Thaumaturgy anyway, so why not get religion with it?:smallbiggrin:

I would say that the coolest idea that they had here were to forgo one of your attacks to make a skill check for a combat effect. especially because it's only limited to how many of your attacks you can forgo. Extra attack, being an already much-desired feature, will now be also desired as a resource-per-round pool for various effects, I think this can open a door for all sorts of fun and versatile stuff if WotC expands skills with that as a direction. :smallsmile: the only things that they have to consider is that it has to be equivalent in value to a one of a character's attacks in a given round, and that it needs to be worthwhile even if you use 4 uses (like a high-level fighter scaring off 4 enemies in a single round, rather than killing them) and maybe a bit less like 3.5's improved feint which doesn't really stack with itself effectively.

I really hope that they do that...

[Sigreid]

I'm torn. On the one hand, these seem a lot better than most of the current feats. On the other hand, a lot of what some of them let you do, like distract people with your performance, I think you should be able to do anyway. And on the other hand (don't ask me where I got another hand, I'm sure he won't miss it), it's good to have more ways to get expertise.

[Malifice]

I like the idea here. Not really what I was looking for, but I'll take it.

Though, is proficiency/expertise in athletics so strong as to give that super lame rider in Brawny? Any strength character already has a bunch of capacity.
If it has to be nearly useless it'd be cool if it was flavorful, at least. Hardly anything more boring than carrying capacity.

Strength is already second fiddle to dex. Just making it worse here.

Dude a Str 16 character has an encumbrance value of 80lbs with variant encumbrance.

Full plate and a great sword alone pushes you to 71lbs. A backpack weighs 5 empty. Rations weigh 2 per day. A bed roll adds another 7. Tack on some rope, a tinderbox, a lantern, some oil, your potions of healing, a backup weapon, a ranged weapon, a knife, something to eat with, a water skin, and 1 pound for every 50 coins.

You're already hitting 120lbs+

[Kane0]

I'm feeling conflicted.
On one hand these are perfectly functional and a valid addition to the game.
On the other hand it's yet more feats, adding to an already large pool that has few opportunities to draw from and a lot of competition. Plus its the kind of thing that doesnt add much new, especially stuff that couldnt be (if it hasnt already been) homebrewed.

Dont get me wrong, i wont say no to free stuff, but this seems disappointingly tame. Nobody really anticipated traps or downtime, and those are helpful and aid in fleshing out the game, adding to the other two pillars that really need the attention and generating discussion that is useful for getting insight into the game and how people play it. This is crowdpleaser content by comparison.

[Tanarii]

And on the other hand (don't ask me where I got another hand, I'm sure he won't miss it)On the gripping hand.

[RickAllison]

The question is, does the additional carrying capacity stack with being a Goliath bearbarbarian? Because if it does, that's
20*15*2*2*2 = 2,400 lbs of capacity.

My weapon is now a boulder that I just carry around with me.

Then have someone Enhance Strength for 4800. Then have someone Enlarge for 9600 (though only for short time spans). Then set up a block-and-tackle for lifting or a cart for carrying to multiply it further (4X and 5X, respectively). With supporting casters, you could be lifting in exces of 38 tons. Of course, to hold this weight, you need a block-and-tackle made out of adamantine, because this is weight at the level where steel inch-and-a-half chain and 2-inch cable can't safely support it and I'm not sure those are common goods in D&D.

Even without those spells, carry a cart with you and you are pulling more than an elephant. Who needs a Bag of Holding? You need a pretty tough BaT for it (though steel cable would be enough if its in the setting), but you can lift a frankly ridiculous 9.6 tons. That's lifting large elephants.

[joaber]

Guys, powerful build and brawly don't stack, both do the same thing: you count as one size larger, if you're medium, you count as large.

They stack with barbarian bear totem lvl 6, that say it double your carry capacity.

But this feat is just what I need for my grapple+spike growth build.

Feats are the best thing for UA content, because you can add to your corrent character. Please, we want more feats.
Spells are good too.

800 pages of feats!!!

[MasterMercury]

Guys, powerful build and brawly don't stack, both do the same thing: you count as one size larger, if you're medium, you count as large.

They stack with barbarian bear totem lvl 6, that say it double your carry capacity.

But this feat is just what I need for my grapple+spike growth build.

Feats are the best thing for UA content, because you can add to your corrent character. Please, we want more feats.
Spells are good too.

800 pages of feats!!!

But if I already count as one size larger from powerful build, wouldn't I then count as an additional size larger when I add Brawny

Feats are great, I kind of wish we could get more of them. Like, maybe an extra 2 scattered around, or automatically starting with one.

[joaber]

But if I already count as one size larger from powerful build, wouldn't I then count as an additional size larger when I add Brawny


But you still are of the same size: "You count as if you were one size larger", Isn't a bonus to stack, he state that you can carry the weight as one size larger.

[Kane0]

Come to think of it I think i'd rather see most of these either rolled into an update of the skilled feat (possibly +1 stat, +1 skill and +1 expertise) and the riders added into the default possible uses of skills (gated if need be). Wouldn't mind doing something similar with the weapon feats as well, especially since weapon master is such a poor feat choice.

[Pex]

In my bias interest of complaint of lack of defined skill uses I appreciate the effort made. A few abilities I might have preferred to have been part of normal skill use instead of having to spend a feat for it, but I'll chalk that up to personal bias and not a knock against the feats or the concept the feats represent. I like them.

(You can all breathe easier now. :smallsmile:)

[Tanarii]

(You can all breathe easier now. :smallsmile:)[/SIZE]Damn it, if we can't depend on you to start an argument about skills ... :smallbiggrin:

[JumboWheat01]

One major problem I can see with Brawny is how it works with Small characters. Sure, they still get +1 Str and Athletics, but Medium characters have the same weight capacity as they do, so they loose out on part of the feat.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

The link at the initial message doesn't work (at least it doesn't work to me, and I go to the UA site and i don't find the UA article of today). Anyone has the right link?

EDIT:found it here http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf

[mgshamster]

I like these feats. These are the kinds of feats I would say to a group, "everyone starts with a free feat at level 1; pick one of these."

[Dudewithknives]

I like these feats. These are the kinds of feats I would say to a group, "everyone starts with a free feat at level 1; pick one of these."

Yeah, I am having a hard time sticking to my current warlock plan... I could take brawny and finally really make my Battlerager mountain dwarf grappler shine.... I have put so much work into the warlock... but wrestling someone to the ground and beating them to death with a battleaxe...

Oh the delima

[mephnick]

I'm a tad afraid* new DM's might look to these feats as a requirement.

This should be everyone's fear and it's completely justified. So many fun things were locked behind feats in 3.5/Pathfinder, I'd hate to see 5e devolve in that way.

[Sigreid]

This should be everyone's fear and it's completely justified. So many fun things were locked behind feats in 3.5/Pathfinder, I'd hate to see 5e devolve in that way.

Might I propose that it would fix this concern (one of mine as well) by having the extras for most of the skills being "You get advantage on your x check to do y"?

That would indicate anyone can try to do them, but the people with the feat are really good at it.

[Dudewithknives]

Might I propose that it would fix this concern (one of mine as well) by having the extras for most of the skills being "You get advantage on your x check to do y"?

That would indicate anyone can try to do them, but the people with the feat are really good at it.


If that was the case there is no way it would also give expertise.

[Sigreid]

If that was the case there is no way it would also give expertise.

Consider this, the expertise would apply to all uses of the skill. Advantage to just one of those uses. Yes, you'd be great at the one aspect, but it might be ok.

[Spiritchaser]

Brawny is something I always thought should be there

For a shove specialist to have to MC rogue or bard always felt wrong

stealthy is going to be VERY powerful for a few builds. A high dex druid/ranger/trickery cleric could be nearly impossible to find, with high dex, pass without trace and expertise, even DC 30 is basically trivialized at character level 20, with +12+5+10, for a total of +27. Now, granted, a bard could already do this, but now more characters can. I probably need to add Pass Without Trace to the arcane trickster list to compensate.

Perceptive is also very powerful, but observant, and to some extent alert already exist which more or less protect from the same thing.

I think I may start all new characters with one of these.

[Hrugner]

I'm going to say one thing. Brawny+Goliath=Huge size weight capacity. Brawny+Goliath+Enlarge/reduce=Collossal size capacity (If it existed ;-;)

At that point you better be a monk so you can be a fast battle platform for the rest of the party. At the very least you should carry around a good length of wall for portable cover.

[Unoriginal]

Or you could just use Diplomat and take one minute talking to them and make them Charmed for as long as you are around, and they do not hate you afterwards.

Only last a min.

[LudicSavant]

This should be everyone's fear and it's completely justified. So many fun things were locked behind feats in 3.5/Pathfinder, I'd hate to see 5e devolve in that way.

This was my first thought upon reading some of these feats. Some of the things gated behind feats now are things that I've seen people do without feats in regular sessions (such as "distracting someone with a performance." Now apparently you need a feat to do this).

[Prince Zahn]

To all of you worried about characters getting expertise, or cheapening the rogue and bard's expertise with these features:
You guys are keenly aware, I hope, that players are spending a precious ASI for just over half of what those classes get, , yeah? A fighter could get expertise just like a rogue, but A) it would cost him 2 feats, and B) a fighter can't get thieves tools expertise this way.

[Lonely Tylenol]

To all of you worried about characters getting expertise, or cheapening the rogue and bard's expertise with these features:
You guys are keenly aware, I hope, that players are spending a precious ASI for just over half of what those classes get, , yeah? A fighter could get expertise just like a rogue, but A) it would cost him 2 feats, and B) a fighter can't get thieves tools expertise this way.

No, but they can get Thieves' Tools expertise through a combination of the Criminal background and the Burglar feat (from another UA which focused on tool proficiencies).

Not that I care; the Rogue can take this feat as well, and almost as many times as the Fighter if they wanted.

[Kane0]

This was my first thought upon reading some of these feats. Some of the things gated behind feats now are things that I've seen people do without feats in regular sessions (such as "distracting someone with a performance." Now apparently you need a feat to do this).

'Do you have the feat?' is a question I dread at my current PF game. Such a quick and easy way to stop one from trying something fun and different.

[Dudewithknives]

Only last a min.

No it doesn't it last as long as they're within 60 feet and for one minute after they leave 60 feet

[TrinculoLives]

Stealthy
You know how best to hide. You gain the following benefits:

• Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

• You gain proficiency in the Stealth skill. If you are already proficient in the skill, you add double your proficiency bonus to checks you make with it
.
• If you are hidden, you can move up to 10 feet in the open without revealing yourself if you end the move in a position where you’re not clearly visible.


I assume attacking still reveals your presence?

[sightlessrealit]

I honestly find these really nice and flavorful from a role playing perspective(mostly). You work hard perfecting your skills as you travel the world.

[Kane0]

Stealthy
You know how best to hide. You gain the following benefits:

• Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

• You gain proficiency in the Stealth skill. If you are already proficient in the skill, you add double your proficiency bonus to checks you make with it
.
• If you are hidden, you can move up to 10 feet in the open without revealing yourself if you end the move in a position where you’re not clearly visible.


I assume attacking still reveals your presence?

Yeah, but Skulker covers that (partially)

[Pex]

'Do you have the feat?' is a question I dread at my current PF game. Such a quick and easy way to stop one from trying something fun and different.

Point. The words in my unconscious I hadn't articulated to myself as to why I would have preferred some of the abilities to have been normal skill use. As much as I like Pathfinder I agree the "you need a feat for that" is a downside to the system. I like that in 5E anyone can shove or disarm or trip, etc., with the Battle Master being a little bit better at it. 5E is better off not going down that road, but it would mean having more defined skills to begin with which I don't think they're prepared to do. I suppose one could say these Feat ideas are a compromise between my desire for defined skill use and their free form.

[Foxhound438]

I think brawny might be the best one, but that's coming from someone who likes the idea of shoves. Probably actually still worse than polearm master 1 handed quarterstaff, but it does make shield master slightly more appealing for paladins and fighters. Battleragers also get a bit of benefit, but generally I think advantage on your attacks still makes 2 handed weapons more attractive.

after that, any of the ones that give a 1/day spell aren't bad- survivalist is particularly cool in that you probably only need to cast alarm when you're setting up camp anyways, so you don't need to expend a spell known to have it.


investigator seems particularly off to me, sine the search action makes a perception check, not an investigation... iirc

[sightlessrealit]

I think brawny might be the best one, but that's coming from someone who likes the idea of shoves. Probably actually still worse than polearm master 1 handed quarterstaff, but it does make shield master slightly more appealing for paladins and fighters. Battleragers also get a bit of benefit, but generally I think advantage on your attacks still makes 2 handed weapons more attractive.

after that, any of the ones that give a 1/day spell aren't bad- survivalist is particularly cool in that you probably only need to cast alarm when you're setting up camp anyways, so you don't need to expend a spell known to have it.


investigator seems particularly off to me, sine the search action makes a perception check, not an investigation... iirc

The Search Action can be either an Investigation or a Perception check.

[Saiga]

Search can be investigation or perception depending on what you're trying to do.

So it effectively benefits two types of skill checks, which could be quite strong.

[Foxhound438]

Search can be investigation or perception depending on what you're trying to do.

So it effectively benefits two types of skill checks, which could be quite strong.

ah, ok. found the rule in the book, unfortunately it's the DM's decision which one you make... and generally if you're searching in combat (the only time it really matters that it changes to a bonus action) you're trying to find a creature that hid from you, which needs perception to spot (as per phb 177), meaning the bonus to the skill and ability score you chose aren't really helping you at all. still seems off.

[mgshamster]

This was my first thought upon reading some of these feats. Some of the things gated behind feats now are things that I've seen people do without feats in regular sessions (such as "distracting someone with a performance." Now apparently you need a feat to do this).

That's the only one of the bunch I feel particularly concerned about.

The other ones I was concerned about all make it a bonus action, which means anyone else can still do it as an action. Like Quick-Fingered. Also, being a Thief grants that ability, too.

The ones similar to Performer that concerned me all had special stipulations that didn't preclude others from doing it, it just made the feat person use it in social circumstances. Like Menacing. I think anyone could do it as an action, but only the feat person could do it in lieu of an attack.

Performer is the only one which really tales away from anyone else just doing it.

[RickAllison]

ah, ok. found the rule in the book, unfortunately it's the DM's decision which one you make... and generally if you're searching in combat (the only time it really matters that it changes to a bonus action) you're trying to find a creature that hid from you, which needs perception to spot (as per phb 177), meaning the bonus to the skill and ability score you chose aren't really helping you at all. still seems off.

It makes me sad. I already have Investigation Expertise, but I would love to have it on Perception too. Might need to ask my DM if I can switch out the things since I already have the "weaker" option.

[Kane0]

Well, you could search twice in one round I suppose. Once to find hidden reatures and once to find traps/secret doors.

[SharkForce]

hmmm... yeah, some of these should probably be basic uses of the skill. some of the features could use some tweaking. some could use a lot of tweaking. some of them give expertise in a skill and then use that skill to set a DC which is fairly likely to be well beyond reach for most NPCs because you just gave expertise in that skill. if you're going that route, you may as well just use the passive skill checks those people already have.

i like the idea of skill-based feats, though i'm not a huge fan of expertise-in-a-feat.

some highlights:

animal handler: why does it take a feat to issue orders to an animal? talking is a free action. presumably the animal is trained to perform the task to some extent (otherwise how are you commanding it at all?). so why is it a feat and a bonus action?

brawny: oh goody, another strength-oriented ability that increases carrying capacity. we certainly didn't have enough of those. . now, i get that they probably didn't want to give increased size for grappling (because that would make this feat even more of a requirement for grappling than it already is for anyone who doesn't want to multiclass), but couldn't they have come up with something other than the same bonus they've used a million times? maybe an ability to hold your breath for longer (you're a trained swimmer), or or a climb or swim speed, or something (not a jumping boost, they've given that out all over the place already too i feel).

diplomat: i don't like the charmed condition for this. gain advantage on social checks? sure, whatever. not like it was that hard before, now you just don't need someone else to open their mouth. the part where the charmed individual can't attack you? that is so open to abuse it isn't even funny, particularly since the only end condition is being far away from you for a full minute. you punch them in the face? they're charmed and can't do anything. pin them to the ground while your friends break their bones? they're charmed and can't do anything. stab them in the gut with a dagger? they're charmed and can't do anything. they already failed their check back when you weren't trying to actively hurt them, so now they're stuck with the consequences of that until they can get away with you. just silly. not to mention how it interacts with, say, protection from evil. because the person talking to you is a fey, suddenly their perfectly non-magical talking stops working? eh, no thanks. scratch the charmed condition, replace it with advantage on social checks, and it's fine.

historian: and they were doing so well in avoiding fiddly bonuses this time. alas, it was not meant to be. here's a fiddly bonus to almost everything you could possibly want to do.

naturalist: so i get why arcanist gives you spellcasting (i'm not a huge fan of it, but fine, whatever). but why does naturalist give spellcasting? is it not possible to be a naturalist without casting spells? and of all the spells, why detect poison? i feel like a naturalist would probably get way more mileage out of speak with animals as a means of learning about nature...

performer: as noted by others... why do i need a feat to be interesting as a performer? shouldn't skill in performing be able to do that naturally? and why is it opposed by insight? are people with high wisdom and insight harder to entertain? and why is it only one person? if i'm telling an interesting story to a crowd, why can i only distract one person?

silver-tongued: i'd rather an ability more related to using the skill in normal situations. why is my silver tongue making someone unable to take opportunity attacks and making them easier to hit anyways? something like "indifferent NPCs count as friendly for the purposes of deception checks you make" sounds way more silver-tongued to me.

stealthy: so wait, i need to have a feat to be able to move from cover to cover? i can't just wait for someone to be looking the other way and then do it? laaaame. now, if this is the ability to do that while someone is watching, fine...

survivalist: why is survival giving me spellcasting? and why alarm... i mean, the ability to find food, water, or shelter would make sense. or maybe an increased ability to track (if that wasn't already a ranger thing). but when i think "survivalist", i sure don't think "oh, so you set alarms around your campsite". i'm not sure i have a good bonus to replace this with, but i'm really not a fan of the one they picked.

theologian: again, why does studying religion make me able to cast spells? it made sense for arcana because arcana is literally the study of magic. why am i getting the ability to cast spells like a priest when the intellectual study of religion doesn't even mean that i actually believe in or devote myself to any religion at all?

[LordCdrMilitant]

hmmm... yeah, some of these should probably be basic uses of the skill. some of the features could use some tweaking. some could use a lot of tweaking. some of them give expertise in a skill and then use that skill to set a DC which is fairly likely to be well beyond reach for most NPCs because you just gave expertise in that skill. if you're going that route, you may as well just use the passive skill checks those people already have.

i like the idea of skill-based feats, though i'm not a huge fan of expertise-in-a-feat.

some highlights:

animal handler: why does it take a feat to issue orders to an animal? talking is a free action. presumably the animal is trained to perform the task to some extent (otherwise how are you commanding it at all?). so why is it a feat and a bonus action?

brawny: oh goody, another strength-oriented ability that increases carrying capacity. we certainly didn't have enough of those. . now, i get that they probably didn't want to give increased size for grappling (because that would make this feat even more of a requirement for grappling than it already is for anyone who doesn't want to multiclass), but couldn't they have come up with something other than the same bonus they've used a million times? maybe an ability to hold your breath for longer (you're a trained swimmer), or or a climb or swim speed, or something (not a jumping boost, they've given that out all over the place already too i feel).

diplomat: i don't like the charmed condition for this. gain advantage on social checks? sure, whatever. not like it was that hard before, now you just don't need someone else to open their mouth. the part where the charmed individual can't attack you? that is so open to abuse it isn't even funny, particularly since the only end condition is being far away from you for a full minute. you punch them in the face? they're charmed and can't do anything. pin them to the ground while your friends break their bones? they're charmed and can't do anything. stab them in the gut with a dagger? they're charmed and can't do anything. they already failed their check back when you weren't trying to actively hurt them, so now they're stuck with the consequences of that until they can get away with you. just silly. not to mention how it interacts with, say, protection from evil. because the person talking to you is a fey, suddenly their perfectly non-magical talking stops working? eh, no thanks. scratch the charmed condition, replace it with advantage on social checks, and it's fine.

historian: and they were doing so well in avoiding fiddly bonuses this time. alas, it was not meant to be. here's a fiddly bonus to almost everything you could possibly want to do.

naturalist: so i get why arcanist gives you spellcasting (i'm not a huge fan of it, but fine, whatever). but why does naturalist give spellcasting? is it not possible to be a naturalist without casting spells? and of all the spells, why detect poison? i feel like a naturalist would probably get way more mileage out of speak with animals as a means of learning about nature...

performer: as noted by others... why do i need a feat to be interesting as a performer? shouldn't skill in performing be able to do that naturally? and why is it opposed by insight? are people with high wisdom and insight harder to entertain? and why is it only one person? if i'm telling an interesting story to a crowd, why can i only distract one person?

silver-tongued: i'd rather an ability more related to using the skill in normal situations. why is my silver tongue making someone unable to take opportunity attacks and making them easier to hit anyways? something like "indifferent NPCs count as friendly for the purposes of deception checks you make" sounds way more silver-tongued to me.

stealthy: so wait, i need to have a feat to be able to move from cover to cover? i can't just wait for someone to be looking the other way and then do it? laaaame. now, if this is the ability to do that while someone is watching, fine...

survivalist: why is survival giving me spellcasting? and why alarm... i mean, the ability to find food, water, or shelter would make sense. or maybe an increased ability to track (if that wasn't already a ranger thing). but when i think "survivalist", i sure don't think "oh, so you set alarms around your campsite". i'm not sure i have a good bonus to replace this with, but i'm really not a fan of the one they picked.

theologian: again, why does studying religion make me able to cast spells? it made sense for arcana because arcana is literally the study of magic. why am i getting the ability to cast spells like a priest when the intellectual study of religion doesn't even mean that i actually believe in or devote myself to any religion at all?

Doing anything harmful to a charmed creature breaks the charmed effect.

Silver tongued is pretty stupid, though.

[ATHATH]

The link in the OP isn't working...

[Kane0]

Funny how within the span of 2-3 pages the consensus has moved from mostly 'Woo, more feats!' to 'So now I need a feat for it?'

[Magic Myrmidon]

I actually feel like a lot of these sidestep the typical problem of making feats required when they weren't before. And I like how they do it. Namely, a lot of the abilities use a bonus action. I feel like the default skill can still do the action, but having the feat makes it a bonus action.

[Hrugner]

The stealthy description seems to imply that normally you don't need to roll to hide unless you've been spotted or are moving from cover to cover. If you needed to rehide at every new location, then this ability would do nothing.

[SharkForce]

Doing anything harmful to a charmed creature breaks the charmed effect.

Silver tongued is pretty stupid, though.

nope.

charmed does 2 things:

- A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
- the charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.

(straight out of the PHB appendix A).

many abilities that charm the target break on damage or when you attack. not this one though.

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

that's what diplomat does. unlike, say, charm person, which has the clause "it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it" (bolding mine), diplomat has nothing to that effect. you can grapple them to keep them from getting away, and then do whatever they want and the target cannot retaliate. but of course, this still all doesn't really explain why the charm condition is used in the first place.

[LordCdrMilitant]

nope.

charmed does 2 things:

- A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
- the charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.

(straight out of the PHB appendix A).

many abilities that charm the target break on damage or when you attack. not this one though.

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

that's what diplomat does. unlike, say, charm person, which has the clause "it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it" (bolding mine), diplomat has nothing to that effect. you can grapple them to keep them from getting away, and then do whatever they want and the target cannot retaliate. but of course, this still all doesn't really explain why the charm condition is used in the first place.

The "Charmed" condition actually makes sense and works out well, as far as keywords go. It think it's just lacking the break condition "takes damage from the charmer"

[Coidzor]

Like the idea of this UA, hate the devs' ideas about some of the things that should be locked behind a feat instead of something anyone can at least attempt to do with the skill.

[Pex]

I actually feel like a lot of these sidestep the typical problem of making feats required when they weren't before. And I like how they do it. Namely, a lot of the abilities use a bonus action. I feel like the default skill can still do the action, but having the feat makes it a bonus action.

This.

If they made that clear that would help to solace my, er, strong opinion on 5E skills. Guidelines on what the skills can do. DCs where necessary. Having the Feat makes it a bonus action or give Advantage or otherwise a bit better at it. Make it nice to have the Feat but not a must have to do something with the skill.

[Unoriginal]

Like the idea of this UA, hate the devs' ideas about some of the things that should be locked behind a feat instead of something anyone can at least attempt to do with the skill.


This was my first thought upon reading some of these feats. Some of the things gated behind feats now are things that I've seen people do without feats in regular sessions (such as "distracting someone with a performance." Now apparently you need a feat to do this).


Jeremy Crawford‏: About Feats (4). Feats often take something you can already do in the core rules and make you more reliable at it, giving you some edge

Jeremy Crawford‏:About Feats (5). The fact that someone is better at something because of a feat should have no effect on DCs or on what others can do

It's like the Battlemaster manoeuvres. Anyone can disarm their opponents, but the people with the relevant class feature/feat can do it better/more easily.

There is no action locked behind feats, it's only doing it easily that needs particular expertise

[Malifice]

This was my first thought upon reading some of these feats. Some of the things gated behind feats now are things that I've seen people do without feats in regular sessions (such as "distracting someone with a performance." Now apparently you need a feat to do this).

Or you could just use them as a good guideline of what anyone can do, and set the DC at 5 higher for people with out the feat.

[Unoriginal]

Or you could just use them as a good guideline of what anyone can do, and set the DC at 5 higher for people with out the feat.

Just make that anyone can do something similar, but not as effective.

Having a feat doesn't decrease the difficulty of an action, it makes the action more effective. Just like Crawford said.

[Malifice]

Just make that anyone can do something similar, but not as effective.

Having a feat doesn't decrease the difficulty of an action, it makes the action more effective. Just like Crawford said.

That also works and is probably a better approach but is more difficult rule on-the-fly.

[Beelzebubba]

These are 90% there!

They enable a lot of customization without resorting to single-dip multi class.

Really nicely done.

Like others have said, a few of them bring back the 3.5 'you can't do it if you're not using this feat' way of writing, which should be taken out.

[Unoriginal]

Like others have said, a few of them bring back the 3.5 'you can't do it if you're not using this feat' way of writing, which should be taken out.

It doesn't, it's "you can do it anyway, but this is a better alternative/gives more options"

[mgshamster]

It doesn't, it's "you can do it anyway, but this is a better alternative/gives more options"

The only one that concerns me is performer. I'm not sure how that one is "doing it better" vs just flat out being able to do it.

What's the alternative for anyone else to be able to distract, just a little bit worse? Note that it's a skill contest, so simply increasing the DC doesn't work. And I don't think giving advantage or disadvantage would work, because it's not something that would have been done before the feat came out.

Possible suggestion:

Normal: Works as written in the UA document.
Feat: 1) Also works on non-humanoids. 2) Gives disadvantage to all ability checks.

Thoughts?

[Grey Watcher]

Is it bad that I want to try and persuade someone that the carrying capacity from Brawny should stack with the carrying capacity from being, say, a Goliath. I mean, it obviously isn't intended to, but who doesn't want to count as Huge for carrying capacity? :smallbiggrin:

[DanyBallon]

I know that there are many that would like more feats, and this UA is in part an answer to this. The general idea behind those feat is interesting, but from the discussion in this thread, it seems that the unique benefit for each feat is somtime too good and sometimes not enough.

What if the whole idea was boiled down to a single feat that would go like this:

Expert
Choose a skill you already have, you double your proficiency bonus for that skill.
In addition you get +1 to its related ability score.
You may take this feat more than once, each time choosing another skill you have.

This way you get a simple feat that covers the intent of the UA without risking any potential unbalance. One problem I see, is that I feel that this feat may be on the weak side.

Would you guys be satisifed with a generic feat like this, or would you prefer it the way presented in the UA with better balance?

[D-naras]

I know that there are many that would like more feats, and this UA is in part an answer to this. The general idea behind those feat is interesting, but from the discussion in this thread, it seems that the unique benefit for each feat is somtime too good and sometimes not enough.

What if the whole idea was boiled down to a single feat that would go like this:

Expert
Choose a skill you already have, you double your proficiency bonus for that skill.
In addition you get +1 to its related ability score.
You may take this feat more than once, each time choosing another skill you have.

This way you get a simple feat that covers the intent of the UA without risking any potential unbalance. One problem I see, is that I feel that this feat may be on the weak side.

Would you guys be satisifed with a generic feat like this, or would you prefer it the way presented in the UA with better balance?

Your proposed feat misses giving proficiency if you don't have it which is equally important to doubling proficiency for the value of these feats IMO.
Additionally, not all skills are equal. Compare Perception and Stealth to Animal Handling and History for instance.

I find the new feats just fine actually (barring Performer which sucks just like the Perform skill). Most of the extra effects they grant require Bonus Actions or replace an Attack when they should be Actions in actual play.

[DanyBallon]

Your proposed feat misses giving proficiency if you don't have it which is equally important to doubling proficiency for the value of these feats IMO.
Additionally, not all skills are equal. Compare Perception and Stealth to Animal Handling and History for instance.

I find the new feats just fine actually (barring Performer which sucks just like the Perform skill). Most of the extra effects they grant require Bonus Actions or replace an Attack when they should be Actions in actual play.

I considered allowing to pick a new skill as well, but there's already the Skilled feat for that.

[Unoriginal]

The only one that concerns me is performer. I'm not sure how that one is "doing it better" vs just flat out being able to do it.

What's the alternative for anyone else to be able to distract, just a little bit worse? Note that it's a skill contest, so simply increasing the DC doesn't work. And I don't think giving advantage or disadvantage would work, because it's not something that would have been done before the feat came out.


I've only checked the PHB so far, but it seems to me the "normal" way to do it is an Help action



You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn

It's not a perfect fit, but it does cover the "distract someone by attracting their attention while your friend do something else" stuff. So yes, give advantage to Stealth to your ally.



Possible suggestion:

Normal: Works as written in the UA document.
Feat: 1) Also works on non-humanoids. 2) Gives disadvantage to all ability checks.

Thoughts?


Not a fan at all. That makes it more powerful than a Bardic Inspiration by miles.

[MrFahrenheit]

I think this UA is an overall neat idea, but as with all UA, needs work. It may be better to rework all these feats into a total of five, based off the attribute:
•Brawny remains unchanged
•For the other four, it could be changed to "pick one (dex/int/wis/cha-based) skill. You gain proficiency (or expertise) in it, plus an additional feature dependent upon which skill you chose: if acrobatics, then... if sleight of hand, then..." etc etc.
•Feat can be retaken, but not for another skill based off the same attribute as was already chosen.

[Logosloki]

Theologian looks excellent for an Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Gandalf/Galadriel Wizard, and well, anyone who wont be bothered by +1 int. I'm a sucker for cantrips.

Overall though, this is a good batch for a UA. Some of the stuff might need a bit more added to it (Here's looking at you brawny).

[mgshamster]

I've only checked the PHB so far, but it seems to me the "normal" way to do it is an Help action



It's not a perfect fit, but it does cover the "distract someone by attracting their attention while your friend do something else" stuff. So yes, give advantage to Stealth to your ally.

That's not really the same thing at all.

Take this example: Guard is searching a tent for contraband. Beautiful bard dancer does a performance to distract the guard, giving him disadvantage on his investigation check. No one else is in the room.

How can a PC do this without the feat?


Not a fan at all. That makes it more powerful than a Bardic Inspiration by miles.

I meant for it to be an either/or. Not both. I apologize for not being clear.

Would it work if the feat holder could distract more than just humanoids? Would it work better if it gave humanoids disadvantage on all skills while the performance was going on?

What's the "normal" that this feat can build upon? The help action is most definitely not the normal. You don't need to make a performance check to help someone, and helping grants advantage to an ally, it doesn't impose disadvantage to a target.

[Joe the Rat]

General principle, this was something I've been toying with doing. Expertise without bard/rogue(/cleric) dipping was something I felt needed to be here. If they could have done this as a single feat, it could have been in the PHB in the first place.

I also like that is has unique benefits even if you don't take it for expertise. You may simply want to be proficient in something, and want something tighter than skilled.

[Beleriphon]

Take this example: Guard is searching a tent for contraband. Beautiful bard dancer does a performance to distract the guard, giving him disadvantage on his investigation check. No one else is in the room.

How can a PC do this without the feat?

Deception is probably the best skill to tie that to, since the character is intentionally trying to deceive the guard by making them pay attention to them instead of what guard is supposed to doing.

That's one of those things thought that ultimately comes down to a DM ruling in game. Yes a skill check should be involved, but which one and how it works is up to the players and DM since it is quite frankly not exactly a common scenario.

[Unoriginal]

That's not really the same thing at all.

Take this example: Guard is searching a tent for contraband. Beautiful bard dancer does a performance to distract the guard, giving him disadvantage on his investigation check. No one else is in the room.

How can a PC do this without the feat?

[...]

What's the "normal" that this feat can build upon? The help action is most definitely not the normal. You don't need to make a performance check to help someone, and helping grants advantage to an ally, it doesn't impose disadvantage to a target.

It might be a cope out, but I'd say it's built on DM's call about how distracting someone works.

Idea is that the feat is about doing something that's possible better than what someone who hasn't the feat can do.




I meant for it to be an either/or. Not both. I apologize for not being clear.

Would it work if the feat holder could distract more than just humanoids? Would it work better if it gave humanoids disadvantage on all skills while the performance was going on?

I've no issue with non-humanoids being distracted by someone making peculiar sounds and gestures. I'm opposed to the "disadvantage on all skills". Though I suppose as long it's not combat rolls it wouldn't have that much impact.

[Grey Watcher]

This was my first thought upon reading some of these feats. Some of the things gated behind feats now are things that I've seen people do without feats in regular sessions (such as "distracting someone with a performance." Now apparently you need a feat to do this).

They key distinction in most of them (eg Menacing) seems to be that you can do it as a bonus action or by replacing one attack in your Extra Attack routine or similar, while, if* I remember correctly, Demoralize Opponent would typically eat your entire action.

*Mind, I do say "if".

[Sigreid]

They key distinction in most of them (eg Menacing) seems to be that you can do it as a bonus action or by replacing one attack in your Extra Attack routine or similar, while, if* I remember correctly, Demoralize Opponent would typically eat your entire action.

[SIZE=1]*Mind, I do say "if".

I think they will just need to flat out state that these are improvements to some tasks and the tasks themselves are not walled behind a feat.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think they will just need to flat out state that these are improvements to some tasks and the tasks themselves are not walled behind a feat.
Right, they should put a *wink wink, nod nod* at the end of every benefit description :smallbiggrin:.

[Sigreid]

Right, they should put a *wink wink, nod nod* at the end of every benefit description :smallbiggrin:.

Or in the introductory paragraph to the feats section.

[Unoriginal]

I think they will just need to flat out state that these are improvements to some tasks and the tasks themselves are not walled behind a feat.

Would a Sage's Advice be enough?

[Grey Watcher]

I think they will just need to flat out state that these are improvements to some tasks and the tasks themselves are not walled behind a feat.

The one that sticks out, though, is Performer: there isn't anything like "bonus action" or "in place of one of your attacks during the Attack action" to suggest that there's some way you're better at this than someone without the feat, which in turn suggests that you need the feat to do this at all, rather than just to do it better or faster than you could otherwise.

[mgshamster]

What if Performer worked like this:

Normal: You can target a single humanoid
Feat: You can target a crowd*

*Crowd size to be debated. Maybe area of effect, or a max number of people. It's still a contest, so your one roll vs their rolls individually (similar to an AOE) or you roll once per person affected?

Still only gives them disadvantage on perception and investigation while the performance goes on. And you can't do anything else (except move around) while you're performing, unless the DM says otherwise.

Edit: I'm not sure about this one. A sufficiently skilled person should be able to captivate a crowd without a feat. So I'm still just spitballing ideas.

[Joe the Rat]

Well, there's "Captivate a crowd," and there's "Be enough of a draw that someone actively looking for something else is distracted"

So Normal: Entertain a crowd, or focus on one person, and get their attention so they don't look for your buddy.
With Feat: Entertain a crowd, and/or draw the attention of someone or someones (I too think it should multiattack).

[Drackolus]

My biggest complaint is how awkward it makes bard and rogue progression if they want one or more of these tricks. The stealth specialist rogue actually doesn't have expertise in stealth until level 4 because they want that ability.

Would it be to out of line to suggest a feat that gives you 4 "tricks" for skills you have expertise in but does not have the stat increase or expertise? Rationale being that, if the stat increase is "half" and the expertise is "half of the half," that the trick is 1/4 of an asi, and bards and rogues incidentally get 4 expertised skills. Also would want to allow excess tricks to be selected later in case you only have 2 expertised skills (as levels 6 for rogue and 10 for bard are right in-between asi's).

[mgshamster]

If you already have expertise in something, then follow the general rule in the PHB for proficiency overlaps:

"If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead."

So this feat gives you proficiency if you don't have it. If you have proficiency, it gives you expertise. If you have expertise, just pick a new skill to be proficient in (or another skill to gain expertise, with dm approval).

[Grey Watcher]

On something of a tangent, on a scale from "0" to "the White Rabbit's watch once the Mad Hatter's done with it", how broken would it be if you gave these feats out when a class feature grants Expertise (probably with the ability score increase stripped out)?

[Cybren]

My biggest complaint is how awkward it makes bard and rogue progression if they want one or more of these tricks. The stealth specialist rogue actually doesn't have expertise in stealth until level 4 because they want that ability.

or you could be a good DM and just let them retrain their choice of expertise from their class feature

[Dudewithknives]

In a game based on point buy it wouldn't be bad at all, as a matter of fact your players are probably thank you, but also be prepared for all of them to start with an 18 in their main stat.

Also as they are currently written I would not allow anybody to take historian that is just incredibly too good.

[Sigreid]

Would a Sage's Advice be enough?

To many people such as myself don't read or care about Sage Advice. If they release this in a supplement they really should just spell it out up front.

[Sigreid]

The one that sticks out, though, is Performer: there isn't anything like "bonus action" or "in place of one of your attacks during the Attack action" to suggest that there's some way you're better at this than someone without the feat, which in turn suggests that you need the feat to do this at all, rather than just to do it better or faster than you could otherwise.

I don't like the Performer one at all. I think that should just be a use of the perform skill, period. Performers have been playing to a particular audience member for as long as they've existed, and they're hard to ignore when they do.

[Unoriginal]

I don't like the Performer one at all. I think that should just be a use of the perform skill, period. Performers have been playing to a particular audience member for as long as they've existed, and they're hard to ignore when they do.


...it's not that hard when you're trying to do something else, unless the performer is really amazing.

[Grey Watcher]

...it's not that hard when you're trying to do something else, unless the performer is really amazing.

But I still think it should just be a thing you could try. Having Expertise is probably the difference between "I can do that!" and "I can do that reliably!"

It's especially jarring when all the rest of them let you do something you flat out couldn't before: you don't just know a lot about magic, you're so skilled that you can actually do more of it than your counterpart who's merely proficient in Arcana; you aren't just intimidating, you can be in the midst of cutting people down and still spare a moment to lock eyes with that one guy and make him quake in his boots; you aren't just good at talking to people, you can wrap them around your finger so thoroughly, you rival people who use literal magic. Performer just makes your performances good enough to draw attention, which is something any busker has to learn to do. It needs more oomph. Something that says "I'm so good, I can literally redefine what you thought was possible."

[Unoriginal]

But I still think it should just be a thing you could try. Having Expertise is probably the difference between "I can do that!" and "I can do that reliably!"

It's especially jarring when all the rest of them let you do something you flat out couldn't before: you don't just know a lot about magic, you're so skilled that you can actually do more of it than your counterpart who's merely proficient in Arcana; you aren't just intimidating, you can be in the midst of cutting people down and still spare a moment to lock eyes with that one guy and make him quake in his boots; you aren't just good at talking to people, you can wrap them around your finger so thoroughly, you rival people who use literal magic. Performer just makes your performances good enough to draw attention, which is something any busker has to learn to do. It needs more oomph. Something that says "I'm so good, I can literally redefine what you thought was possible."

It makes your Performance good enough than the target has troubles looking away even when they know at 100% that there is someone who is going to stab their brains out.

Compare to regular combat awareness, which is "unless the DM allows the contrary because the target is very distracted, you're detected when you move in to attack someone."

[Alerad]

Great idea to spark imagination, but I don't like them as feats at all. Most of the bonuses should be doable by a simple skill check, Perform, Medicine and Acrobatics to start with.

[toapat]

Great idea to spark imagination, but I don't like them as feats at all. Most of the bonuses should be doable by a simple skill check, Perform, Medicine and Acrobatics to start with.

I agree with the Perform comment but not medicine and Acrobatics, and Medicine since the medicine disagreement comes from Medicine shouldnt be a skill

Acrobat: This is clearly the Acrobatic Charge trick from 3.5, The skills are typically not a specifically learned type of Maneuver in combat in this way.

Medicine: the problem is that the Medicine is completely useless as a skill. You cant perform any of the checks without a Healer's kit, which can do the same checks if youre proficient. Medical treatment itself divides roughly into "Diagnosis (nature checks technically), treatment, Surgery, and therapy". Well, Surgery is going to need a specific kit there, Treatment is an Alchemist's kit, and Therapy doesnt exist in DnD since nothing technically has longterm existing side effects.

[djreynolds]

I like this, about time. Skill use in combat, I've been whining about this for years.
It's not perfect, but is worthwhile.

[Zalabim]

Just to cut to the chase:
New UA: Skill Feats New Uses for Skills (aka skill powers)


I would say that the coolest idea that they had here were to forgo one of your attacks to make a skill check for a combat effect. especially because it's only limited to how many of your attacks you can forgo. Extra attack, being an already much-desired feature, will now be also desired as a resource-per-round pool for various effects, I think this can open a door for all sorts of fun and versatile stuff if WotC expands skills with that as a direction. :smallsmile: the only things that they have to consider is that it has to be equivalent in value to a one of a character's attacks in a given round, and that it needs to be worthwhile even if you use 4 uses (like a high-level fighter scaring off 4 enemies in a single round, rather than killing them) and maybe a bit less like 3.5's improved feint which doesn't really stack with itself effectively.

I really hope that they do that...
If you wanted to note this as sarcasm, you could paint it blue. I mean the Battle Master already portrays tripping an enemy as equal to frightening an enemy.

animal handler: why does it take a feat to issue orders to an animal? talking is a free action. presumably the animal is trained to perform the task to some extent (otherwise how are you commanding it at all?). so why is it a feat and a bonus action?
Highlighted for irony? Maybe? Maybe this should be another one giving you spellcasting though, instead of Dominate (friendly) Beast.


naturalist: so i get why arcanist gives you spellcasting (i'm not a huge fan of it, but fine, whatever). but why does naturalist give spellcasting? is it not possible to be a naturalist without casting spells? and of all the spells, why detect poison? i feel like a naturalist would probably get way more mileage out of speak with animals as a means of learning about nature...
Right, right. Animals don't understand or speak common, after all. More likely it's because Animal Handling is a different skill.


stealthy: so wait, i need to have a feat to be able to move from cover to cover? i can't just wait for someone to be looking the other way and then do it? laaaame. now, if this is the ability to do that while someone is watching, fine...
It definitely covers when someone is watching, as otherwise it doesn't matter that you're in the open when there's no one to see you.

[Zanthy1]

Take the Historian feat.

See Fighter attempting grapple

"Kick him in the groin to make him fall! Like how King Richmond was defeated by the goblin warlord Gubuz in 1342".


And knowing is half the battle.

As an IRL historian, I love this in more ways than one

[RickAllison]

Some Historian Help for every skill!

Athletics: "Grab him by the jewels, like Gozag the Emasculator!"

Stealth: "I notice you are flat-footed when you attack. That killed Sneak-Thief Selene in 872, when she snapped a twig while leaping forward because her foot hadn't noticed it beforehand."

Sleight of Hand: "Have you heard about Larenthius Long-Winded? He used to tell endless stories of the great genealogies of Gentoo? Well he would declare 'Gat begat Got, and Got begat Get, and..." This isn't to help your friend. It is to distract the target.

History: This shouldn't happen, but seems straightforward.

Arcana: Say something historical and magic.

Nature: Historica Naturalis. Talk about a T-rex or something.

Religion: History and religion are intricately tied.

Investigation: Historical examples of illusions, traps, and hidden objects.

Animal Handling: Topsy! Why?!?!

Perception: Guilt-trip. Talk about the guy who missed his spot check when the lady let the enemies into Rome

Insight: Talk about something historically relevant to what the person might trip up on.

Medicine: Talk about similar symptoms from old cases.

Persuasion: Bring historical examples of the course of action being successful.

Intimidation: I'm just going to quote Claire Devil from Daredevil on this one. "Try stabbing him in his trigeminal nerve... Go in through here, right above the eye, that's the super orbital foramen, you want to go in right under there."

Deception: Supporting historical evidence.

Performance: "Come see the man tougher than X, faster than Y, and more handsome than Z!"

[JumboWheat01]

It's that kind of silliness, RickAllison, that I love my group for. I should totally show 'em that post.

[djreynolds]

The inclusion of skills in combat aside from athletics is awesome. Deception and intimidation and performance that's cool.

Could they be better, yes but now we have something out there that I have allowed my table to use for a awhile

The feats are pricey but it now you don't have to multiclass to rogue or bard to be an expert in a skill

I like them only because it shows what is possible for game-play.

I have allowed players to use sleight of hand and performance for a while now, on our table players gave up a reaction or bonus action to use these skills to gain advantage or cause fear or confusion. But for a fighter with 3 attacks, I might give up one to intimidate somebody.

It gives non-magical types the ability to use skills to influence the game that before was relegated to spells or certain classes features that came way to late like intimidating presence

In fact I might be inclined to let players use portions of these without the feat

[Prince Zahn]

If you wanted to note this as sarcasm, you could paint it blue. I mean the Battle Master already portrays tripping an enemy as equal to frightening an enemy.
First of all, no. I tried the blue for sarcasm thing, not for me.

Second, I was being anything BUT sarcastic. I know plenty of sworn-martial players who would rather do other things with their combat actions than simply attack. This is perfect for them - a feat like Menacing gives them a lot more versatility.
And unlike Battlemaster, you're not expending a rest-based resource each time you use it.

So yes - forgoing 1-4 of your weapon attacks per round and replacing them with 1-4 buff/debuff options per round, with no cooldown period adds another layer of versatility-in-combat to martial characters, and I say "why not?"

[djreynolds]

IMO, I think some players are hesitant to give martials, "spell-like" abilities. But half of sword dueling has to be finding ways to get inside the other players mind and make them slip up. And you shouldn't need a spell to do that.

I like these skill feats, and I like that you simply give up an attack.

[Zalabim]

First of all, no. I tried the blue for sarcasm thing, not for me.

Second, I was being anything BUT sarcastic. I know plenty of sworn-martial players who would rather do other things with their combat actions than simply attack. This is perfect for them - a feat like Menacing gives them a lot more versatility.
And unlike Battlemaster, you're not expending a rest-based resource each time you use it.

So yes - forgoing 1-4 of your weapon attacks per round and replacing them with 1-4 buff/debuff options per round, with no cooldown period adds another layer of versatility-in-combat to martial characters, and I say "why not?"

That's great, but it's one of those things that shouldn't need a feat. There's already equivalent things that don't need a feat. To be explicit, you can already Shove to trip or push someone, and the DMG has a variant for Disarming. Goading and Menacing should be possible in the same style. You can probably justify and balance most battle master maneuver's effects without the superiority die at the cost of an attack's damage.

[djreynolds]

Agreed, the needn't be a feat. But you get +1 and expertise which great as for most of my fighters I really have no use for a 13 in dex in plate armor, though until it was how I made many a fighter to get expertise in athletics at the expense of the 20th level capstone.

For along time I allow rogue's to use their reaction (which is costly) to use deception, sleight of hand, performance in combat for advantage

It is a good attempt to bring this up from the UA

[Prince Zahn]

That's great, but it's one of those things that shouldn't need a feat. There's already equivalent things that don't need a feat. To be explicit, you can already Shove to trip or push someone, and the DMG has a variant for Disarming. Goading and Menacing should be possible in the same style. You can probably justify and balance most battle master maneuver's effects without the superiority die at the cost of an attack's damage.
Indeed, you can trip, push, sometimes disarm with the weapon master, and I'm sure anyone can make an Intimidation check (as an action, mind you) without a feat, but what does that have to do with a feat anyone can take that makes you great at Intimidation checks, and lets you do so more than once per round, if you have extra attack and this feat?