And a character focusing on survival will do well in a survival element if a campaign. This should be rewarded. This fighter could, in fact, handle the/some of the survival payload. This would free up all the other party members to do other things while traveling/exploring, like keeping watch in different directions, looking for food and water (which those rules are very interesting by the way, if you fail the check for finding food you can NOT make the check to find water! And considering water is WAY more vital than food...), handling animals or driving vehicles, sleeping or resting, scouting, information gathering, and anything else the situation requires or the character choose to do. A survival check is just moving in the direction you think you want to go without getting off track.
As a DM we also use variant encumbrance and track food, water, ammunition, spell components, and the like.
And a character focusing on survival will do well in a survival element if a campaign. This should be rewarded. This fighter could, in fact, handle the/some of the survival payload. This would free up all the other party members to do other things while traveling/exploring, like keeping watch in different directions, looking for food and water (which those rules are very interesting by the way, if you fail the check for finding food you can NOT make the check to find water! And considering water is WAY more vital than food...), handling animals or driving vehicles, sleeping or resting, scouting, information gathering, and anything else the situation requires or the character choose to do. A survival check is just moving in the direction you think you want to go without getting off track.
As a DM we also use variant encumbrance and track food, water, ammunition, spell components, and the like.
Would also give the ranger a break and maybe let them pick a different expertise too if they had a different focus. Like a Fey ranger with persuasion expertise who used wisdom to guide discussion.
And a character focusing on survival will do well in a survival element if a campaign. This should be rewarded. This fighter could, in fact, handle the/some of the survival payload. This would free up all the other party members to do other things while traveling/exploring, like keeping watch in different directions, looking for food and water (which those rules are very interesting by the way, if you fail the check for finding food you can NOT make the check to find water! And considering water is WAY more vital than food...), handling animals or driving vehicles, sleeping or resting, scouting, information gathering, and anything else the situation requires or the character choose to do. A survival check is just moving in the direction you think you want to go without getting off track.
As a DM we also use variant encumbrance and track food, water, ammunition, spell components, and the like.
Would also give the ranger a break and maybe let them pick a different expertise too if they had a different focus. Like a Fey ranger with persuasion expertise who used wisdom to guide discussion.
I’m not exactly clear what you were asking. But I do use the variant rule of skills with different abilities all the time. Persuasion checks using intelligence or wisdom come up quite frequently. The difference between charisma, wisdom, and intelligence used for persuasion checks in my brain would be the difference of a politician, spiritual leader, and science professor in their approach to trying to persuade a person or persons.
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
It’s the idea that everything has a cost. Each choice you get for a give. So background choice, feat choices, build focus, they all cost something. And most of the “suggested” ranger competition builds involve a little to a lot of sacrifice to achieve not even the equal results as just a baseline vanilla ranger.
I guess I get that...but background has so little effect on most things in the game sans RP which I could see maybe you want to RP as a different kind of fighter.
Mechanically though there is 0 impact on your ability to be a fighter by picking it vs. soldier. The only differences would be flavor and RP opportunities.
Background feature (sure, many are strongly RP, but several have a helpful mechanical feature, like the outlander for example), proficiencies (skills and tools/languages, which are not just RP. When I DM, most creatures don’t speak common. Personal bias = I hate that there is a “common” language, and delete it from the world), so those are things you’re giving for getting. But that is what a background is for half of the time, supplementing your stereotype class features. Then there is the feat you mention. If using feats, fighters get the most, but at which point are you taking that feat? Level 4? Level 6? How is that effecting that character taking a “fighter feat”?
i take a little bit different approach. I don't get rid of common. I just don't necessarily have Everybody using it even if they know it. Some groups that are isolated or xenophobic I might replace common with another suitable language in my worlds. But what I do is Much like the real world. Many countries do not have English as their Native language but learn at least some part of it. This is effectively "common" in some respects. However that's not what they speak in their every day lives. it's not what they are necessarily comfortable with. there may be misunderstandings even if they do understand. And Many may just refuse to use it and use their native tongue regardless unless they are in the lands of some other race or a heavily mixed place. So when you walk into a settlement of elves. Unless you speak Elvish. You don't really know what's going on around you and it may take some time for an Elf to be willing to speak to you in it and help you out. Same with a Dwarven Stronghold. They will all speak primarily dwarven and do most everything in dwarven. Their biggest use for Common may be to shout short mostly easy to understand epithets at their enemies. But they are dwarves and your in a dwarven place. Your always going to do better speaking Dwarven. A Dwarven place or an Elvish place is going to be almost entirely built for the suitability of the elves or the Dwarves as well. They're idea of lighting may be somewhat troublesome for a human in their homes either some of the time or all of the time as well for example Which might lead to situations where that Dwarf that decided to show you the way looking slightly annoyed because it has to keep stopping and waiting for that human or the like to catch up because they are stumbling around in what is almost dim light at the best of times and the few areas near the gate more suitable to things that can't see in the dark with the inns and taverns with a bit more human (though not necessarily entirely) taste reside and they are well lit and considered an eyesore by many dwarves.
These are world building touches that people forget about. But these are real world things. And I can hear a few that might complain "that's not inclusive". It's only not inclusive if you insist on standing apart and demanding they conform to you when your not willing to conform to them. If you know the language. Have a way to get around in the dimmer light. Or otherwise deal with their way of things they can be quite warm and welcoming and you might be surprised how inclusive they can be just because your willing to make a little adjustments yourself.
I've Had players enjoy being at an Orcish War Settlement simply because they either spoke the language or showed an interesting in learning some of it and didn't automatically tell the Orcs about how everything they are doing is wrong and bad or complain about how their society is "coded" to certain real world groups and automatically be offended Which actually spun off into taking a story arc in a different direction than I intended in a story arc from that experience because they decided later that the Orc's weren't entirely wrong in a different later incident.
And a character focusing on survival will do well in a survival element if a campaign. This should be rewarded. This fighter could, in fact, handle the/some of the survival payload. This would free up all the other party members to do other things while traveling/exploring, like keeping watch in different directions, looking for food and water (which those rules are very interesting by the way, if you fail the check for finding food you can NOT make the check to find water! And considering water is WAY more vital than food...), handling animals or driving vehicles, sleeping or resting, scouting, information gathering, and anything else the situation requires or the character choose to do. A survival check is just moving in the direction you think you want to go without getting off track.
As a DM we also use variant encumbrance and track food, water, ammunition, spell components, and the like.
Would also give the ranger a break and maybe let them pick a different expertise too if they had a different focus. Like a Fey ranger with persuasion expertise who used wisdom to guide discussion.
I’m not exactly clear what you were asking. But I do use the variant rule of skills with different abilities all the time. Persuasion checks using intelligence or wisdom come up quite frequently. The difference between charisma, wisdom, and intelligence used for persuasion checks in my brain would be the difference of a politician, spiritual leader, and science professor in their approach to trying to persuade a person or persons.
I was thinking of this feature:
Otherworldly Glamour
3rd-level Fey Wanderer feature
Your fey qualities give you a supernatural charm. As a result, whenever you make a Charisma check, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of +1).
This feature adds a bonus in a specific situation. If they make a straight traditional persuasion check or a variant wisdom persuasion check, either would be would be a lower overall bonus than a fey wanderer charisma persuasion check, right?
This feature adds a bonus in a specific situation. If they make a straight traditional persuasion check or a variant wisdom persuasion check, either would be would be a lower overall bonus than a fey wanderer charisma persuasion check, right?
Honestly it depends on if you get to add WIS twice to the Persuasion (WIS) roll or not....which I am now uncertain about since I do not use that variant.
But if you do not get to add it twice it would be better for them to just do a Normal Persuasion (CHA) roll and get that extra +1.
I just now realized I may be reading that wrong....would you double the WIS them for a Persuasion (WIS) roll?
Ah. I see now.
Not really. Mechanically the ability wants to proc off a charisma check (the nice thing about that is it doesn’t rely on a skill check, just any charisma ability check). And thematically it’s designed to push a likable/scary “center of the party” kind of character. Typical fey. LOL!
I just now realized I may be reading that wrong....would you double the WIS them for a Persuasion (WIS) roll?
Ah. I see now.
Not really. Mechanically the ability wants to proc off a charisma check (the nice thing about that is it doesn’t rely on a skill check, just any charisma ability check). And thematically it’s designed to push a likable/scary “center of the party” kind of character. Typical fey. LOL!
Yeah with the Deft Explorer you could get expertise in persuasion and really be a social heavy build if you maxed WIS and CHA.
it's kind of like using your natural instinctual insight into the way people work to persuade them to do what you want. You instinctively understand that enough people tend to respond a particular way to get the result you want. With a failed roll indicating that this particular person didn't respond quite that way.
Mechanically it let's you be Charismatic without being "Charismatic" per se. Think of it a bit more like Manipulation in a sense. You can get people to do what you want but not because of them being moved by your personality and demeanor but in a way more how you word things. So mechanically you can get away with Not having Charisma. However. Much like many manipulations. They do go much easier if you also have the personality and demeanor that helps twist them to wanting to go along with what your saying as well as how you say it. So your even better if you mechanically combine them together.
Manipulating people in various ways is a big part of Fae Lore in the real world and that has been incorporated to some extent into the portrayal of the Fey and the Feywild in the game.
it's kind of like using your natural instinctual insight into the way people work to persuade them to do what you want. You instinctively understand that enough people tend to respond a particular way to get the result you want. With a failed roll indicating that this particular person didn't respond quite that way.
Mechanically it let's you be Charismatic without being "Charismatic" per se. Think of it a bit more like Manipulation in a sense. You can get people to do what you want but not because of them being moved by your personality and demeanor but in a way more how you word things. So mechanically you can get away with Not having Charisma. However. Much like many manipulations. They do go much easier if you also have the personality and demeanor that helps twist them to wanting to go along with what your saying as well as how you say it. So your even better if you mechanically combine them together.
Manipulating people in various ways is a big part of Fae Lore in the real world and that has been incorporated to some extent into the portrayal of the Fey and the Feywild in the game.
Yeah thematically and mechanically it makes a lot of sense and I love the ability.
This feature adds a bonus in a specific situation. If they make a straight traditional persuasion check or a variant wisdom persuasion check, either would be would be a lower overall bonus than a fey wanderer charisma persuasion check, right?
Honestly it depends on if you get to add WIS twice to the Persuasion (WIS) roll or not....which I am now uncertain about since I do not use that variant.
But if you do not get to add it twice it would be better for them to just do a Normal Persuasion (CHA) roll and get that extra +1.
If the DM decides you are attempting a Wisdom (Persuasion) check, then you don't get to add your Wisdom modifier a second time. The feature explicitly calls for a Charisma check. The variant rule is irrelevant.
I just now realized I may be reading that wrong....would you double the WIS them for a Persuasion (WIS) roll?
Ah. I see now.
Not really. Mechanically the ability wants to proc off a charisma check (the nice thing about that is it doesn’t rely on a skill check, just any charisma ability check). And thematically it’s designed to push a likable/scary “center of the party” kind of character. Typical fey. LOL!
Yeah with the Deft Explorer you could get expertise in persuasion and really be a social heavy build if you maxed WIS and CHA.
I assume you're referring to Canny (1st level), in which case you can gain Expertise with Persuasion. But it's only doable if you start with the skill proficiency at 1st level, which means acquiring it from a race or background.
But you're still talking about a bonus of +22 in Tier 4. I don't think anyone needs to voice how that's excessive, but I'll do it anyway. No rogue can do that. And a bard needs an 8th-level spell to even get into that ballpark. The point of the feature is you don't need Charisma to be good at those skills. You get the bonus even if you're not proficient in them. You could have a Charisma modifier of -1, but with maxed Wisdom you can still have a +4 on top of your proficiency bonus; if applicable. If you happen to also have a decent Charisma, even if it's just a +1 modifier, that's just gravy.
This feature adds a bonus in a specific situation. If they make a straight traditional persuasion check or a variant wisdom persuasion check, either would be would be a lower overall bonus than a fey wanderer charisma persuasion check, right?
Honestly it depends on if you get to add WIS twice to the Persuasion (WIS) roll or not....which I am now uncertain about since I do not use that variant.
But if you do not get to add it twice it would be better for them to just do a Normal Persuasion (CHA) roll and get that extra +1.
If the DM decides you are attempting a Wisdom (Persuasion) check, then you don't get to add your Wisdom modifier a second time. The feature explicitly calls for a Charisma check. The variant rule is irrelevant.
I just now realized I may be reading that wrong....would you double the WIS them for a Persuasion (WIS) roll?
Ah. I see now.
Not really. Mechanically the ability wants to proc off a charisma check (the nice thing about that is it doesn’t rely on a skill check, just any charisma ability check). And thematically it’s designed to push a likable/scary “center of the party” kind of character. Typical fey. LOL!
Yeah with the Deft Explorer you could get expertise in persuasion and really be a social heavy build if you maxed WIS and CHA.
I assume you're referring to Canny (1st level), in which case you can gain Expertise with Persuasion. But it's only doable if you start with the skill proficiency at 1st level, which means acquiring it from a race or background.
But you're still talking about a bonus of +22 in Tier 4. I don't think anyone needs to voice how that's excessive, but I'll do it anyway. No rogue can do that. And a bard needs an 8th-level spell to even get into that ballpark. The point of the feature is you don't need Charisma to be good at those skills. You get the bonus even if you're not proficient in them. You could have a Charisma modifier of -1, but with maxed Wisdom you can still have a +4 on top of your proficiency bonus; if applicable. If you happen to also have a decent Charisma, even if it's just a +1 modifier, that's just gravy.
Yeah it's good but also requires you to Max CHA and WIS so you are dumping all ASI to get it.
Do you? I think you could build a ranger as "normal" and still have a more than exceptional social encounter character. Second only to bards and rogues that specifically focus on that.
I only glanced at it. I'm worn out of all of the pet subclasses that are being offered and played, simultaneously, as people complain about slow combat and the conjure spells. All of this while the game slowly expands into a new version of the game (which isn't bad) without updates to the older material.
This feature adds a bonus in a specific situation. If they make a straight traditional persuasion check or a variant wisdom persuasion check, either would be would be a lower overall bonus than a fey wanderer charisma persuasion check, right?
Honestly it depends on if you get to add WIS twice to the Persuasion (WIS) roll or not....which I am now uncertain about since I do not use that variant.
But if you do not get to add it twice it would be better for them to just do a Normal Persuasion (CHA) roll and get that extra +1.
If the DM decides you are attempting a Wisdom (Persuasion) check, then you don't get to add your Wisdom modifier a second time. The feature explicitly calls for a Charisma check. The variant rule is irrelevant.
I just now realized I may be reading that wrong....would you double the WIS them for a Persuasion (WIS) roll?
Ah. I see now.
Not really. Mechanically the ability wants to proc off a charisma check (the nice thing about that is it doesn’t rely on a skill check, just any charisma ability check). And thematically it’s designed to push a likable/scary “center of the party” kind of character. Typical fey. LOL!
Yeah with the Deft Explorer you could get expertise in persuasion and really be a social heavy build if you maxed WIS and CHA.
I assume you're referring to Canny (1st level), in which case you can gain Expertise with Persuasion. But it's only doable if you start with the skill proficiency at 1st level, which means acquiring it from a race or background.
But you're still talking about a bonus of +22 in Tier 4. I don't think anyone needs to voice how that's excessive, but I'll do it anyway. No rogue can do that. And a bard needs an 8th-level spell to even get into that ballpark. The point of the feature is you don't need Charisma to be good at those skills. You get the bonus even if you're not proficient in them. You could have a Charisma modifier of -1, but with maxed Wisdom you can still have a +4 on top of your proficiency bonus; if applicable. If you happen to also have a decent Charisma, even if it's just a +1 modifier, that's just gravy.
Well and that's part of the trouble that really exists that isn't really addressed in all this min-maxing and power gaming. Just having Expertise and a maxed out stat is Almost Overkill in most of the possible skills with it's +17. It just makes DM's up difficulties into whole new areas. And with reliable talent a Rogue actually is overkill in pretty much all of them.
There are only a couple skills where DC's above 20 or 25 ever happen and it just so happens that this can only happen because they are opposed rolls. Meaning that the difficulty depends upon what the opponent rolls. And most of the time the opposed rolls are not going to have bonuses nearly big enough to really justify it. Those just happen to be the perception/stealth opposition, and the Insight/Deception Opposed rolls.
Tool Proficiencies actually stand a chance of gaining more from expertise modifiers and the like because There are locked things that are DC25 (and maybe a couple DC 30's) and for tool proficiencies that can make livings, make items, or both. how good you roll effects how much you make living wise or how fast you can craft items with the limited rules we have for those systems in downtimes. But except for Thieves Tools these are also the place that tend to get the least attention, and the least use of Expertise.
This is just another one of the ways that the power curves is much lower than in some of the previous editions and the need to have maximum stats at different stages of the games, while somewhat useful, is not nearly as important.
They've stated that UA that has not been revisited in over a year is considered dead UA. However, Drakewarden and Ascendant Dragon Monk have not met the one-year mark yet (I've been keeping a very close eye on that.)
You're right, though. It's not a guarantee. But I think the odds of them being officially published just skyrocketed.
Let's also not forget that the Spirit Bard and Undead Warlock UA were published at a similar rate (that UA was older than the Dragon subclasses UA.) They even had a more recent UA (Lineages) that parallel the new Draconic Options UA.
They've stated that UA that has not been revisited in over a year is considered dead UA. However, Drakewarden and Ascendant Dragon Monk have not met the one-year mark yet (I've been keeping a very close eye on that.)
You're right, though. It's not a guarantee. But I think the odds of them being officially published just skyrocketed.
Let's also not forget that the Spirit Bard and Undead Warlock UA were published at a similar rate (that UA was older than the Dragon subclasses UA.) They even had a more recent UA (Lineages) that parallel the new Draconic Options UA.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. i just said it was exceedingly rare. So it's better for us not to expect them to get in, and not the way they look in the UA, and get surprised than to expect these things and then get let down. it colors our perception of the entire book which from the recent Draconic UA may be actually very interesting and full of a lot of new options that have been missing for 5e for a long time even if we don't get either of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And a character focusing on survival will do well in a survival element if a campaign. This should be rewarded. This fighter could, in fact, handle the/some of the survival payload. This would free up all the other party members to do other things while traveling/exploring, like keeping watch in different directions, looking for food and water (which those rules are very interesting by the way, if you fail the check for finding food you can NOT make the check to find water! And considering water is WAY more vital than food...), handling animals or driving vehicles, sleeping or resting, scouting, information gathering, and anything else the situation requires or the character choose to do. A survival check is just moving in the direction you think you want to go without getting off track.
As a DM we also use variant encumbrance and track food, water, ammunition, spell components, and the like.
Would also give the ranger a break and maybe let them pick a different expertise too if they had a different focus. Like a Fey ranger with persuasion expertise who used wisdom to guide discussion.
I’m not exactly clear what you were asking. But I do use the variant rule of skills with different abilities all the time. Persuasion checks using intelligence or wisdom come up quite frequently. The difference between charisma, wisdom, and intelligence used for persuasion checks in my brain would be the difference of a politician, spiritual leader, and science professor in their approach to trying to persuade a person or persons.
i take a little bit different approach. I don't get rid of common. I just don't necessarily have Everybody using it even if they know it. Some groups that are isolated or xenophobic I might replace common with another suitable language in my worlds. But what I do is Much like the real world. Many countries do not have English as their Native language but learn at least some part of it. This is effectively "common" in some respects. However that's not what they speak in their every day lives. it's not what they are necessarily comfortable with. there may be misunderstandings even if they do understand. And Many may just refuse to use it and use their native tongue regardless unless they are in the lands of some other race or a heavily mixed place. So when you walk into a settlement of elves. Unless you speak Elvish. You don't really know what's going on around you and it may take some time for an Elf to be willing to speak to you in it and help you out. Same with a Dwarven Stronghold. They will all speak primarily dwarven and do most everything in dwarven. Their biggest use for Common may be to shout short mostly easy to understand epithets at their enemies. But they are dwarves and your in a dwarven place. Your always going to do better speaking Dwarven. A Dwarven place or an Elvish place is going to be almost entirely built for the suitability of the elves or the Dwarves as well. They're idea of lighting may be somewhat troublesome for a human in their homes either some of the time or all of the time as well for example Which might lead to situations where that Dwarf that decided to show you the way looking slightly annoyed because it has to keep stopping and waiting for that human or the like to catch up because they are stumbling around in what is almost dim light at the best of times and the few areas near the gate more suitable to things that can't see in the dark with the inns and taverns with a bit more human (though not necessarily entirely) taste reside and they are well lit and considered an eyesore by many dwarves.
These are world building touches that people forget about. But these are real world things. And I can hear a few that might complain "that's not inclusive". It's only not inclusive if you insist on standing apart and demanding they conform to you when your not willing to conform to them. If you know the language. Have a way to get around in the dimmer light. Or otherwise deal with their way of things they can be quite warm and welcoming and you might be surprised how inclusive they can be just because your willing to make a little adjustments yourself.
I've Had players enjoy being at an Orcish War Settlement simply because they either spoke the language or showed an interesting in learning some of it and didn't automatically tell the Orcs about how everything they are doing is wrong and bad or complain about how their society is "coded" to certain real world groups and automatically be offended Which actually spun off into taking a story arc in a different direction than I intended in a story arc from that experience because they decided later that the Orc's weren't entirely wrong in a different later incident.
I was thinking of this feature:
Otherworldly Glamour
3rd-level Fey Wanderer feature
Your fey qualities give you a supernatural charm. As a result, whenever you make a Charisma check, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of +1).
In addition, you gain proficiency in one of the following skills of your choice: Deception, Performance, or Persuasion.
So you could do a Persuasion (WIS) roll normally but this could actually hurt this player as they would forgo the CHA bonus (if any) to the roll.
Example:
Ranger Roy has a WIS mod of +3 and a CHA mod of +1.
Proficiency =+2
Normal Persuasion Proficiency roll = CHA +1 Prof +2 = +3
Persuason (WIS) roll= CHA +3 Prof +2 = +5
Fey Ranger Normal Persuasion Prof roll: = WIS +3 CHA +1 Prof +2 = +6
Fey Ranger Persuason (WIS) roll= CHA +3 Prof +2 = +5
So in this case you would actually be giving them a penalty for using WIS where as if you roll normally they get a better benefit.
I just now realized I may be reading that wrong....would you double the WIS them for a Persuasion (WIS) roll?
Isn’t the +6 more than the +5?
This feature adds a bonus in a specific situation. If they make a straight traditional persuasion check or a variant wisdom persuasion check, either would be would be a lower overall bonus than a fey wanderer charisma persuasion check, right?
Honestly it depends on if you get to add WIS twice to the Persuasion (WIS) roll or not....which I am now uncertain about since I do not use that variant.
But if you do not get to add it twice it would be better for them to just do a Normal Persuasion (CHA) roll and get that extra +1.
Ah. I see now.
Not really. Mechanically the ability wants to proc off a charisma check (the nice thing about that is it doesn’t rely on a skill check, just any charisma ability check). And thematically it’s designed to push a likable/scary “center of the party” kind of character. Typical fey. LOL!
Yeah with the Deft Explorer you could get expertise in persuasion and really be a social heavy build if you maxed WIS and CHA.
When it comes to the Otherworldly Glamor.
it's kind of like using your natural instinctual insight into the way people work to persuade them to do what you want. You instinctively understand that enough people tend to respond a particular way to get the result you want. With a failed roll indicating that this particular person didn't respond quite that way.
Mechanically it let's you be Charismatic without being "Charismatic" per se. Think of it a bit more like Manipulation in a sense. You can get people to do what you want but not because of them being moved by your personality and demeanor but in a way more how you word things. So mechanically you can get away with Not having Charisma. However. Much like many manipulations. They do go much easier if you also have the personality and demeanor that helps twist them to wanting to go along with what your saying as well as how you say it. So your even better if you mechanically combine them together.
Manipulating people in various ways is a big part of Fae Lore in the real world and that has been incorporated to some extent into the portrayal of the Fey and the Feywild in the game.
Yeah thematically and mechanically it makes a lot of sense and I love the ability.
If the DM decides you are attempting a Wisdom (Persuasion) check, then you don't get to add your Wisdom modifier a second time. The feature explicitly calls for a Charisma check. The variant rule is irrelevant.
I assume you're referring to Canny (1st level), in which case you can gain Expertise with Persuasion. But it's only doable if you start with the skill proficiency at 1st level, which means acquiring it from a race or background.
But you're still talking about a bonus of +22 in Tier 4. I don't think anyone needs to voice how that's excessive, but I'll do it anyway. No rogue can do that. And a bard needs an 8th-level spell to even get into that ballpark. The point of the feature is you don't need Charisma to be good at those skills. You get the bonus even if you're not proficient in them. You could have a Charisma modifier of -1, but with maxed Wisdom you can still have a +4 on top of your proficiency bonus; if applicable. If you happen to also have a decent Charisma, even if it's just a +1 modifier, that's just gravy.
Yeah it's good but also requires you to Max CHA and WIS so you are dumping all ASI to get it.
Its still fun to think about.
Do you? I think you could build a ranger as "normal" and still have a more than exceptional social encounter character. Second only to bards and rogues that specifically focus on that.
You don't like the Drakewarden?
I only glanced at it. I'm worn out of all of the pet subclasses that are being offered and played, simultaneously, as people complain about slow combat and the conjure spells. All of this while the game slowly expands into a new version of the game (which isn't bad) without updates to the older material.
Well and that's part of the trouble that really exists that isn't really addressed in all this min-maxing and power gaming. Just having Expertise and a maxed out stat is Almost Overkill in most of the possible skills with it's +17. It just makes DM's up difficulties into whole new areas. And with reliable talent a Rogue actually is overkill in pretty much all of them.
There are only a couple skills where DC's above 20 or 25 ever happen and it just so happens that this can only happen because they are opposed rolls. Meaning that the difficulty depends upon what the opponent rolls. And most of the time the opposed rolls are not going to have bonuses nearly big enough to really justify it. Those just happen to be the perception/stealth opposition, and the Insight/Deception Opposed rolls.
Tool Proficiencies actually stand a chance of gaining more from expertise modifiers and the like because There are locked things that are DC25 (and maybe a couple DC 30's) and for tool proficiencies that can make livings, make items, or both. how good you roll effects how much you make living wise or how fast you can craft items with the limited rules we have for those systems in downtimes. But except for Thieves Tools these are also the place that tend to get the least attention, and the least use of Expertise.
This is just another one of the ways that the power curves is much lower than in some of the previous editions and the need to have maximum stats at different stages of the games, while somewhat useful, is not nearly as important.
They've stated that UA that has not been revisited in over a year is considered dead UA. However, Drakewarden and Ascendant Dragon Monk have not met the one-year mark yet (I've been keeping a very close eye on that.)
You're right, though. It's not a guarantee. But I think the odds of them being officially published just skyrocketed.
Let's also not forget that the Spirit Bard and Undead Warlock UA were published at a similar rate (that UA was older than the Dragon subclasses UA.) They even had a more recent UA (Lineages) that parallel the new Draconic Options UA.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. i just said it was exceedingly rare. So it's better for us not to expect them to get in, and not the way they look in the UA, and get surprised than to expect these things and then get let down. it colors our perception of the entire book which from the recent Draconic UA may be actually very interesting and full of a lot of new options that have been missing for 5e for a long time even if we don't get either of them.