The scenario that plays through my head when talking about this feat involves a Bard and a Thief. The Thief just stole something and the guards are hot in pursuit. His bard partner tries to cause a distraction by street performing. So you have a few scenarios.
No Feat: Bard performs, draws a crowd. Guards wonder what the ruckus is about, but are also focused on catching that thief. Once they see its a street performance they can successfully ignore it, possibly without a roll, and focus on their mission. With Feat: Bard performs, draws a crowd. Guards wonder what the ruckus is about, but are also focused on catching that thief. One they see its a street performance they can't seem to get it out of their minds and are constantly distracted at best while looking for the thief, completely enthralled at worst. With Magic: The guards suffer from a surreal distraction or absolute enthralling as per whichever spell.
The scenario that plays through my head when talking about this feat involves a Bard and a Thief. The Thief just stole something and the guards are hot in pursuit. His bard partner tries to cause a distraction by street performing. So you have a few scenarios.
No Feat: Bard performs, draws a crowd. Guards wonder what the ruckus is about, but are also focused on catching that thief. Once they see its a street performance they can successfully ignore it, possibly without a roll, and focus on their mission. With Feat: Bard performs, draws a crowd. Guards wonder what the ruckus is about, but are also focused on catching that thief. One they see its a street performance they can't seem to get it out of their minds and are constantly distracted at best while looking for the thief, completely enthralled at worst. With Magic: The guards suffer from a surreal distraction or absolute enthralling as per whichever spell.
It's not a matter of forcing someone to do anything. If Rick is playing the guitar, anyone watching it is at least somewhat distracted. Barring other factors, I think that warrants disadvantage on perception checks. The only thing this accomplishes is that, if some NPCs would not be distracted, say they were the Queen's guard or something, you would force them save. It seems incredibly marginal to me.
Again, anyone who is *watching* it, is distracted.
It is pretty easy to just not watch stuff, unless we assume all NPCs have ADHD, or unless it is *especially* distracting.
So, without this feat you can try to distract, but someone who is focused on something else isn't going to give a damn about how sweet your mandolin skills are, and can keep trying to stop watching. With the feat, they cannot stop watching if you successfully get their attention.
I don't understand what isnt clear.
Why a successful performance wouldn't be distracting.
It's not a matter of forcing someone to do anything. If Rick is playing the guitar, anyone watching it is at least somewhat distracted. Barring other factors, I think that warrants disadvantage on perception checks. The only thing this accomplishes is that, if some NPCs would not be distracted, say they were the Queen's guard or something, you would force them save. It seems incredibly marginal to me.
Again, anyone who is *watching* it, is distracted.
It is pretty easy to just not watch stuff, unless we assume all NPCs have ADHD, or unless it is *especially* distracting.
So, without this feat you can try to distract, but someone who is focused on something else isn't going to give a damn about how sweet your mandolin skills are, and can keep trying to stop watching. With the feat, they cannot stop watching if you successfully get their attention.
I don't understand what isnt clear.
Why a successful performance wouldn't be distracting.
A successful performance can be. What it can't do, without a special ability, is be so captivating that a creature literally cannot even try to look away and focus on something else. The feat provides no subsequent save or opposed roll or anything. If they fail the initial roll, they cannot stop paying attention until you let them.
It's just disadvantage. If something really obvious happens they will still succeed. Conversely, if there is nothing else claiming the guards' attention, another check or save is irrelevant. This is an extremely marginal ability, especially compared to some of the other feats.
The scenario I used above paints a pretty good picture. The guards are looking for the thief, so they have something they're concentrating on. The bard is using the performance to vie for their attention, which is exactly when you'd roll dice and make checks. Even if the guards weren't looking for a thief and were just standing watch, the performance is going to distract them from their duties. How thoroughly the performance distracts is something the feat helps with.
If you choose individually to rule differently and invalidate the feat, then that's up to you. Plenty of people pick and choose what rules they want to follow, so that's nothing new. However, the feat definitely has a purpose that it fills.
I think it's amazing at how much bandwidth has been spent arguing over a scenario that the DM would almost have to tailor make for the feat in question.
All of you seem to be very astute about the game and I would be very curious as to what might happen if y'all decided to use your powers for good and work together.
One final thought on this subject. All of these feats are in play test, so they literally have be played hundreds if not thousands of times to determine what might be useful, marginal, or imbalanced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
I don't like how these feats are handing out expertise in addition to a stat bump and a nifty feature. Expertise is like a major feature of Rogue and Expertise. It would be like giving out a Barbarian's rage or a Cleric's channel divinity with a feat. You can already slightly do this with the combat maneuvers feat that gives out battlemaster fighters' superiority dice, but they don't include a stat bump and an additional cool feature. I feel like they should either make it just two of the three things these give. expertise and a stat bump or expertise and a cool feature or a stat bump and a cool feature. Seems too strong how it currently is.
I don't like how these feats are handing out expertise in addition to a stat bump and a nifty feature. Expertise is like a major feature of Rogue and Expertise. It would be like giving out a Barbarian's rage or a Cleric's channel divinity with a feat. You can already slightly do this with the combat maneuvers feat that gives out battlemaster fighters' superiority dice, but they don't include a stat bump and an additional cool feature. I feel like they should either make it just two of the three things these give. expertise and a stat bump or expertise and a cool feature or a stat bump and a cool feature. Seems too strong how it currently is.
two classes have expertise. These feats don't change how far and away more skillfull Bards and Rogues are than everyone else. A feat that gives Sneak Attack, or Cunning Action, would be giving what makes Rogues unique as a feat. Expertise isn't unique.
These give proficiency, or double proficiency is you're already proficient, a situational benefit, and a stat boost. They sit well within the power level of the PHB feats.
I don't like how these feats are handing out expertise in addition to a stat bump and a nifty feature. Expertise is like a major feature of Rogue and Expertise. It would be like giving out a Barbarian's rage or a Cleric's channel divinity with a feat. You can already slightly do this with the combat maneuvers feat that gives out battlemaster fighters' superiority dice, but they don't include a stat bump and an additional cool feature. I feel like they should either make it just two of the three things these give. expertise and a stat bump or expertise and a cool feature or a stat bump and a cool feature. Seems too strong how it currently is.
two classes have expertise. These feats don't change how far and away more skillfull Bards and Rogues are than everyone else. A feat that gives Sneak Attack, or Cunning Action, would be giving what makes Rogues unique as a feat. Expertise isn't unique.
These give proficiency, or double proficiency is you're already proficient, a situational benefit, and a stat boost. They sit well within the power level of the PHB feats.
Not to mention, a bard or a rogue can ALSO take these Feats, making them much more adept at using skills than any other class that happens to pick up these Feats. So, you're literally not changing anything about what makes the bard and rogue special, all things being equal.
I mean, there are feats that give heavy armor proficiency, but that doesn't take away what makes a fighter/paladin/sometimes cleric from being special.
You can take one feat that gives you cantrips or another that gives you battle maneuvers, but that doesn't make spellcasters or Battle Master fighters any less unique.
You're telling me a Wizard who extensively studies arcana, a cleric who devotes their life to religion, or a fighter who dedicates his entire life to perfecting his athletic prowess can't reach the same level of expertise about the subject as a rogue or bard who is just REALLY good at learning things?
Not every Olympic level athlete is a rogue/bard. These feats simply show the hard work and dedication to a specific field.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I don't like how these feats are handing out expertise in addition to a stat bump and a nifty feature. Expertise is like a major feature of Rogue and Expertise. It would be like giving out a Barbarian's rage or a Cleric's channel divinity with a feat. You can already slightly do this with the combat maneuvers feat that gives out battlemaster fighters' superiority dice, but they don't include a stat bump and an additional cool feature. I feel like they should either make it just two of the three things these give. expertise and a stat bump or expertise and a cool feature or a stat bump and a cool feature. Seems too strong how it currently is.
two classes have expertise. These feats don't change how far and away more skillfull Bards and Rogues are than everyone else. A feat that gives Sneak Attack, or Cunning Action, would be giving what makes Rogues unique as a feat. Expertise isn't unique.
These give proficiency, or double proficiency is you're already proficient, a situational benefit, and a stat boost. They sit well within the power level of the PHB feats.
Not to mention, a bard or a rogue can ALSO take these Feats, making them much more adept at using skills than any other class that happens to pick up these Feats. So, you're literally not changing anything about what makes the bard and rogue special, all things being equal.
I mean, there are feats that give heavy armor proficiency, but that doesn't take away what makes a fighter/paladin/sometimes cleric from being special.
You can take one feat that gives you cantrips or another that gives you battle maneuvers, but that doesn't make spellcasters or Battle Master fighters any less unique.
You're telling me a Wizard who extensively studies arcana, a cleric who devotes their life to religion, or a fighter who dedicates his entire life to perfecting his athletic prowess can't reach the same level of expertise about the subject as a rogue or bard who is just REALLY good at learning things?
Not every Olympic level athlete is a rogue/bard. These feats simply show the hard work and dedication to a specific field.
I see what you two are saying, but rogues and bards are getting expertise instead of something else that another class is getting. While there's nothing wrong with allowing someone to take a feat to get a lesser version of it (expertise in one thing instead of two), adding to that a stat bump and a special feature seems too strong. The battle maneuvers feat doesn't also give a stat bump and an additional maneuver not available to battlemaster fighters. The heavy armor proficiency gives a stat bump, but it doesn't also give another special feature on top of that. Medium armor mastery gives a special benefit to med armor but it's not giving a stat bump too. Magic initiate gives you cantrips, and a 1st level spell, but it doesn't also give you a stat bump and a spell not available to the primary class. All three things these skills are giving are what makes me think they're too strong, not any one particular part of it.
I don't view expertise as something exclusive to the bard and rogue (the PDK also has it, for that matter) I view it as something that's necessary to be able to optimize a particular skill a character might want to specialize in- I think the idea of a dedicated skills guy who outdoes everyone at every skill is somewhat toxic to the game- it suggests that in skill based situations, they're the one whom should be handling those challenges, and encourages that the rest of the group seek out a different pillar of the game- but a freer expertise system as proposed by these feats really encourages everyone to have their own skill specialties and participate equally in skill challenges.
Besides, even if these are published, feats themselves are a variant rule- in the most basic form of the game, rogues and bards do get that traditional "Skill Monkey" niche protection because there's no way for others to get expertise (multiclass of course, is also a variant rule), but if the group wants the extra layer of cutomization and freedom, then feats and multiclassing (in distinct, but compatible ways) provide a way for the customization and the kind of specialization a lot of 3e-4e and their players expect out of their game- I'll tell you this much- I really love the idea of taking these feats to make sure my characters are amazing in the ways I want them to be- my ninja esque monk/lock wants the stealth one, my Enchantress probably wants arcana, but maybe a social skill.
I especially like it because it offers an avenue to power game that helps make characters more well rounded- it gives them the opportunity to devote some resources to skill chellenges, these really need to stay a thing.
Not to mention, a bard or a rogue can ALSO take these Feats, making them much more adept at using skills than any other class that happens to pick up these Feats. So, you're literally not changing anything about what makes the bard and rogue special, all things being equal.
I mean, there are feats that give heavy armor proficiency, but that doesn't take away what makes a fighter/paladin/sometimes cleric from being special.
You can take one feat that gives you cantrips or another that gives you battle maneuvers, but that doesn't make spellcasters or Battle Master fighters any less unique.
You're telling me a Wizard who extensively studies arcana, a cleric who devotes their life to religion, or a fighter who dedicates his entire life to perfecting his athletic prowess can't reach the same level of expertise about the subject as a rogue or bard who is just REALLY good at learning things?
Not every Olympic level athlete is a rogue/bard. These feats simply show the hard work and dedication to a specific field.
Right, Wizards aren't less unique because High Elves get a wizard cantrip, either. And lots of classes and subclasses get to add double proficiency to a skill. Sometimes it's situational, but regardless of that, it's not a unique feature. For Bards, Jack of All Trades is a unique skill feature no one else gets, and that's cool. I'd also be perfectly happy to put that with a +1Cha and 1 or 2 Bardic Inspiration Dice in a MC Bard feat, though. Because I'd rather have feats like that than use 5e's MC rules.
But anyway, Rogues have Cunning Action, Sneak Attack, Reliable Talent, Uncanny Dodge...not to mention the unique archetype stuff. They don't need expertise to be special for the class to be unique/special.
I don't like how these feats are handing out expertise in addition to a stat bump and a nifty feature. Expertise is like a major feature of Rogue and Expertise. It would be like giving out a Barbarian's rage or a Cleric's channel divinity with a feat. You can already slightly do this with the combat maneuvers feat that gives out battlemaster fighters' superiority dice, but they don't include a stat bump and an additional cool feature. I feel like they should either make it just two of the three things these give. expertise and a stat bump or expertise and a cool feature or a stat bump and a cool feature. Seems too strong how it currently is.
two classes have expertise. These feats don't change how far and away more skillfull Bards and Rogues are than everyone else. A feat that gives Sneak Attack, or Cunning Action, would be giving what makes Rogues unique as a feat. Expertise isn't unique.
These give proficiency, or double proficiency is you're already proficient, a situational benefit, and a stat boost. They sit well within the power level of the PHB feats.
Not to mention, a bard or a rogue can ALSO take these Feats, making them much more adept at using skills than any other class that happens to pick up these Feats. So, you're literally not changing anything about what makes the bard and rogue special, all things being equal.
I mean, there are feats that give heavy armor proficiency, but that doesn't take away what makes a fighter/paladin/sometimes cleric from being special.
You can take one feat that gives you cantrips or another that gives you battle maneuvers, but that doesn't make spellcasters or Battle Master fighters any less unique.
You're telling me a Wizard who extensively studies arcana, a cleric who devotes their life to religion, or a fighter who dedicates his entire life to perfecting his athletic prowess can't reach the same level of expertise about the subject as a rogue or bard who is just REALLY good at learning things?
Not every Olympic level athlete is a rogue/bard. These feats simply show the hard work and dedication to a specific field.
I see what you two are saying, but rogues and bards are getting expertise instead of something else that another class is getting. While there's nothing wrong with allowing someone to take a feat to get a lesser version of it (expertise in one thing instead of two), adding to that a stat bump and a special feature seems too strong. The battle maneuvers feat doesn't also give a stat bump and an additional maneuver not available to battlemaster fighters. The heavy armor proficiency gives a stat bump, but it doesn't also give another special feature on top of that. Medium armor mastery gives a special benefit to med armor but it's not giving a stat bump too. Magic initiate gives you cantrips, and a 1st level spell, but it doesn't also give you a stat bump and a spell not available to the primary class. All three things these skills are giving are what makes me think they're too strong, not any one particular part of it.
But having a bit of a thing that a class does isn't more powerful just because it's in a class. That shouldn't ever be part of the balance of a feat. If there were a feat that gave sneak attack at 2d6, with no progression past that, it should have another, smaller, benefit. +1 Dex might be appropriate, perhaps Theives Cant. That would make a great MC Rogue feat, and would be balanced with feats like Sharpshooter, if not with the weaker feats in the game. One that gives the ability to Dash and Disengage as a bonus action, +1 Dex, would be more balanced with feats like Athlete.
The fact they give you part of what a class does has nothing to do with how powerful they are. The skill feats are balanced within the range of the PHB feats.
The scenario that plays through my head when talking about this feat involves a Bard and a Thief. The Thief just stole something and the guards are hot in pursuit. His bard partner tries to cause a distraction by street performing. So you have a few scenarios.
No Feat: Bard performs, draws a crowd. Guards wonder what the ruckus is about, but are also focused on catching that thief. Once they see its a street performance they can successfully ignore it, possibly without a roll, and focus on their mission.
With Feat: Bard performs, draws a crowd. Guards wonder what the ruckus is about, but are also focused on catching that thief. One they see its a street performance they can't seem to get it out of their minds and are constantly distracted at best while looking for the thief, completely enthralled at worst.
With Magic: The guards suffer from a surreal distraction or absolute enthralling as per whichever spell.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
We do bones, motherf***ker!
It's just disadvantage. If something really obvious happens they will still succeed. Conversely, if there is nothing else claiming the guards' attention, another check or save is irrelevant. This is an extremely marginal ability, especially compared to some of the other feats.
The scenario I used above paints a pretty good picture. The guards are looking for the thief, so they have something they're concentrating on. The bard is using the performance to vie for their attention, which is exactly when you'd roll dice and make checks. Even if the guards weren't looking for a thief and were just standing watch, the performance is going to distract them from their duties. How thoroughly the performance distracts is something the feat helps with.
If you choose individually to rule differently and invalidate the feat, then that's up to you. Plenty of people pick and choose what rules they want to follow, so that's nothing new. However, the feat definitely has a purpose that it fills.
It's not marginal at all, ya just aren't getting it.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I think it's amazing at how much bandwidth has been spent arguing over a scenario that the DM would almost have to tailor make for the feat in question.
All of you seem to be very astute about the game and I would be very curious as to what might happen if y'all decided to use your powers for good and work together.
One final thought on this subject. All of these feats are in play test, so they literally have be played hundreds if not thousands of times to determine what might be useful, marginal, or imbalanced.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
I honestly think it's cool that these feats let you sort of dabble in a class, with out multiclassing
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I don't like how these feats are handing out expertise in addition to a stat bump and a nifty feature. Expertise is like a major feature of Rogue and Expertise. It would be like giving out a Barbarian's rage or a Cleric's channel divinity with a feat. You can already slightly do this with the combat maneuvers feat that gives out battlemaster fighters' superiority dice, but they don't include a stat bump and an additional cool feature. I feel like they should either make it just two of the three things these give. expertise and a stat bump or expertise and a cool feature or a stat bump and a cool feature. Seems too strong how it currently is.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I don't view expertise as something exclusive to the bard and rogue (the PDK also has it, for that matter) I view it as something that's necessary to be able to optimize a particular skill a character might want to specialize in- I think the idea of a dedicated skills guy who outdoes everyone at every skill is somewhat toxic to the game- it suggests that in skill based situations, they're the one whom should be handling those challenges, and encourages that the rest of the group seek out a different pillar of the game- but a freer expertise system as proposed by these feats really encourages everyone to have their own skill specialties and participate equally in skill challenges.
Besides, even if these are published, feats themselves are a variant rule- in the most basic form of the game, rogues and bards do get that traditional "Skill Monkey" niche protection because there's no way for others to get expertise (multiclass of course, is also a variant rule), but if the group wants the extra layer of cutomization and freedom, then feats and multiclassing (in distinct, but compatible ways) provide a way for the customization and the kind of specialization a lot of 3e-4e and their players expect out of their game- I'll tell you this much- I really love the idea of taking these feats to make sure my characters are amazing in the ways I want them to be- my ninja esque monk/lock wants the stealth one, my Enchantress probably wants arcana, but maybe a social skill.
I especially like it because it offers an avenue to power game that helps make characters more well rounded- it gives them the opportunity to devote some resources to skill chellenges, these really need to stay a thing.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Does anyone know where to find the status of these? Do they officially announce if they've been abandoned?