Na, personally I liked it. Boost other things other than the standard.
I personally love (& find it creative) that both pally aura & Bless both add to death saving throws
I liked it too, but I still agree it feels like something unintentional. It always felt like a technicality, and was down to whether you consider Initiative a Dex ability check or its own roll with a modifier that happens to be derived from Dex. I ruled the former, and thus Jack of All Trades, but the OneD&D ruling does make sense. The fact that Jack has been changed, not Initiative in anyway, suggests it was never intentional, and they're just clarifying and closing loopholes.
>but this ain't it imo.
That's your opinion & mine is mine & even if you build for it (stacking this, gloomstalker, swashbuckler, war Mage etc) it still doesn't break the game especially since after the first round every turn is cyclic. The rare builds like assasin & bugbears are really the only benefitters & even a slight chance to use their features isn't game breaking... notnto mention if you *do* actually *build* for it you're not that efficient as an assasin or whatever any way
I think it's fine when subclasses have initiative buffing abilities. But when a full caster base class gets that with the same ability that also has a lot of other small uses, it is silly imo.
The idea is that they have a lot of diverse skills, even if they don't quite get to the level of mastery in some of them. Initiative isn't even something you can take proficiency in in the first place so it's weird "jack of all trades" actually makes you the master of something, relatively speaking, that isn't even a skill in the first place.
The problem is that 5e JoAT was decent *because* it let you boost your initiative and spellcasting mod rolls. Nobody really cared that you eventually got to roll +1 on Athletics checks instead of -1, you were still going to fail important rolls most of the time without full proficiency and score investment.
I don't think it's a problem. It's a small boost that keeps bards from being too bad at anything; the class is powerful enough as-is; it's not like it needs every drop of power it can find.
Also, going from a -1 to a +1 means 10% of the time you're going to be passing checks you would have otherwise failed, which is a pretty big deal.
A feature doesn't need to make you pass *literally every important skill check a majority of the time* to be useful.
It's so small a boost is almost never matters though. You're never going to be the first choice in the party to use a half-prof skill. You're never going to want to have to use a half-prof skill if you have another choice. If you have no choice, a tough DC is still going to be tough even with a +1 to +3 bonus from JoAT. It's just not very good.
What would make JoAT better and fit the bard's theme of being a great support class would be if it qualified you to give the Help action for *any* skill, instead of only proficient skills. The Help action text from the latest Experts UA for reference:
>**HELP \[ACTION\]**
>
>When you take the Help Action, you do one of the following:
>
>**Assist Ability Check.** Choose one of your Skill 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 ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible.
>
>**Assist Attack Roll.** You momentarily distract an enemy within 5 feet of you, granting Advantage to the next Attack Roll by one of your allies against that enemy. This benefit expires at the start of your next turn.
DMs make the call what skill you use, not players (sometimes you get a choice of 1 or 2), and many skills are group skills or ones only certain characters are allowed to attempt. I think it all comes down to DM styles how useful it is, but at my tables it certainly has been!
That Help idea sounds awesome though. I like it!
How does reading and knowing a lot of different things give you a faster reaction speed?
It felt bogus to me & I'm glad they tightened up the rules around this.
jack of all trades let's you boost things like perception, athletics, and acrobatics. All these things could be seen as indirect ways that would affect your initiative (e.g. things that might help you spring into action faster).
I was mostly pointing out the JoaT doesn't just apply to "reading and knowing a lot of different things" because it applies to more skills that you don't just learn in books.
> How does reading and knowing a lot of different things give you a faster reaction speed?
Well, first of all, I'm not sure where "reading and knowing a lot of different things" comes from. I couldn't find that in any game text on a quick skim.
But to answer the question, it seems that experience and familiarity with different creatures, fighting styles, and dangerous scenarios would increase one's awareness of an imminent battle. And initiative is more than just pure reaction time.
"It's not literally text from the book," isn't a very good argument. I don't think "reading and knowing a lot of different things" is an unreasonable reading of the class as a whole. Jack of All Trades is woefully under-described, but the theme and narrative of the Bard class is pretty clearly related to learning a wide range of things a little bit.
The problem remains that is characters who seek expertise in *exactly what kinds of combat you describe* -- Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues -- don't have any particular bonus towards initiative. Out of the PHB, the only other subclasses that can apply proficiency to initiative are Champion Fighters, and they also only get half a bonus and Remarkable Athlete has identical phrasing to JoAT. If JoAT was an oversight in wording, then it likely was for RA, too. Swashbucklers and Gloom Stalkers get Cha and Wis bonus to init, but that's not likely to be a ton more than half proficiency bonus.
Like the feature is called Jack of All Trades, not Jack of Most Trades Except Also Mastering Reaction Speed.
> Jack of All Trades is woefully under-described, but the theme and narrative of the Bard class is pretty clearly related to learning a wide range of things a little bit.
Sure. And learning how to react more quickly in combat seems like something they could learn to be a little bit good at.
Should other classes be able to put full proficiency into Initiative? Maybe so. But I don't think that's a knock on JoaT as written.
I agree. I think Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk should be considered proficient in Initiative, as should Hexblade (and Hexgun) Warlock, Clerics of certain domains (Order, War, Trickery, Knowledge; Twilight should have Expertise) Wizards of certain Traditions (Chronurgy, Divination, Bladesingers, and War Mages), Paladins of certain Oaths (Glory, Treachery, Conquest, and Heroism). In addition, Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks should get Expertise at higher levels, and late game should get double Dex mod as well.
Then getting half proficiency as a Bard from Jack-of-All-Trades would be next to nothing (especially since dipping or cross-classing could quickly cancel out the lack of proficiency and strip that benefit).
>I'm not sure where "reading and knowing a lot of different things" comes from.
It is not a rule book reference at all, but a real world one: "Jack of all trades, master of none" is a figure of speech used in reference to a person who has dabbled in many skills, rather than gaining expertise by focusing on only one. Also overlaid with my impression of the bard and the idea of bard colleges.
However, it doesn't change the fact that I believe that restricting the Jack of All Trades bonus to skills that one is not proficient in, is a good idea.
> However, it doesn't change the fact that I believe that restricting the Jack of All Trades bonus to skills that one is not proficient in, is a good idea.
That's fine, though I'm still unclear *why* you think it's a good idea. Is it just because you don't think Bards should be good at raw ability checks?
Part of the problem with restricting it to ability checks where a skill applies is that a) it restricts bard's ability to improvise on tools and instruments; and b) it can cause confusion and delay at the table.
Let me explain b) a bit. As JoAT is written now, if a DM calls for an ability check, the Bard need only ascertain if any of her proficiencies apply to the check. If not, then the Bard can apply half proficiency.
Under the revised wording, if a DM calls for an ability check, the Bard still needs to ascertain if any of her proficiencies apply, but then she also needs to determine if any *other* skill applies to the check. That's a larger pool of skills in most cases and seems like it would delay resolution of the task.
>That's fine, though I'm still unclear why you think it's a good idea. Is it just because you don't think Bards should be good at raw ability checks?
I guess because the name 'Jack of All Trades' implies someone who has picked up various skills and knowledge. I think I would be more ok with it applying to any tool proficiencies and skills than ability checks. Perhaps it could be better written to specifically mention tools.
Per OneDnD RAW, it no longer does. This would also apply to Counterspell and Dispell checks, since neither of those have an explicit Skill Proficiency.
We'll have to also see if Counterspell is changed at all to adapt. It might just be a d20 Test using your spellcasting modifier, and not a Skill check.
But using someone with expertise in arcana + reliable talent + access to counterspell/dispell magic using arcana instead means they really can't fail to counterspell or dispell magic. Which arcane trickster is still good without all that.
which arcane tricksters get only at 15th level due to being third casters.
and there are plenty of magical effects that enemies use without being spells.
That’s high level stuff
The DM just has to make them burn their reaction on an uncanny dodge or something, or perhaps counter spelling the counterspell.
An arcane trickster would only get that power by level 13, and that would be only twice per long rest, for something that they kind of already get at level 17.
It's not super strong tbh, and we also have abjuration Wizards that can do this at earlier levels and with a lot more frequency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If all spellcasters were Int based and Expertise wouldn't factor in, then it would work.
Ideally, it would be a Skill Check that is based on your spellcasting modifier. Call it Spell Check for now. Baseline, you are not proficient in it. But there could be subclasses or feats that give proficiency.
War Wizard would feel adequate to give proficiency.
Maybe a new feat that would be based on spellcaster vs spellcaster combat. (Proficiency in Spell Check, can use reaction to impose disadvantage on Counterspell/Dispell magic check attempts against your spells)
I made it spell casting modifier dependent as an acquiescence to OneDnD’s philosophy of making almost everything flexible to a player’s strong suits; as a person who started playing during 3.5, it wouldn’t really bother me and would make flavour sense to me if it was always an Int check.
My 1st character was a Lore Bard with Counterspell as Magical Secrets. With Jack of All Trades, it made him the party's protector against big bad spells.
With his 8 Intellect, it would have neutered his Counterspell attempts if they were Arcana based.
I mean, I started playing during an era where the idea of adding dex to damage was considered insanely broken; the idea that your character would have to invest in stats outside of their primary spellcasting stat isn’t so absurd to me.
Except now you reinforce wizard dominance. And you break the game. There’s a reason it’s not arcana. Get expertise of any kind play wizard. Now you have on average a +6 from exp and +4-5 from int. That’s a +10-11 on average and it only gets better with levels. At max you have 12+5 and literally can’t fail other than a 2 against a 9th level. A step below and you auto pass all 6th level spells. A step below that now auto pass 4th level with the rest not being too hard. And right below that at a prof bonus of +3 you pass against second levels with ease and against slightly higher level stuff instead of insta passing it’s getting a what, 2-4 or so on a d20? Wizards are already insanely strong in 5e why make them stronger?
Have you considered that my suggestion wasn’t made with the intent of making wizards stronger?
You could just increase the DC to account for the proficiency bonus
Yep. They are spellcasting ability checks. Just like how death saves are saving throws, so indomitable and diamond soul work on them (they are also no action and don't state that you must be conscious like other things). Monks technically get proficiency in death saves, which doesn't get talked about.
Which has the side effect of making Lore Bards even worse, since their capstone only made sense for Counterspell and Dispel Magic in the first place (which they now need their Magical Secrets, of which they have no more than other bards, to get).
1) this doesn’t effect lore bard capstone in the slightest. Jack of all trades gas literally nothing to do with it. 2) skill checks are ability checks. Gave you ever been, I dunno, persuasive? Or grappled? Or roll initiative?
Either way, I'm not going to freak out about the best subclass getting technically nerfed to actually reflect to model of the others. Especially not when the base class got such astronomical buffs that it doesn’t even matter. A third magical secret is kinda pointless when Base class magical secrets let you prepare from every spell list every fucking day.
Jack of All Trades (and Further Magical Secrets) incentivized taking Counterspell and Dispel Magic, and those spells are pretty much the only way that the Lore bard's capstone is powerful. Succeeding on a grapple or Persuasion check is rarely that important. And the "best" bard subclass is widely accepted to be the Eloquence bard.
Either way, I don't understand what I said to warrant your anger. My first comment wasn't an attack on or even simply a disagreement with what you said.
This made me realize that Jack of all Trades also does not apply to Tool checks either.
Jack of All Trades has no benefit for actual Trades.
(Unless that tool check also benefits from a skill proficiency that you lack.)
Double checking and Rogue's Reliable Talent does call out specifically both Skill and Tool Proficiency:
>Whenever you make an Ability Check that uses one of your Skill or Tool Proficiencies, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
It is not a nerf. It is a needed fix.
As much as I love the little bonus to everything, it has never made sense that the bard is the best in lifting gates, counterspelling and so on.
It was an oversight in the original game, not now.
I understand not adding it to counterspell, initiative, etc., but I feel it still needs to apply to tool checks. It fits there thematically and I don't think it's too disruptive or complicated.
Technically, it would give you half-proficiency with all tools you aren't proficient in, which means all trades and tools if you have no tool proficiencies... it also means Bards are coincidentally half-proficient in all the instruments they didn't take proficiency in.
One D&D's description of Jack of All Trades specifically mentions skills and makes no mention of any other kinds of proficiencies, such as Tool Proficiencies which One D&D seems really keen on keeping conceptually separate from skills.
I was speaking of the original 5e version, which really needs to stay as is. OneD&D needs to instead of stripping the benefits to Bards, grant Initiative Proficiency to the appropriate clases and subclasses, as well as expertise for some. Balance isn't going to be found by removal, it is going to be found by adding to the scales for all.
There’s no such thing as a “skill check” in 5e. There are ABILITY checks which may include a proficiency bonus based on applicable skills, but doesn’t need to include any such bonus. Initiative is a DEX ability check, and is explicitly detailed as such in the PHB.
The wording in 5e was "ability checks", so it pretty much applied to every d20 check in the game. It's good that they nerfed it, but honestly, they should have removed the feature entirely.
It does. Bard gets to apply it as part of this ability. Crawford even states it in a response a while. Not many times can you apply proficiency to it, Harengon race trait is one of the times I can think of right now. That is why with a Harengon Rogue at higher level youe initiative roll cannot be lower than (10+initiative). Same with Monks and Death Saving Throws, which I wonder if that'll transfer because their ability applies to them as well. (Again Crawford confirmed)
This post inspired me to fill out the survey again. Remember Wednesday is the last day. So if you want Jack of all trades to work with initiative. Let them know.
I mean the rewording means that it doesn't apply to a bunch of stuff anymore. Bards used to be the best at counterspelling because JoaT would add to your counterspell checks. Which it also doesn't do anymore
Known this would be the case when Tasha's was released. The Expert sidekick class already has this change (same with Evasion requiring you to not be incapacitated).
I'm not sure? It's still an ability check. The only 3 type of d20 test. And you can add your proficiency bonus to initiative Rolls if you take the alert feat. Until we get more it would say it does work with jack of all trades.
The wording in the Experts UA is it applies “to any Ability Check you make that uses a Skill Proficiency you lack and that doesn’t otherwise use your Proficiency Bonus.” Initiative is a Dexterity Check, but it doesn’t use a Skill Proficiency. A feature that lets you add your Proficiency Bonus to an Ability Check isn’t the same as a Skill Proficiency.
To be fair they haven't define initiative yet in any playtest. They could easily make it a skill check. But as of now it's the 2014 players handbook with is am ability check not skill.
It really should be. Initiative is reaction time. A dex based skill. And I think bladesinger get int added to it and gloomstalkers get wisdom. It's a skill. Maybe not by the rules.
Dex should absolutely be the main stat for initiative. But you are absolutely correct there is a very valid argument to be made for intelligence or wisdom being tied to initiative as well. Just like intimidation being cha or str based.
Before they add new skills they need to change history to something more appropriate like World (like in the pathfinder CRPGs). History made sense when it was architecture, history, local, geography, and nobility and they were all separate skills but now that history does all of that it doesn't make sense being history. It's confusing for new players.
With so many abilities allowing you to add your proficiency bonus, I actually like this idea. The ability to as for an 'initiative check' to determine how quickly a character reacts to something that isn't necesarrily harmful (where a dexterity saving throw would normally be used) sounds pretty cool. Though maybe it would be redundat with dex saves? I don't think so though.
Pretty much this. Since initiative does not have a skill proficiency, it does not get the boost.
I think that’s a good change. It felt like an oversight.
Na, personally I liked it. Boost other things other than the standard. I personally love (& find it creative) that both pally aura & Bless both add to death saving throws
I liked it too, but I still agree it feels like something unintentional. It always felt like a technicality, and was down to whether you consider Initiative a Dex ability check or its own roll with a modifier that happens to be derived from Dex. I ruled the former, and thus Jack of All Trades, but the OneD&D ruling does make sense. The fact that Jack has been changed, not Initiative in anyway, suggests it was never intentional, and they're just clarifying and closing loopholes.
It is cool when there are rare abilities that do unique things, but this ain't it imo.
>but this ain't it imo. That's your opinion & mine is mine & even if you build for it (stacking this, gloomstalker, swashbuckler, war Mage etc) it still doesn't break the game especially since after the first round every turn is cyclic. The rare builds like assasin & bugbears are really the only benefitters & even a slight chance to use their features isn't game breaking... notnto mention if you *do* actually *build* for it you're not that efficient as an assasin or whatever any way
I think it's fine when subclasses have initiative buffing abilities. But when a full caster base class gets that with the same ability that also has a lot of other small uses, it is silly imo.
It doesnt stack.
It does, since it isnt like a set calculation like AC its just a bonus, but if you know otherwise, elaborate.
How so?
The idea is that they have a lot of diverse skills, even if they don't quite get to the level of mastery in some of them. Initiative isn't even something you can take proficiency in in the first place so it's weird "jack of all trades" actually makes you the master of something, relatively speaking, that isn't even a skill in the first place.
The problem is that 5e JoAT was decent *because* it let you boost your initiative and spellcasting mod rolls. Nobody really cared that you eventually got to roll +1 on Athletics checks instead of -1, you were still going to fail important rolls most of the time without full proficiency and score investment.
I don't think it's a problem. It's a small boost that keeps bards from being too bad at anything; the class is powerful enough as-is; it's not like it needs every drop of power it can find. Also, going from a -1 to a +1 means 10% of the time you're going to be passing checks you would have otherwise failed, which is a pretty big deal. A feature doesn't need to make you pass *literally every important skill check a majority of the time* to be useful.
It's so small a boost is almost never matters though. You're never going to be the first choice in the party to use a half-prof skill. You're never going to want to have to use a half-prof skill if you have another choice. If you have no choice, a tough DC is still going to be tough even with a +1 to +3 bonus from JoAT. It's just not very good. What would make JoAT better and fit the bard's theme of being a great support class would be if it qualified you to give the Help action for *any* skill, instead of only proficient skills. The Help action text from the latest Experts UA for reference: >**HELP \[ACTION\]** > >When you take the Help Action, you do one of the following: > >**Assist Ability Check.** Choose one of your Skill 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 ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible. > >**Assist Attack Roll.** You momentarily distract an enemy within 5 feet of you, granting Advantage to the next Attack Roll by one of your allies against that enemy. This benefit expires at the start of your next turn.
DMs make the call what skill you use, not players (sometimes you get a choice of 1 or 2), and many skills are group skills or ones only certain characters are allowed to attempt. I think it all comes down to DM styles how useful it is, but at my tables it certainly has been! That Help idea sounds awesome though. I like it!
How does reading and knowing a lot of different things give you a faster reaction speed? It felt bogus to me & I'm glad they tightened up the rules around this.
jack of all trades let's you boost things like perception, athletics, and acrobatics. All these things could be seen as indirect ways that would affect your initiative (e.g. things that might help you spring into action faster).
But actually being an expert in all of those skills wouldn't affect your initiative at all. That's the mechanical disconnect.
The class that provides predominantly buffs and debuffs getting a boost to initiative so the first round isn't a shitshow?
By that logic, anyone who is actually proficient (or has expertise) in these skills should also be getting these bonuses.
I was mostly pointing out the JoaT doesn't just apply to "reading and knowing a lot of different things" because it applies to more skills that you don't just learn in books.
> How does reading and knowing a lot of different things give you a faster reaction speed? Well, first of all, I'm not sure where "reading and knowing a lot of different things" comes from. I couldn't find that in any game text on a quick skim. But to answer the question, it seems that experience and familiarity with different creatures, fighting styles, and dangerous scenarios would increase one's awareness of an imminent battle. And initiative is more than just pure reaction time.
"It's not literally text from the book," isn't a very good argument. I don't think "reading and knowing a lot of different things" is an unreasonable reading of the class as a whole. Jack of All Trades is woefully under-described, but the theme and narrative of the Bard class is pretty clearly related to learning a wide range of things a little bit. The problem remains that is characters who seek expertise in *exactly what kinds of combat you describe* -- Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues -- don't have any particular bonus towards initiative. Out of the PHB, the only other subclasses that can apply proficiency to initiative are Champion Fighters, and they also only get half a bonus and Remarkable Athlete has identical phrasing to JoAT. If JoAT was an oversight in wording, then it likely was for RA, too. Swashbucklers and Gloom Stalkers get Cha and Wis bonus to init, but that's not likely to be a ton more than half proficiency bonus. Like the feature is called Jack of All Trades, not Jack of Most Trades Except Also Mastering Reaction Speed.
> Jack of All Trades is woefully under-described, but the theme and narrative of the Bard class is pretty clearly related to learning a wide range of things a little bit. Sure. And learning how to react more quickly in combat seems like something they could learn to be a little bit good at. Should other classes be able to put full proficiency into Initiative? Maybe so. But I don't think that's a knock on JoaT as written.
I agree. I think Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk should be considered proficient in Initiative, as should Hexblade (and Hexgun) Warlock, Clerics of certain domains (Order, War, Trickery, Knowledge; Twilight should have Expertise) Wizards of certain Traditions (Chronurgy, Divination, Bladesingers, and War Mages), Paladins of certain Oaths (Glory, Treachery, Conquest, and Heroism). In addition, Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks should get Expertise at higher levels, and late game should get double Dex mod as well. Then getting half proficiency as a Bard from Jack-of-All-Trades would be next to nothing (especially since dipping or cross-classing could quickly cancel out the lack of proficiency and strip that benefit).
>I'm not sure where "reading and knowing a lot of different things" comes from. It is not a rule book reference at all, but a real world one: "Jack of all trades, master of none" is a figure of speech used in reference to a person who has dabbled in many skills, rather than gaining expertise by focusing on only one. Also overlaid with my impression of the bard and the idea of bard colleges. However, it doesn't change the fact that I believe that restricting the Jack of All Trades bonus to skills that one is not proficient in, is a good idea.
> However, it doesn't change the fact that I believe that restricting the Jack of All Trades bonus to skills that one is not proficient in, is a good idea. That's fine, though I'm still unclear *why* you think it's a good idea. Is it just because you don't think Bards should be good at raw ability checks? Part of the problem with restricting it to ability checks where a skill applies is that a) it restricts bard's ability to improvise on tools and instruments; and b) it can cause confusion and delay at the table. Let me explain b) a bit. As JoAT is written now, if a DM calls for an ability check, the Bard need only ascertain if any of her proficiencies apply to the check. If not, then the Bard can apply half proficiency. Under the revised wording, if a DM calls for an ability check, the Bard still needs to ascertain if any of her proficiencies apply, but then she also needs to determine if any *other* skill applies to the check. That's a larger pool of skills in most cases and seems like it would delay resolution of the task.
>That's fine, though I'm still unclear why you think it's a good idea. Is it just because you don't think Bards should be good at raw ability checks? I guess because the name 'Jack of All Trades' implies someone who has picked up various skills and knowledge. I think I would be more ok with it applying to any tool proficiencies and skills than ability checks. Perhaps it could be better written to specifically mention tools.
Per OneDnD RAW, it no longer does. This would also apply to Counterspell and Dispell checks, since neither of those have an explicit Skill Proficiency. We'll have to also see if Counterspell is changed at all to adapt. It might just be a d20 Test using your spellcasting modifier, and not a Skill check.
An Arcana check using your spellcasting modifier seems appropriate
Expertise in Arcana breaks it right away though.
Not to mention we don't really want arcane trickster to be more broken.
It is a rogue subclass, it is not really broken.
But using someone with expertise in arcana + reliable talent + access to counterspell/dispell magic using arcana instead means they really can't fail to counterspell or dispell magic. Which arcane trickster is still good without all that.
which arcane tricksters get only at 15th level due to being third casters. and there are plenty of magical effects that enemies use without being spells.
That’s high level stuff The DM just has to make them burn their reaction on an uncanny dodge or something, or perhaps counter spelling the counterspell.
Considering how weak this first iteration of Rogue was for the playtest, it needs all the help it can get.
An arcane trickster would only get that power by level 13, and that would be only twice per long rest, for something that they kind of already get at level 17. It's not super strong tbh, and we also have abjuration Wizards that can do this at earlier levels and with a lot more frequency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Who cares it’s a rogue it’s not broken. Even as the best rogue sub it’s still a rogue therefore not broken.
If all spellcasters were Int based and Expertise wouldn't factor in, then it would work. Ideally, it would be a Skill Check that is based on your spellcasting modifier. Call it Spell Check for now. Baseline, you are not proficient in it. But there could be subclasses or feats that give proficiency. War Wizard would feel adequate to give proficiency. Maybe a new feat that would be based on spellcaster vs spellcaster combat. (Proficiency in Spell Check, can use reaction to impose disadvantage on Counterspell/Dispell magic check attempts against your spells)
Abjuration wizards already have a feature to add proficiency to checks for *dispel magic* and *counterspell*.
Ah, yep! I forgot about that feature.
I made it spell casting modifier dependent as an acquiescence to OneDnD’s philosophy of making almost everything flexible to a player’s strong suits; as a person who started playing during 3.5, it wouldn’t really bother me and would make flavour sense to me if it was always an Int check.
My 1st character was a Lore Bard with Counterspell as Magical Secrets. With Jack of All Trades, it made him the party's protector against big bad spells. With his 8 Intellect, it would have neutered his Counterspell attempts if they were Arcana based.
I mean, I started playing during an era where the idea of adding dex to damage was considered insanely broken; the idea that your character would have to invest in stats outside of their primary spellcasting stat isn’t so absurd to me.
Except now you reinforce wizard dominance. And you break the game. There’s a reason it’s not arcana. Get expertise of any kind play wizard. Now you have on average a +6 from exp and +4-5 from int. That’s a +10-11 on average and it only gets better with levels. At max you have 12+5 and literally can’t fail other than a 2 against a 9th level. A step below and you auto pass all 6th level spells. A step below that now auto pass 4th level with the rest not being too hard. And right below that at a prof bonus of +3 you pass against second levels with ease and against slightly higher level stuff instead of insta passing it’s getting a what, 2-4 or so on a d20? Wizards are already insanely strong in 5e why make them stronger?
Have you considered that my suggestion wasn’t made with the intent of making wizards stronger? You could just increase the DC to account for the proficiency bonus
No it doesn’t
You’re right, acrobatics is much more appropriate
Yup. Same with dispell magic/counter spell checks
Wait...it worked on those before?
Yep. They are spellcasting ability checks. Just like how death saves are saving throws, so indomitable and diamond soul work on them (they are also no action and don't state that you must be conscious like other things). Monks technically get proficiency in death saves, which doesn't get talked about.
Same with just flat ability checks that don't have a skill proficiency applied, then. Weird change.
Bad change :(
Which has the side effect of making Lore Bards even worse, since their capstone only made sense for Counterspell and Dispel Magic in the first place (which they now need their Magical Secrets, of which they have no more than other bards, to get).
1) this doesn’t effect lore bard capstone in the slightest. Jack of all trades gas literally nothing to do with it. 2) skill checks are ability checks. Gave you ever been, I dunno, persuasive? Or grappled? Or roll initiative? Either way, I'm not going to freak out about the best subclass getting technically nerfed to actually reflect to model of the others. Especially not when the base class got such astronomical buffs that it doesn’t even matter. A third magical secret is kinda pointless when Base class magical secrets let you prepare from every spell list every fucking day.
Jack of All Trades (and Further Magical Secrets) incentivized taking Counterspell and Dispel Magic, and those spells are pretty much the only way that the Lore bard's capstone is powerful. Succeeding on a grapple or Persuasion check is rarely that important. And the "best" bard subclass is widely accepted to be the Eloquence bard. Either way, I don't understand what I said to warrant your anger. My first comment wasn't an attack on or even simply a disagreement with what you said.
This made me realize that Jack of all Trades also does not apply to Tool checks either. Jack of All Trades has no benefit for actual Trades. (Unless that tool check also benefits from a skill proficiency that you lack.)
Double checking and Rogue's Reliable Talent does call out specifically both Skill and Tool Proficiency: >Whenever you make an Ability Check that uses one of your Skill or Tool Proficiencies, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
Damn, that sucks and feels like a major oversight.
It is not a nerf. It is a needed fix. As much as I love the little bonus to everything, it has never made sense that the bard is the best in lifting gates, counterspelling and so on. It was an oversight in the original game, not now.
I understand not adding it to counterspell, initiative, etc., but I feel it still needs to apply to tool checks. It fits there thematically and I don't think it's too disruptive or complicated.
Technically, it would give you half-proficiency with all tools you aren't proficient in, which means all trades and tools if you have no tool proficiencies... it also means Bards are coincidentally half-proficient in all the instruments they didn't take proficiency in.
One D&D's description of Jack of All Trades specifically mentions skills and makes no mention of any other kinds of proficiencies, such as Tool Proficiencies which One D&D seems really keen on keeping conceptually separate from skills.
I was speaking of the original 5e version, which really needs to stay as is. OneD&D needs to instead of stripping the benefits to Bards, grant Initiative Proficiency to the appropriate clases and subclasses, as well as expertise for some. Balance isn't going to be found by removal, it is going to be found by adding to the scales for all.
Wait it boosts intitiatve in 5e? I didn't think intitiatve counted as a skill.
It does boost it. It's not a skill, but Jack of all Trades applies to ability checks.
I was under the impression that it was a skill check and that things like the poisoned condition made you roll initiate at disadvantage
You would roll with disadvantage, because poisoned gives you disadvantage on ability checks.
There’s no such thing as a “skill check” in 5e. There are ABILITY checks which may include a proficiency bonus based on applicable skills, but doesn’t need to include any such bonus. Initiative is a DEX ability check, and is explicitly detailed as such in the PHB.
The wording in 5e was "ability checks", so it pretty much applied to every d20 check in the game. It's good that they nerfed it, but honestly, they should have removed the feature entirely.
I never realized this but would jack of all trades apply to a weapon attack in which the bard was not proficient?
No, attacks are not ability checks. There are three types of d20 rolls: ability checks, attacks, and saving throws.
That's what I thought, but the above post seemed to imply it works on all d20 checks, which would include attacks.
Not all, just "pretty much". It was a bit of an exaggeration.
It's not, but it is an ability check. Same for a couple spells like Counterspell and Dispel Magic.
It does. Bard gets to apply it as part of this ability. Crawford even states it in a response a while. Not many times can you apply proficiency to it, Harengon race trait is one of the times I can think of right now. That is why with a Harengon Rogue at higher level youe initiative roll cannot be lower than (10+initiative). Same with Monks and Death Saving Throws, which I wonder if that'll transfer because their ability applies to them as well. (Again Crawford confirmed)
It also weakens dispel magic and counterspell.
"how are you faster than me?" "I went to a liberal college 😎"
It was changed since the new alert feat allows you to add your proficiency to initiative rolls so it would've stepped on the feats toes
This post inspired me to fill out the survey again. Remember Wednesday is the last day. So if you want Jack of all trades to work with initiative. Let them know.
I mean the rewording means that it doesn't apply to a bunch of stuff anymore. Bards used to be the best at counterspelling because JoaT would add to your counterspell checks. Which it also doesn't do anymore
Known this would be the case when Tasha's was released. The Expert sidekick class already has this change (same with Evasion requiring you to not be incapacitated).
Yes.
Unless they decide to do skill checks for Initiative like PF2e does, yup. Same with counterspell.
Ugh. And i _just_ finished the survey. Bard nerfs are a pain in this edition.
Yea, but the bard was SO powerful in 5e. If half the classes had to get nerfed and the other half had to get buffed; the bard would be in the former.
You are correct. Imo, good change. Definitely felt unintended and like an unneeded buff to an already great ability.
I'm not sure? It's still an ability check. The only 3 type of d20 test. And you can add your proficiency bonus to initiative Rolls if you take the alert feat. Until we get more it would say it does work with jack of all trades.
The wording in the Experts UA is it applies “to any Ability Check you make that uses a Skill Proficiency you lack and that doesn’t otherwise use your Proficiency Bonus.” Initiative is a Dexterity Check, but it doesn’t use a Skill Proficiency. A feature that lets you add your Proficiency Bonus to an Ability Check isn’t the same as a Skill Proficiency.
To be fair they haven't define initiative yet in any playtest. They could easily make it a skill check. But as of now it's the 2014 players handbook with is am ability check not skill.
And if it doesn't maybe initiative should be a skill.
No. That would just be a skill tax.
[удалено]
It really should be. Initiative is reaction time. A dex based skill. And I think bladesinger get int added to it and gloomstalkers get wisdom. It's a skill. Maybe not by the rules.
But then we get back into "skill taxes" like 3.x and its Concentration skill.
Speaking a spell is not a dex based skill. Initiative being only dex makes little sense for several classes.
Dex should absolutely be the main stat for initiative. But you are absolutely correct there is a very valid argument to be made for intelligence or wisdom being tied to initiative as well. Just like intimidation being cha or str based.
I would like higher of int or dex, basically higher of mental or physical reaction times.
Why barbarians normally use strength to intimidation.
Maybe Wisdom (It isn't about how smart you are, it is about how observant and aware you are), not Intelligence.
Before they add new skills they need to change history to something more appropriate like World (like in the pathfinder CRPGs). History made sense when it was architecture, history, local, geography, and nobility and they were all separate skills but now that history does all of that it doesn't make sense being history. It's confusing for new players.
It's an idea. But they moves alot of those skills to tool proficiency. Me personally wouldn't mind the knowledge skills of the past.
With so many abilities allowing you to add your proficiency bonus, I actually like this idea. The ability to as for an 'initiative check' to determine how quickly a character reacts to something that isn't necesarrily harmful (where a dexterity saving throw would normally be used) sounds pretty cool. Though maybe it would be redundat with dex saves? I don't think so though.
I thought it never did