Expertise and Rogue / Bard Superiority

[Easy_Lee]

Over in the champion thread, some people pointed out the old observation that a dedicated rogue or bard makes a better athlete than a fighter. I noticed that this is actually true of all skills; rogues and bards can be built to out-history a cleric, out-nature a druid, and so on.

With that in mind, what do you guys think of this houserule.

Iconic Expert - each class gains expertise in one skill with which that class should be the definitive expert. This is a level 1 feature, and is not gained when multiclassing.

Fighter and Barbarian - athletics
Monk - acrobatics
Cleric - religion, unique ability to use wisdom for this skill
Druid - nature, unique ability to use wisdom for this skill
Paladin - persuasion (oath makes him very persuasive, fervent, etc)
Ranger - survival
Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer - Arcana (sorcerer and warlock can use CHA due to their magic coming from their force of personality)
Rogue and Bard - don't need one since they already get multiple expertise.

The rogue and Bard niche is being good at several skills, with rogues further having reliable talent and bards jack of all trades, so I don't think this tramples on them in any way. If anything, a balanced party will have a wide variety of skills, so this is just making the other characters good at the ones that the rogue or bard ought not have picked anyway.

Thoughts?

[heavyfuel]

While it apparently wouldn't break any balance doing that, I think it pidgeonholes classes too much.

Also, throw the Rogue a bone. If you're doing it, give him free Stealth expertise. (screw the bard though, he can rot)

[Easy_Lee]

While it apparently wouldn't break any balance doing that, I think it pidgeonholes classes too much.

Also, throw the Rogue a bone. If you're doing it, give him free Stealth expertise. (screw the bard though, he can rot)

Haha, that's a fair assessment. I suppose one could just give Rogue one extra expertise. I don't think it's something that should be a core rule, but rather an optional sort of thing for DMs who want their fighters to be the best athletes and so on.

Personally, I'm more the type to just send players on a quest to train with a master, or find a mystical tome or some such, gaining expertise in a skill that way.

[Garimeth]

I like this actually. It may pigeonhole classes a bit, but you could always just houserule that each character after a certain level gets one skill to have expertise in.

I would not let locks and sorcs use CHA as their arcana stat though, it may be how they use their magic, but that has little to nothing to do with the skill.

[Scarab112]

While it apparently wouldn't break any balance doing that, I think it pidgeonholes classes too much.

Also, throw the Rogue a bone. If you're doing it, give him free Stealth expertise. (screw the bard though, he can rot)

Eh, you could give the Bard expertise in Performance. That's fitting and doesn't really offer too much benefit.

[Felvion]

What bothers me more in expertise is that sometimes it makes no sense at all. I mean i was in a party that both a rogue and a cleric had expertise in arcana. There was also a wizard in the party (a pretty standard wizard) that was really annoyed these two guys were always rolling better than him in arcana checks.

My personal houserule for this is to add some prerequisites to expertise: In order to gain expertise with a skill, you must have at least 13 in the stat related with the skill. The only exception to this houserule is that you can expertise in any of your background skills freely.

This helps the game be more realistic, you either overtrain a natural talent of yours or something related to your strengths. A bard with 8 str shouldn't be able to grapple better (or even have a similar bonus) than a barbarian. If that bard is an outlander though, he could possibly do it. A rogue with 8 int could never expertise to arcana cause he's too dumb to understand stuff. A 13 to int makes a good prerequisite to make sure you have at least some of what it takes to specialise in a skill.

[Easy_Lee]

I would not let locks and sorcs use CHA as their arcana stat though, it may be how they use their magic, but that has little to nothing to do with the skill.

You think deception, intimidation, persuasion, or performance might work better for them? I was more iffy on them than I was with clerics using wisdom for religion(I allow that anyway).

[Santra]

I would give the fighter the choice between athletics and acrobatics. Makes them a bit more unique in that they get a choice.

[Garimeth]

You think deception, intimidation, persuasion, or performance might work better for them? I was more iffy on them than I was with clerics using wisdom for religion(I allow that anyway).

Yeah, actually now that you mention it! Totally works for the Sorcerer at the very least. The Lock definitely seems like a knowledge arcana character though, maybe your rule is a good one just for the sake of number balance even if it doesn't make sense stat wise. Hell, the actual stats themselves don't make that much sense...lol.

[Magic Myrmidon]

QUOTE=Garimeth;18810955]you could always just houserule that each character after a certain level gets one skill to have expertise in..[/QUOTE]

I like this quite a bit. Only the one skill, but it does mitigate the problem of the non-Arcane Trickster Rogue being better at Arcana than the wizard, or better at religion than the cleric, or whatever.

That being said, I also have a problem with pigeonholing classes to one concept, so I don't know why I have a problem with the idea of a rogue being better. There's nothing really wrong with it. I guess I just like giving characters more power in general, so I like the idea of choosing one expertise skill, no matter your class.

[Shining Wrath]

Or let every character pick one skill for free to have Expertise in. The price? They have to come up with a good backstory for their character which explains why they'd be good at that.

Let Wild Magic sorcerers know Persuasion because they've had to talk their way out of trouble so many times. No, wait, Wild Magic sorcerers know Religion because of all the oaths their teammates utter when the "Spell Centered On You" thing happens again.

Whatever they can invent, let them have. But only one skill, no matter how much they pout.

[Chronos]

I definitely agree with giving rogues a free expertise, probably in stealth. As it is, bards are very nearly their equal in skillmonkeyness. Rogues are still slightly better, but not by any means nine-levels-of-spellcasting better.

[JNAProductions]

Yes, but Bards lack +10d6 sneak attack dice. it's fine if they're equal in skillmonkeying.

[Kurald Galain]

Sounds good, the game would definitely benefit from more sources of expertise.

Speaking of skills, I'm also in favor of giving everyone an extra skill training every 4th level.

[archaeo]

Sounds good, the game would definitely benefit from more sources of expertise.

Speaking of skills, I'm also in favor of giving everyone an extra skill training every 4th level.

You could just slow the game down enough that the skill training options in the PHB become viable. I see no reason why the average campaign can't take time off between adventures; indeed, the rules all but tell you that the game expects significant non-adventure downtime.

[Kurald Galain]

You could just slow the game down enough that the skill training options in the PHB become viable. I see no reason why the average campaign can't take time off between adventures; indeed, the rules all but tell you that the game expects significant non-adventure downtime.

I'm fine with significant downtime but the skill training rules require about a full year. That's way too much considering you can learn everything else with zero downtime or training time.

[archaeo]

I'm fine with significant downtime but the skill training rules require about a full year. That's way too much considering you can learn everything else with zero downtime or training time.

Seems easy enough to adjust those times to whatever works for your campaign, but I see your point.

However, you don't "learn everything else with zero downtime or training time"; ostensibly, adventuring itself is the training time for becoming better at your class.

[Kurald Galain]

However, you don't "learn everything else with zero downtime or training time"; ostensibly, adventuring itself is the training time for becoming better at your class.

I agree. I simply find that learning one more skill every bunch of levels is clearly a part of "becoming better at your class".

[Vogonjeltz]

The rogue and Bard niche is being good at several skills, with rogues further having reliable talent and bards jack of all trades, so I don't think this tramples on them in any way. If anything, a balanced party will have a wide variety of skills, so this is just making the other characters good at the ones that the rogue or bard ought not have picked anyway.

Thoughts?

If the concern is that they decided to replicate the exact same skills the others players focused on (and let their iconic class skills languish as a consequence) I'd punish them by providing challenges which speak to the skills they ignored but shouldn't have.

Is this really a problem though? The Rogue and Bard are meant to be the relatively skilled characters of the party. And besides, if the Rogue is taking expertise in Athletics they're not taking it in something else (they have at a minimum 7 proficiencies and 4 that get expertise). Plus they don't really have the stat prioritization to be much more than slightly better. (i.e. What rogue has the spare stats to put a high stat in strength and wisdom and not have it cost their dexterity and constitution? Or intelligence for the Arcane Tricksters).