I'm really interested to see how the History skill works out. Allowing you to add a bonus to your aid of another player. Seems like it could be a really good combo for a support character.
Okay, then let's discuss these feats and some of the real problems they perpetuate. The fact that skills are tied to abilities is an inherent flaw in the skill system. One that these feats compounds upon. So the first major problem with all of these eats is they arbitrarily increase an ability score. I see no reason why I couldn't argue that being stealthy is less a function of dexterity and more a function of intelligence or wisdom. Also all of the complaints voiced seem to be about what could happen. Shouldn't there be a fair amount of play testing done before we start throwing out the gloom and doom of what a minority amount of jack wagon players may or may not do?
AGreed. Personally, I don't think the game should go out of its way to avoid giving such players ammunition, nor do I think the complaints about these feats breaking things are even founded in situations that are likely to come up, most of the time.
Stealthy will come up, but is also fine, imo.
I dont care if some brat in a store "screams bloody murder", nor do I care for such blatantly hyperbolic language in these discussions. What is the point?
They can time their dash across the courtyard for when the guard looks away. Big deal.
I get where you're coming from with the stat boosts, btw, but I'm fine with it because those stats are associated with those skills even if you divorce the two mechanically.
One thing about this though. How does this function with expertise? Because it is functions the exact same way but it is not called the same. Does that mean you can use this in something you have expertise in? And if you can how does that function? Do you simply "add", so that if you have a +4 proficiency bonus you get a total of +12 (+4 from normal proficiency, +4 from expertise, +4 from this?). Or do you double it so that it becomes a +16?
Personally I think that it should be stackable with expertise since you spend a feat to become extremely good in one thing. But having it dubble each other is a bit too much.
(Sorry about the font beeing wonky, used a doc to spellcheck)
You can only ever add one-half, full, or double your proficiency. That is spelled out in the rules.
Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. For example, the rogue’s Expertise feature doubles the proficiency bonus for certain ability checks. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still add it only once and multiply or divide it only once.
I feel like the benefit of Performer is something anyone should be able to do.
My thoughts exactly. You start creating feats like this, and next thing you know if someone says "Can I play a song to distract someone" the answer is going to be "Well, there's a feat for that."
I feel like the benefit of Performer is something anyone should be able to do.
My thoughts exactly. You start creating feats like this, and next thing you know if someone says "Can I play a song to distract someone" the answer is going to be "Well, there's a feat for that."
Yuck.
I've been playing these games for over 20 years, and I've never seen that. I don't understand how someone could even possibly come to that conclusion, ever, unless the system in question explicitly spelled out that characters can only ever do what is explicitly spelled out for them to do.
Every one of these feats, with the possilble exception of Stealthy, depending on how you interpret the intent, and whether you think they will change the wording to reflect that intent, and arguably Performer (see below), gives an enhanced/upgraded specific ability. Yes, you can scare people without Menacing. You just aren't necessarily going to give them the Frightened condition, and you won't be doing it as part of another action, unless your DM is using the skill system differently than it's obvious intent.
Because it is bloody obvious that the intent of 5e's system is that a skill use that brings a noticable benefit needs to be done as an action, not as part of another action. So, if you want to be able to frighten someone with anything less than your Action, take the feat, and wait to get Extra Attack. If you are cool with using an Action, or wont' be getting Extra Attack anyway, I mean maybe still get the feat because double proficiency is cool?
As for Performer, it is the only one where I can see an actual potential issue, and that is not the one you are talking about. The issue here is that it gives an ability that is just obviously a normal part of the skill. Now, the wording makes me think that the idea is that you can do this any time you are already performing, as part of whatever action you're using to do so, but really, I don't think most DMs are going to say that performing somewhat differently interrupts your ongoing performance, and I'd assume that Performing is usually an Action? But then, singing while fighting is a thing. Definitely the sort of thing they should have made clear, or at least given some guidance on, in the PHB. but the intent of 5e rules seems to be that if it is a real benefit/if it actually impacts the game scenario, it's an action of some kind.
OTOH, the feats also allows you to continue the effect without subsequent checks for as long as you keep performing. As a DM, looking at how 5e works, I'd certainly require new checks or allow saves regularly without this feat. Still, it's iffy whether the feat is working as intended, because they gave very little information about their action economy assumptions regarding the skill, and then built a feat that needs that information to be understood. This is the feat that needs the most work, IMO.
The rest? Issues of clarity, like clarifying that charmed ends if you attack the poor bastard, and make Survival less bloody boring, and I'm good.
It feels like many of the Feats try to give a pseudo-magical ability. Stealthy might give a smidgen of invisibility, Menacing causes Fear, etc. In the case of Performer, it looks like its more than just distracting someone with a song, but rather the enthralling of the listeners. It compels people to listen to it should they fail the check. That seems like a sufficient enhancement beyond the regular use of the skill.
It feels like many of the Feats try to give a pseudo-magical ability. Stealthy might give a smidgen of invisibility, Menacing causes Fear, etc. In the case of Performer, it looks like its more than just distracting someone with a song, but rather the enthralling of the listeners. It compels people to listen to it should they fail the check. That seems like a sufficient enhancement beyond the regular use of the skill.
Agreed. Especially, for those classes which have little or no magic, now they can use some nice spells.
It feels like many of the Feats try to give a pseudo-magical ability. Stealthy might give a smidgen of invisibility, Menacing causes Fear, etc. In the case of Performer, it looks like its more than just distracting someone with a song, but rather the enthralling of the listeners. It compels people to listen to it should they fail the check. That seems like a sufficient enhancement beyond the regular use of the skill.
Just saying it's magically enthralling isn't an enhancement. If you were successfully performing, I would very likely say that anyone watching the performance would have disadvantage on Perception checks. Applying the frightened condition is beyond what Intimidation can do. But distracting people with a performance not only seems like a reasonable use of the skill, but is probably one of the few uses for it I can imagine beyond making a good impression or busking.
Its the degree of distraction that's important, not just the presence. Performer also grants disadvantage on Investigation checks. Does you average performance distract people who aren't particularly interested in listening and keep them there?
Yes? If someone is watching someone play a guitar on a streetcorner, I think they are usually going to be very distracted.
anyone watching, sure. Not anyone ignoring it.
WIth teh feat, your chosen target can't ignore it, unless they save. If you'd allow one check to force a person to keep watching, whether they want to or not, and not be able to even try to stop watching until the character let's them....you are houseruling. That is way beyond what the skill should normally allow.
I will say that one angle on these is that they play on the LOTR ambiguous magic-mundane dyanamic, where some things the various races (and individuals) can do aren't spells... but aren't exactly normal abilities either. "Small magics" and i think that the game could use more of the concept, because realistically anything less than that could just be adjudicated with a skill roll- intentionally since it still needs to be possible for groups that don't play with feats (modularity is weird that way- you can often do the same things without the option, but havign the option invalidates it as a general thing, because otherwise what is the option) i would say that it's almost kind of like variant resting rules and such which replace the normal rules with something different (you need a feat for this) but sicne that capability wasn't spelled out in the first place, it sin't intuitively obvious until a feat exists that impies you can't.
Also bricing is right, these feats essentially bring certain things like this
"Shouldn't they be distracted by Rick playing the guitar!?"
"No they just chose to ignore it"
out of DM fiat, and into a balanced system- which if doing it consistently is important to the character, should be considered a boon. The base game is very much designed to have a lot of fiat, but feats, multiclassing, and other additions can lower the degree of fiat with things like skills (or even introduce more, as with the decoupled skills-ability score variant)
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We do bones, motherf***ker!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm really interested to see how the History skill works out. Allowing you to add a bonus to your aid of another player. Seems like it could be a really good combo for a support character.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I feel like the benefit of Performer is something anyone should be able to do.
I like this. Now I can round out some of my characters better!
We do bones, motherf***ker!
My 5e Houserule Considerations. Please comment freely.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
It feels like many of the Feats try to give a pseudo-magical ability. Stealthy might give a smidgen of invisibility, Menacing causes Fear, etc. In the case of Performer, it looks like its more than just distracting someone with a song, but rather the enthralling of the listeners. It compels people to listen to it should they fail the check. That seems like a sufficient enhancement beyond the regular use of the skill.
Its the degree of distraction that's important, not just the presence. Performer also grants disadvantage on Investigation checks. Does you average performance distract people who aren't particularly interested in listening and keep them there?
Yes? If someone is watching someone play a guitar on a streetcorner, I think they are usually going to be very distracted.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I will say that one angle on these is that they play on the LOTR ambiguous magic-mundane dyanamic, where some things the various races (and individuals) can do aren't spells... but aren't exactly normal abilities either. "Small magics" and i think that the game could use more of the concept, because realistically anything less than that could just be adjudicated with a skill roll- intentionally since it still needs to be possible for groups that don't play with feats (modularity is weird that way- you can often do the same things without the option, but havign the option invalidates it as a general thing, because otherwise what is the option) i would say that it's almost kind of like variant resting rules and such which replace the normal rules with something different (you need a feat for this) but sicne that capability wasn't spelled out in the first place, it sin't intuitively obvious until a feat exists that impies you can't.
Also bricing is right, these feats essentially bring certain things like this
"Shouldn't they be distracted by Rick playing the guitar!?"
"No they just chose to ignore it"
out of DM fiat, and into a balanced system- which if doing it consistently is important to the character, should be considered a boon. The base game is very much designed to have a lot of fiat, but feats, multiclassing, and other additions can lower the degree of fiat with things like skills (or even introduce more, as with the decoupled skills-ability score variant)
Well put.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
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.
We do bones, motherf***ker!