One D&D UA #2: "Expert Classes" Survey Open 10/20 - 11/23

[Dr.Samurai]

@Tanarii - Here is what it says under the Help action: Assist Ability Check. Choose one of your Skills. Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill. This benefit expires if the ally doesn’t use it before the start of your next turn. To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the all to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible.

This to me makes it seem like, unless you have proficiency in the skill, you can't use the Help action on it, regardless of your ability score or training.

Maybe I'm not understanding you clearly.

[Tanarii]

This to me makes it seem like, unless you have proficiency in the skill, you can't use the Help action on it, regardless of your ability score or training.

Agreed. And this was being justified in this thread as proficiency = training.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it looks like you can't help with anything that's just a raw Ability check (no proficiency added) or anything involving a tool proficiency. Because you can only pick a skill proficiency and they need to use that particular proficiency. Which has effects just beyond "not being able to help if not proficient"--it means that no one can help with a raw ability check or one that uses a non-skill proficiency. And if multiple proficiencies could be applied, hope you guessed correctly which proficiency they will apply.

Or maybe all ability checks will use skill proficiencies and you'll have One True Proficiency for every task and a lot of useful things will be thrown out the window because "codification is good, guys!"

[Psyren]

It's not semantics if folks are gating things based on proficiency and only proficiency = training.

Proficiency is defined as a focus, not training. That could include training. That could include a divine blessing or patron granted capability. That could include being innately better at it without any training.

All of this is true but as it stands, the new Help rule cares about proficiency. Whether that proficiency represents training, superduper chocolatey fudge special training, a divine/patron blessing etc - the rule specifically requires you to have that before you can help unless your DM overrides it. Justify it narratively to your tastes.

[Pex]

Which, frankly, is bull****. I don't need to be skilled in Athletics to help push the big rock out of the way, especially with a 20+ in strength.

This is one place where keeping it vague and leaving it up to the DM is a good thing.

It's not about being vague. 5E rules already explicitly say you can help people. It's an added restriction of proficiency gating. I agree it's a bad rule. I will tell them so. A rule being a bad rule does not mean rules must therefore not exist.

Nah, people can help without knowing the stuff. I just oversaw a plumbing repair yesterday, and these types of trades literally have "helpers" who assist the actual licensed professional with the task.

I like Psyren's take on this; if the actual check requires proficiency, then Help also requires proficiency.

But I think people overestimate what it takes to help someone do something.

Proficiency for proficiency helping is logical, but I don't want proficiency to be used as a permission slip. It isn't now, though some DMs use it that way. PCs get few proficiencies. Locking anything useful behind proficiency metaphorically punishes players for choosing wrong at character creation by saying 'You don't get to play this'. Maybe they need to change the word "proficiency" to something else. I'm fine with the bonus as it's meant for a little extra buff to some things you can do, but I object to lack of it means you can't do anything.

If I get my wish of DC tables I could maybe get over it where there's a list of things you can do without proficiency and things you can only do with proficiency, but that would require a lot of crunch I can sympathize with those who don't want DC tables at all would object.

[Dr.Samurai]

Proficiency for proficiency helping is logical, but I don't want proficiency to be used as a permission slip.

I tend to agree. This UA seems like a lot of "actually, PCs can't do this anymore" type of changes.

Here's a list of what I do like from the rules changes:

1. Grappled now imposes Disadvantage to attack anyone other than the Grappler. This is a nice debuff that helps with the tanking role.

2. Jump references "vertical" jump instead of "high" jump and jumping "up into the air", which seems to me that now with these rules you can jump down from something.

3. The Light weapon property lumping in the TWF attack with your normal attack action instead of having it be a bonus action.

4. Ritual Casting no longer requiring a special feature. I don't use ritual spells, but this always seemed needless.

5. Search as a catch-all Action for various skill checks.

6. Study as a catch-all Action for various knowledge checks, and these checks including knowledge about monsters (breaking them down by type and appropriate skill).

7. Gaining Advantage on a check where you are proficient with the relevant Skill and Tool.

8. Unarmed Strikes allowing you to grapple or shove as part of the hit. (Though I'm curious how this interacts with monsters that have claws/bites/etc.)

[Thunderous Mojo]

As 5e rules stand now, one can only Help another party with a non-combat action, if and only if, the helper could succeed on the check, alone.

This means a 10 Intelligence, Samwise Gamgee, with a +6 Proficiency Bonus to History, still couldn’t Help Gandalf identify Bilbo’s Ring, as the One Ring, under the current ruleset. (Presuming this Check was a DC 29, nigh impossible task).

P.P. is absolutely correct in stating that there are plenty of actions that one could reasonable Help with, that do not necessarily have a corresponding skill.

There is no “Move the couch” skill in D&D, yet I imagine that many of us here, with no formal training, have helped someone move furniture before.

If the Athletics skill is conceived as broadly covering all physical actions, from moving couches, to breaking down doors, running marathons, or weightlifting, then this silliness is somewhat mitigated.

Though only somewhat…again, what 1DND skill handles moving couches?

[Saelethil]

How about Help requiring a DC 10 skill check in whatever skill is relevant to how you're trying to help. If it's something your good at then you will mostly be helpful but if you aren't skilled or have the right attribute chances are you won't be helpful.

You could even have something like if you fail you impose disadvantage if you wanted that chance of being unhelpful (Maybe only on nat 1s).

I’ve done this when it seems unlikely that the character would actually be able to help. Most recently, the 8 Cha. Ranger (who was clearly a long way from home) wanted to help the Paladin lie to a guard. I told him that dc10 would give advantage but something bad would happen (DC would have increased) on a total of 1 (so 1 or 2 on the d20). He rolled something like a 7 so no Help, no hindrance. After that he ran off to create a distraction in what ended up being the highlight of the session.

[Akkristor]

Was looking at the Charger feat from the OneD&D playtest.

CHARGER
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial
Weapon
Repeatable: No
You have trained to charge headlong into battle,
gaining the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Strength
or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Improved Dash. When you take the Dash
Action, your Speed increases by 10 feet for that
Action.
Charge Attack. If you move at least 10 feet in a
straight line immediately before hitting with
an attack as part of the Attack Action on your
turn, choose one of the following effects: gain a
+1d8 bonus to the attack’s damage roll, or
push the target up to 10 feet, provided the
target you want to push is no more than one
Size larger than you. You can use this benefit
only once on each of your turns.


Is it just me, or does this work equally well with ranged attacks? The Charge Attack feature does not restrict to melee attacks, and doesn't require you to move towards the target. You could move 10 feet in any direction and get a +1d8 bonus to damage, giving a hit-and-run style of ranged combat. Since you can break your move up before, between, and after your attacks, you could move 10 feet away from a foe, shoot them with a bonus +1d8, then keep moving the rest of your speed. It's no Sharpshooter +10, but it is +1d8 with no attack penalty attached.

[Jervis]

Was looking at the Charger feat from the OneD&D playtest.

CHARGER
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial
Weapon
Repeatable: No
You have trained to charge headlong into battle,
gaining the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Strength
or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Improved Dash. When you take the Dash
Action, your Speed increases by 10 feet for that
Action.
Charge Attack. If you move at least 10 feet in a
straight line immediately before hitting with
an attack as part of the Attack Action on your
turn, choose one of the following effects: gain a
+1d8 bonus to the attack’s damage roll, or
push the target up to 10 feet, provided the
target you want to push is no more than one
Size larger than you. You can use this benefit
only once on each of your turns.


Is it just me, or does this work equally well with ranged attacks? The Charge Attack feature does not restrict to melee attacks, and doesn't require you to move towards the target. You could move 10 feet in any direction and get a +1d8 bonus to damage, giving a hit-and-run style of ranged combat. Since you can break your move up before, between, and after your attacks, you could move 10 feet away from a foe, shoot them with a bonus +1d8, then keep moving the rest of your speed. It's no Sharpshooter +10, but it is +1d8 with no attack penalty attached.

Yep. Probably not intended but you can charge back 10 feet and shoot. I don’t mind it personally since it feels like a callback to 3.5 skirmisher

[jas61292]

The intention is 1 of the below, it seems:

a. The party largely covers a broad set of skills and can't make use of the Help action in most cases involving skill checks.

b. The party covers a narrower set of skills, with redundant proficiencies, and can make use of the Help action in those handful of cases.

I'm not sure how these are improvements over the current set of rules.

Personally I think its a big improvement. As someone who thinks the current rules allow advantage way too easily, I think this is one good way to reign it in. If you want advantage on a check, you should have more than one person good at it. You shouldn't just get it for pretty much every single check ever made (except lockpicking).

This way is more logical, and lets people's proficiencies actually matter more.

[Ortho]

Is anyone else a bit concerned that we have 4 different types of feats? It seems unnecessary. There's:

• 1st level feats
• 4th level feats
• Fighting Style feats
• Epic Boon feats

And I'm just wondering....why is everything a feat all of a sudden? What solution is being presented for what problem here?

[Pex]

Is anyone else a bit concerned that we have 4 different types of feats? It seems unnecessary. There's:

• 1st level feats
• 4th level feats
• Fighting Style feats
• Epic Boon feats

And I'm just wondering....why is everything a feat all of a sudden? What solution is being presented for what problem here?

People have yelled that some feats are better than others. They don't mind powerful feats existing but don't like 1st level characters having them via Variant Human. Therefore, giving feats level requirement allows for more powerful feats their place but not overpower low level games until such time those powerful feats can enter play without major disruption.

Fighting style feats save ink on paper. It allows them to print a fighting style once as a feat and say a class gets a fighting style feat as a class feature without having to reprint them all. Supposedly they're accepting classes that used to only have particular fighting styles may now choose from all. For example a paladin could theoretically take Archery style when in 5E they couldn't.

Epic Boon feats are filler. Games rarely reach 20th level. They rarely reach 18th level, but moving the Final Power down gives more chance they'll see play. Something needs to fill up 20th level. The campaign theoretically will only last one or two more sessions after reaching 20th level, so it's something Nice but not disappointing you only have it for two game sessions before game over.

[Tanarii]

And I'm just wondering....why is everything a feat all of a sudden? What solution is being presented for what problem here?

Pathfinder 2

[OldTrees1]

Is anyone else a bit concerned that we have 4 different types of feats? It seems unnecessary. There's:

• 1st level feats
• 4th level feats
• Fighting Style feats
• Epic Boon feats

And I'm just wondering....why is everything a feat all of a sudden? What solution is being presented for what problem here?

Well feats are a useful innovation to support more of a player's character concepts with less developer work.

However feats have a problem where you can take them in any order and thus you will take your favorite first and your least favorite last. This means your last feat is a worse feature than your first feat.

I think the 1st, 4th, Epic (mostly just 1st/4th) is their latest attempt at considering that issue. They have had worse solutions in the past.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pathfinder 2

Yup. Most of the UA so far seems to be "how can we rip off PF2 without looking like we're doing so...too much". IIRC, didn't one of the newer WotC people come from Paizo?

[stoutstien]

Yup. Most of the UA so far seems to be "how can we rip off PF2 without looking like we're doing so...too much". IIRC, didn't one of the newer WotC people come from Paizo?

I wouldn't even mind them ripping PF2 off if they were taking the stuff that makes the game better rather than just trying to shove everything into feats and hopes it works out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't even mind them ripping PF2 off if they were taking the stuff that makes the game better rather than just trying to shove everything into feats and hopes it works out.

Wait...isn't that what PF2 did? (really, I'd put every other letter in blue if it weren't so much work). Honestly, that's what turns me off more than (almost) anything else in PF2--want to do anything interesting that isn't just "have numbers"? There's a feat for that. And if you don't take the feat, you can't do the thing. It's a bad imitation of point buy, instead of leaning into classes and coming up with interesting class features. In the end, it's fake complexity--in reality each build is basically set in stone. If you want to be capable, you take the same feats as anyone else playing your role. "But there's so many choices!" Yes, but empty, predetermined ones.

[Segev]

Wait...isn't that what PF2 did? (really, I'd put every other letter in blue if it weren't so much work). Honestly, that's what turns me off more than (almost) anything else in PF2--want to do anything interesting that isn't just "have numbers"? There's a feat for that. And if you don't take the feat, you can't do the thing. It's a bad imitation of point buy, instead of leaning into classes and coming up with interesting class features. In the end, it's fake complexity--in reality each build is basically set in stone. If you want to be capable, you take the same feats as anyone else playing your role. "But there's so many choices!" Yes, but empty, predetermined ones.

Emphasis added. Having done that, holy cow is it more work than many probably think it is. It sounds like a lot of work. It's more work than it sounds like. x_x

[Rukelnikov]

Wait...isn't that what PF2 did? (really, I'd put every other letter in blue if it weren't so much work). Honestly, that's what turns me off more than (almost) anything else in PF2--want to do anything interesting that isn't just "have numbers"? There's a feat for that. And if you don't take the feat, you can't do the thing. It's a bad imitation of point buy, instead of leaning into classes and coming up with interesting class features. In the end, it's fake complexity--in reality each build is basically set in stone. If you want to be capable, you take the same feats as anyone else playing your role. "But there's so many choices!" Yes, but empty, predetermined ones.

Are you sure that the feats are to blame? I haven't played PF2, but 3e was feats galore, and in dozens or hundreds of characters I don't remember 2 being the same, actually most were pretty unique.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are you sure that the feats are to blame? I haven't played PF2, but 3e was feats galore, and in dozens or hundreds of characters I don't remember 2 being the same, actually most were pretty unique.

PF2e is much more...channeled. Feats are limited both by level and by class and by other things, lots of things that were class features are now feats.

[Rukelnikov]

PF2e is much more...channeled. Feats are limited both by level and by class and by other things, lots of things that were class features are now feats.

Maybe the problem then is that whenever you have to take a feat, even when there are lots, the ones available to you at every particular choice are very limited?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe the problem then is that whenever you have to take a feat, even when there are lots, the ones available to you at every particular choice are very limited?

Oh, they're wide open. In principle. In practice, there are 2-3 top choices that if you don't take them, you fall behind the expected curve and then you suck. For some builds there's only really one at certain points.

It's hiding system-expected capabilities in seemingly free choices.

4e did the same thing--if you didn't take the <X> Focus feats early on, your to-hit fell below the curve and suddenly you just weren't contributing. PF2e took that same thing and doubled down on it.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that feats should always be truly optional. Not necessarily in the sense that the feat system is optional, but that taking any specific one should be a matter of individual choice. Feats (and any other optional, not baked into the class content) should provide horizontal growth, but never make you better at your main thing. Feats should be the way you differentiate in non-combat for a combat-centric class, for instance. That fighter took the Gregarious feat, so he's good at talking to people. That other fighter took the Braniac feat, so he's good at thinking about things. Etc. Their weight in anything optimization should be minimal. Any feat that ends up a "must have" or a "no brainer" even if only for certain builds should be reconsidered and rolled into class features where appropriate. Even if those class features have choices in them.

For example, you could roll GWM into the barbarian class (stripping off the reliance on particular weapons), while letting fighters pick (or even get all of them depending on what weapons they're wielding) between modified Sentinel, Shield Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm master, etc. That alone brings up fighters and barbarians quite a bit (since they'd be getting that for free) while keeping paladins in their place a bit (no longer able to pick up PAM).

And even more heretically, turn a lot of spells into class features that no longer eat spell slots. For example (wording still wibbly wobbly):

----
Remove hunter's mark from all spell lists.

Give the ranger these features:

Hunter's Quarry (Ranger 1)
When you finish a long or short rest, pick a creature to focus on as your quarry. This can be either a general type of creature (humanoids, for example) or a more specific grouping (e.g. orcs). You gain advantage on perception checks against creatures of your quarry's type; additionally they have disadvantage on perception checks made to find you. As an action, you can determine the approximate number and rough locations[1] of all creatures of that type within a distance of 100 ft (1 mile if you picked a more specific type).

Focused Prey (Ranger 2)
You can cast hunter's mark as a first level spell as a bonus action and without requiring concentration or expending a spell slot. You can use this a number of times equal to half your ranger level (minimum 1), recharging at <interval>. At higher levels, the damage increases like <formula>, and it deals an additional X to creatures of your chosen Hunter's Quarry type.
----

Or something like that.

[Pex]

PF2e is much more...channeled. Feats are limited both by level and by class and by other things, lots of things that were class features are now feats.

It's build-a-bear. Pathfinder 1E had archetypes where you switch out the official published class features for other ideas. Pathfinder 2E cut out the middleman by not having official published features to be swapped but let players instead choose what they want from the start. Pathfinder 2E did have initial backlash with this method because people were upset they need to spend a feat to get what they use to have. It calmed down when they understood the archetype metaphor. Whether it was a good idea is for the individual to decide for himself. With other issues I have with the game I don't play it. My Pathfinder group has stayed with 1E.

[Kane0]

So when's the survey?

[Psyren]

So when's the survey?

Next week (10/20 I believe.)

Is anyone else a bit concerned that we have 4 different types of feats? It seems unnecessary. There's:

• 1st level feats
• 4th level feats
• Fighting Style feats
• Epic Boon feats

And I'm just wondering....why is everything a feat all of a sudden? What solution is being presented for what problem here?

1) The vast majority of tables were playing with feats anyway, leaning more into them shouldn't be shocking.

2) Feats are useful. They are class-agnostic class features. They give builds more customization. You can even hand them out as rewards. And any design work spent on them isn't wasted in a new setting the way things like Theros Piety, Ravenloft Dark Gifts, and Ravnica Guild Renown are.

[Jervis]

Next week (10/20 I believe.)

I really do wonder what’s gonna be changed from this IA going into the next one. Part of me hopes we don’t see immediate changes to the martial feats until after the warrior UA. Granted I think the warrior UA should be next even though the arcane caster one is slotted to be next alphabetically. Really the warrior one should have been first, speaking as someone who is the least effected as I almost never play those three. Prediction is fixing the jump rules to be less dog water and maybe changes to ritual caster. Also familiar helping is probably gonna get murdered, maybe to the point of being a warlock invocation

[Arkhios]

Pathfinder 2

Personally, I don't see much that would hint towards PF2E; as long as they refrain from making all class features essentially feat choices, I'm fine with this direction (that part of PF2E I've never agreed with, and it's the biggest reason I have no interest in playing the game or even making character builds. Too much options is too much).

1) The vast majority of tables were playing with feats anyway, leaning more into them shouldn't be shocking.

2) Feats are useful. They are class-agnostic class features. They give builds more customization. You can even hand them out as rewards. And any design work spent on them isn't wasted in a new setting the way things like Theros Piety, Ravenloft Dark Gifts, and Ravnica Guild Renown are.

This. While I would be okay if they didn't make this change, it's obvious why they did it. I won't deny it, even I prefer taking feats instead of simple ability score increases whenever it's an option (which is almost always).

I really do wonder what’s gonna be changed from this IA going into the next one. Part of me hopes we don’t see immediate changes to the martial feats until after the warrior UA. Granted I think the warrior UA should be next even though the arcane caster one is slotted to be next alphabetically. Really the warrior one should have been first, speaking as someone who is the least effected as I almost never play those three. Prediction is fixing the jump rules to be less dog water and maybe changes to ritual caster. Also familiar helping is probably gonna get murdered, maybe to the point of being a warlock invocation

For some reason I've had this feeling they might dig deeper into the Warrior classes after they've done Mages and Priests (and I must add, the feeling doesn't necessarily stem from alphabetic reasons).

[Jervis]

For some reason I've had this feeling they might dig deeper into the Warrior classes after they've done Mages and Priests.

Which is really freaking weird since they HAD to know that those are the classes everyone would be comparing the casters too whenever they saw a buff. I still say releasing them in groups of four with the classic dnd party load out first would have made more sense

[Arkhios]

Which is really freaking weird since they HAD to know that those are the classes everyone would be comparing the casters too whenever they saw a buff. I still say releasing them in groups of four with the classic dnd party load out first would have made more sense

Indeed, it would have.

I think the reason why they might be doing this (if my hunch is correct) is that very reason: they're going to add oomph to Warriors so that they would match the general power level with others, comparing them to casters (and experts)