Skilled and Expertise

[Easy_Lee]

It seems like the Skilled feat is a bit on the weak side. Gaining skills is nice, but skills are not always useful. One needs a fairly comprehensive campaign for all skills to come up. Few take this feat, and it's hard to justify from an optimization perspective.

Then there's expertise. Expertise is extremely useful, boosting one's skill checks for the chosen skill by up to 6 points, enabling better are more consistent skill usage. But only rogues and bards get it, yielding a situation where no other class can keep up with either in any skill, regardless of practice.

Why not add expertise to skilled to solve both issues above? Make skilled grant expertise in a chosen skill, not necessarily one of the new ones selected, and it would be a much more useful feat which would fit in with certain builds (grapplers in particular). It would also mean that other classes could reach the rogue and bard skill levels, but only in one skill for each ASI they give up.

[Madfellow]

It seems like the Skilled feat is a bit on the weak side. Gaining skills is nice, but skills are not always useful. One needs a fairly comprehensive campaign for all skills to come up. Few take this feat, and it's hard to justify from an optimization perspective.

I dunno. It's the only way to become trained in the entire skill list. It may not be optimal, but it's fun. :smallsmile:


Then there's expertise. Expertise is extremely useful, boosting one's skill checks for the chosen skill by up to 6 points, enabling better are more consistent skill usage. But only rogues and bards get it, yielding a situation where no other class can keep up with either in any skill, regardless of practice.

You forgot Knowledge Domain Clerics.


Why not add expertise to skilled to solve both issues above? Make skilled grant expertise in a chosen skill, not necessarily one of the new ones selected, and it would be a much more useful feat which would fit in with certain builds (grapplers in particular). It would also mean that other classes could reach the rogue and bard skill levels, but only in one skill for each ASI they give up.

I would think adding a new feat would do it, one that grants Expertise in, say, two skills you're already proficient with.

[Spacehamster]

I would homebrew it like this, keep it as it is but add "or you can choose to become proficient in one skill and gain expertise in one skill(does not have to be the skill you pick to become proficient in).

[Giant2005]

IMO Expertise is so much more powerful than proficiency that 2 proficiencies does not equal 1 expertise. If I were going to change anything, I'd give the player the choice of taking 3 skills or 1 expertise - that way it doesn't make Rogues, Bards and Knowledge Clerics feel so bad about their life choices.

[Ralanr]

I'd kinda like to add something along the lines of, "You also gain proficiency in any number of skills equal to your intelligence modifier. These skills cannot be of physical nature."

[Flashy]

IMO Expertise is so much more powerful than proficiency that 2 proficiencies does not equal 1 expertise. If I were going to change anything, I'd give the player the choice of taking 3 skills or 1 expertise - that way it doesn't make Rogues, Bards and Knowledge Clerics feel so bad about their life choices.

I'm really inclined to agree with you, where once I might have argued. I've been playing a knowledge cleric from third level into the late single digits and expertise in nature and arcana has been the most stupid overpowered class feature I've had for a while (the ridiculous channel divinity options come close though). I regularly hit in the 20-25 range on knowledge checks, and have a few times hit DCs of 30.

[eastmabl]

IMO Expertise is so much more powerful than proficiency that 2 proficiencies does not equal 1 expertise. If I were going to change anything, I'd give the player the choice of taking 3 skills or 1 expertise - that way it doesn't make Rogues, Bards and Knowledge Clerics feel so bad about their life choices.

Agreed. If you're going to take the specialty of a character class and just give it to anybody, you should make it less beneficial outside the class.

[Demonic Spoon]

It doesn't come up from an optimization perspective because:

-Forum optimization is typically concerned with combat since all games will have that.

-Any character can have any skill, and for the most part they're balanced against each other.

-Skills don't usually interact directly with class features, so picking particular skills isn't necessarily useful build advice.


I could potentially see an argument for allowing 1 skill expertise and 1 new skill proficiency. That might be okay, as it would be blatantly inferior to expertise.

[Person_Man]

But only rogues and bards get it, yielding a situation where no other class can keep up with either in any skill, regardless of practice.

I think you correctly answered your own question. Expertise was limited to Rogues and Bards for niche protection purposes.

[rollingForInit]

IMO Expertise is so much more powerful than proficiency that 2 proficiencies does not equal 1 expertise. If I were going to change anything, I'd give the player the choice of taking 3 skills or 1 expertise - that way it doesn't make Rogues, Bards and Knowledge Clerics feel so bad about their life choices.

I agree with this. Expertise is an important part of the Bard/Rogue/Knowledge Cleric's list of class features. I really don't mind others gaining a bit of it, but too much would just step on their toes completely. And I say that, even though I think the whole skill system with Expertise where rogues and bards are the foremost experts in any given field (whether arcana, religion or medicine) is absurdly stupid. But since that's the way it is, well ...

[jaydubs]

Extra attack (stacking to 4) should be a feat too. It's frustrating how no other class can keep up with as many attacks as fighters get, no matter how much they practice.

On a more serious note, the issue is that "being the best at skills" is one of the shticks to being a skillmonkey class. It's kind of like how fighters get the most attacks. Warlocks get the best cantrip support. So on and so forth.

Now, I can see other classes getting expertise. But it should be in exchange for something more inherent to the class. For instance, as part of an archetype. Say, a bounty hunter archetype for fighters that are to rogues what eldritch knights are to wizards. (It should include more than just expertise, of course.) So players who really want expertise can get hold of something usually restricted to certain classes, but they give up something of equal value in return.

[Slipperychicken]

-Forum optimization is typically concerned with combat since all games will have that.


More importantly, 5e doesn't have much in the way of a skill system. There are few example tasks and DCs for skills, which means that pretty much every skill check is running off DM fiat. One DM might consider a given task 'hard', but another might call it 'very hard' or 'nearly impossible', while a third DM might declare the same task impossible. The lack of clear benchmarks makes it difficult to optimize skills; players are basically rolling numbers and hoping they rolled high enough to satisfy the DM.

[Ralanr]

More importantly, 5e doesn't have much in the way of a skill system. There are few example tasks and DCs for skills, which means that pretty much every skill check is running off DM fiat. One DM might consider a given task 'hard', but another might call it 'very hard' or 'nearly impossible', while a third DM might declare the same task impossible. The lack of clear benchmarks makes it difficult to optimize skills; players are basically rolling numbers and hoping they rolled high enough to satisfy the DM.

You mean that's not how dice rolling is suppose to go?

[archaeo]

More importantly, 5e doesn't have much in the way of a skill system. There are few example tasks and DCs for skills, which means that pretty much every skill check is running off DM fiat. One DM might consider a given task 'hard', but another might call it 'very hard' or 'nearly impossible', while a third DM might declare the same task impossible. The lack of clear benchmarks makes it difficult to optimize skills; players are basically rolling numbers and hoping they rolled high enough to satisfy the DM.

To put it another way, 5e's skill system is open enough that it allows for easy flexibility for every individual table so that the DM can tailor DCs to fit the campaign. It's flexible, simple, and easy to use, prioritizing speedy resolution over perfect verisimilitude. If DMs fundamentally disagree with their players about what kind of game is being played, there are going to be a lot more problems than wonky skill checks and DC disagreements.

This is super obviously a matter of taste; some people prefer a real crunchy skill system, others like something open and easy to use for improvisation and quick play. But the problem of inconsistency across tables is so minor as to be unimportant; every game is already going to be so different that adjusting to individual DMs' style of adjudicating skill checks will be a pretty minor thing, and it's a problem that can easily be solved by good communication.

[Stan]

Why not add expertise to skilled to solve both issues above?

It's what I've done. But no one has chosen Skilled yet so I can't speak to the impact. But, for most campaigns, over powered combat is far more likely to break the game than an extra bonus to a skill as skills just don't affect the situation to the same level.

I'm not worried about niche protection as you have to burn one of your few available feat slots which most people would rather use on combat feats or ability increases. It's almost as easy to multiclass to get expertise. Besides, none of the skill monkey classes are just about skills so it steals only a minor part of their thunder.

[Joe the Rat]

Let's see... Feat to play at being a Battlemaster. Feat to play at being a Monk. Feats to play at being a spellcaster. Skilled is sort of the Feat to play at being a skill monkey, if extra skill (and tool? I'm afb right now) proficiencies is the defining feature of the skillmonkey.

I don't think a feat that grants expertise would be too problematic. The question though is if that is a decent feat in itself, or if it needs another benefit. +1 Prof, +1 Expert? +1 Expert, +1 Tool/language? +1 Expert, +1 Attribute? +1 Expert, A medal declaring you the nicest of the damned?

[Easy_Lee]

Let's see... Feat to play at being a Battlemaster. Feat to play at being a Monk. Feats to play at being a spellcaster. Skilled is sort of the Feat to play at being a skill monkey, if extra skill (and tool? I'm afb right now) proficiencies is the defining feature of the skillmonkey.

I don't think a feat that grants expertise would be too problematic. The question though is if that is a decent feat in itself, or if it needs another benefit. +1 Prof, +1 Expert? +1 Expert, +1 Tool/language? +1 Expert, +1 Attribute? +1 Expert, A medal declaring you the nicest of the damned?

Now that's a good point.

Skilled: choose a combination of four languages, skills, and tools to gain proficiency with. Alternatively, gain expertise with a tool or skill / increase one attribute by one point, and choose a combination of two languages, skills, and tools to gain proficiency.

That way you'd gain four things you didn't have total, or two and expertise at one thing or a stat boost. I really don't feel like linguist needed to be a feat, and I suspect that the above is basically what I would do.

It doesn't step on the rogue or bard niche. Bards are good at everything, and thus have jack of all trades. Rogues are very consistent with their skill use, and thus get lots of expertise options by default and reliable talent. You would still pick a bard or rogue if you wanted to skill monkey, picking the one more suited to what you wanted to do. Expertise via a feat would merely allow other characters who want to excel at a particular skill to not have to dip bard or rogue.

For something as important to some builds as expertise, I really don't think a dip should have been necessary. Further, expertise allows a character to break the bounded range of possible numbers one can hit with a skill. That means that a rogue with arcana is always better at it than a wizard, if INT is similar. That doesn't sit right with me, which is why I feel that expertise is something that ought to be possible to earn on a non-rogue-or-bard. Having it attainable via a feat makes the most sense to me.

[Slipperychicken]

For something as important to some builds as expertise, I really don't think a dip should have been necessary. Further, expertise allows a character to break the bounded range of possible numbers one can hit with a skill. That means that a rogue with arcana is always better at it than a wizard, if INT is similar. That doesn't sit right with me, which is why I feel that expertise is something that ought to be possible to earn on a non-rogue-or-bard. Having it attainable via a feat makes the most sense to me.

That's only if he both prioritized intelligence and took expertise in it, which many rogues don't do (usually, it's stealth and/or perception). The exception is if the player anticipates a lot of magic traps in the future (which can be noticed and disarmed with an arcana check). Even in that corner-case, it would make perfect sense for a rogue who specialized in magic traps to be better at disarming them than a wizard.

[Demonic Spoon]

For something as important to some builds as expertise, I really don't think a dip should have been necessary. Further, expertise allows a character to break the bounded range of possible numbers one can hit with a skill. That means that a rogue with arcana is always better at it than a wizard, if INT is similar. That doesn't sit right with me, which is why I feel that expertise is something that ought to be possible to earn on a non-rogue-or-bard. Having it attainable via a feat makes the most sense to me.


This doesn't seem problematic to me. Arcana is about knowing magical lore, not just knowing how to move your hands and speak to cast magic. A rogue could very well be an academic (see: Indiana Jones) with a more nuanced understanding of magical theory than a wizard.

[rollingForInit]

This doesn't seem problematic to me. Arcana is about knowing magical lore, not just knowing how to move your hands and speak to cast magic. A rogue could very well be an academic (see: Indiana Jones) with a more nuanced understanding of magical theory than a wizard.



On a more serious note, the issue is that "being the best at skills" is one of the shticks to being a skillmonkey class. It's kind of like how fighters get the most attacks. Warlocks get the best cantrip support. So on and so forth.


At least to me a skillmonkey is someone who's good at a lot of things, not necessarily the best at anything they attempt. While a rogue can certainly be intellectual (there's a whole subclass, after all) it makes no sense that a rogue with 20 Int should put every archmage, loremaster and arcane sage in the world to shame. Because that's what Expertise does. +6 extra on a roll at level 20? +17 instead of +11? That's an absurd amount, with the bounded accuracy.

The issue isn't that rogues can be good at anything they want, or that they can master many skills. It's that they (along with bards and to a limited extent Knowledge Clerics) are the only ones who can truly master a skill. They're the only ones who can completely excel at Arcana or History. Or at Athletics. Or Medicine. Survival. Anything. There's is no wizard in the entire world who's better at arcana than an intelligent rogue who's studied the same field. Even though a Wizard literally spends all his time studying magic. And there's no fighter or barbarian in the entire world who's better at Athletics - better at climbing, jumping, etc - than a rogue or a bard. There's no ranger or druid in the entire world who can best a rogue, bard or knowledge cleric at knowledge about nature.

That's the issue. I'd have no problems with the rogue/bard getting 4 expertise skills, if every other class got 1 at some point later in the career. That's one of the single greatest issues I have with the skill system - hell, it's one of the single greatest issues I have with 5e in general.

[jaydubs]

Here's the problem I have with that argument. It implies that a system should aim to represent the world at large, and I think that's a flawed way to look at it. The 5e character creation system isn't there to simulate how NPCs develop in the general setting. It's primarily meant just to describe how PCs develop as they become experienced. And the aim with expertise is to insure that the traditional skillmonkey classes are able to fulfill the roles that most people imagine when they think of such characters in fiction.

For instance, think back to the last few examples of fantasy fiction you've read (or watched). Now imagine the group of protagonists are confronted with the side of a building that they have to scale. Which character gets volunteered to scale the building, and throw down a rope? In most cases, the rogue/thief/sneaky type character. And since most 5e rogues are going to be dex heavy rather than strength heavy, how do we insure they're still the ones that get sent up? We give them expertise.

The group of protagonists are walking through a dark tunnel. There's a noise in the background. Who's more likely to hear it? The priest, or the sneaky fellow? In classic fantasy tradition, the sneaky fellow, despite most rogues not making wisdom their primary stat.

The group of protagonists is searching an ancient ruin for traps. One of the characters pours some water on the floor, tracing it's flow to the secret passage hidden in the wall. Who did that? The resident wizard, or the group's tomb raider (rogue)? Most would expect the tomb raider, but that's only likely to be the case because of expertise again (because rogues don't usually invest as much in Int as wizards).

So the question we need to ask isn't, "does this properly simulate NPCs in the game world?" NPCs don't even necessarily follow PC character guidelines anyway. It's "does expertise help to insure skillmonkeys fulfill their traditional roles, despite common attribute allocations?" And I'd argue, yes. Sure, there are corner cases where it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (like rogues being better than wizards with arcane knowledge). (How often have you seen a rogue take that as an expertise, anyway?) But on the whole, it helps to make sure they're the go to for things like social skills, climbing, sensing traps and ambushes, etc. And the latter is a lot more important than the former.

[Easy_Lee]

So the question we need to ask isn't, "does this properly simulate NPCs in the game world?" NPCs don't even necessarily follow PC character guidelines anyway. It's "does expertise help to insure skillmonkeys fulfill their traditional roles, despite common attribute allocations?" And I'd argue, yes. Sure, there are corner cases where it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (like rogues being better than wizards with arcane knowledge). (How often have you seen a rogue take that as an expertise, anyway?) But on the whole, it helps to make sure they're the go to for things like social skills, climbing, sensing traps and ambushes, etc. And the latter is a lot more important than the former.

Even if there were an expertise feat, or ways to get expertise on other classes, rogues and bards would still be the best skillmonkeys. They get expertise multiple times and have reliable talent / jack of all trades. Their niche is secure.

[rollingForInit]

So the question we need to ask isn't, "does this properly simulate NPCs in the game world?" NPCs don't even necessarily follow PC character guidelines anyway. It's "does expertise help to insure skillmonkeys fulfill their traditional roles, despite common attribute allocations?" And I'd argue, yes. Sure, there are corner cases where it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (like rogues being better than wizards with arcane knowledge). (How often have you seen a rogue take that as an expertise, anyway?) But on the whole, it helps to make sure they're the go to for things like social skills, climbing, sensing traps and ambushes, etc. And the latter is a lot more important than the former.

And the problems arise when you've got a rogue who decides he wants to know stuff about magic and history and be intelligent, and then renders the Wizard obsolete in terms of knowledge checks, because the rogue constantly outshines the Wizard in the fields where the Wizard should be the best. There isn't even a chance for the Wizard to be better.

Your argument would be extremely good if there was an abundance of skills. But there isn't. There are some stuff from basically any skills that could fall into the typical domain of a typical rogueish character. But there are many aspects of the same skill that most certainly does not. Arcana, for instance, covers not only mystical lore and monsters, but also arcane symbols, knowledge about spellcasting, recognising spells, and anything related to magic in the slightest. And while Investigation checks to disable traps or locate hidden doors very much is a rogue thing, investigating wounds on corpses, solving riddles, seeing through illusions or or making masterful deductions really aren't as clear-and-cut rogue skills.

And that's the issue. Expertise doesn't give you a niched Expertise in something useful. It makes you a master over several extremely broad categories of skills. You're not well-versed on recognising magical artifacts - you're the most knowledgeable person in the world on any magical subject. The skills are much too broad, and that combined with Expertise exacerbates the problem. It's a bit as if I were to be considered an authority figure on anything related to low-level video game development with C++, even though I'm a Java web developer, just because I've studied Computer Science.

Expertise would've been more balanced if it applied only to a specific type of skill, and not an all-encompassing skill category.

[Malifice]

It seems like the Skilled feat is a bit on the weak side. Gaining skills is nice, but skills are not always useful. One needs a fairly comprehensive campaign for all skills to come up. Few take this feat, and it's hard to justify from an optimization perspective.

Then there's expertise. Expertise is extremely useful, boosting one's skill checks for the chosen skill by up to 6 points, enabling better are more consistent skill usage. But only rogues and bards get it, yielding a situation where no other class can keep up with either in any skill, regardless of practice.

Why not add expertise to skilled to solve both issues above? Make skilled grant expertise in a chosen skill, not necessarily one of the new ones selected, and it would be a much more useful feat which would fit in with certain builds (grapplers in particular). It would also mean that other classes could reach the rogue and bard skill levels, but only in one skill for each ASI they give up.

Take my house feat:

Skill Focus:

Select one skill or tool you are proficient in. You gain +1 to the ability score that governs that skill or tool to a maximum score of 20, and may double your proficiency bonus in the skill or tool.

Wizards can now be as good in Arcana as Rogues without dipping, and Fighters can now out-wrestle all but the highest level Rogues. Huzzah!

[MrStabby]

I kind of feel torn on this. Without doubt it is stepping on the toes of the Bard and Rogue, removing their individuality. That said the Bard and Rogue using this ability were already stepping on the toes of every other class by being better at Theology than Clerics, Arcana than Wizards and grappling than fighters and monks.

In the end I think I come down on the side of it being a bad idea because i can see these classes as being re-fluffed to represent a more studied approach to whatever else it is you are doing with another class if you dip a little.

The area where it does seem a bit odd is the knowledge domains and I might be happy to allow something like using wisdom instead of Int for Religion and Nature chacks, +1 wis/Int as chosen and proficiency in one of these skills (instead give expertise if they already have proficiency).

[rollingForInit]

Something that my group is using is a variant of the "background proficiency" from the DMG. However, instead we have "background specialisation" which grants advantage on rolls. For instance, a Wizard might get advantage on Arcana checks related to Necromancy because he's studied it a lot. Or as is the case with my rogue: she gets advantage on Nature rolls about sea creatures because she was a pirate, usually gets advantage on estimating the value of gems, and last session got advantage on tying together ropes.

That's a neat thing, imo. Gives other classes at least some more options for, while not breaking bounded accuracy, at least reducing the risk of rolling low.

[Joe the Rat]

I was going to comment on a Rogue being more limited in his/her expertise options (The point at which you select expertise in character creation is before you select non-Rogue skills, but the level 6 added expertise doesn't carry any notes as to what you can apply it to beyond "skills or thieves' tools." So half of their expertise is in whatever the hell they feel like.
Bards, however...


Take my house feat:

Skill Focus:

Select one skill or tool you are proficient in. You gain +1 to the ability score that governs that skill or tool to a maximum score of 20, and may double your proficiency bonus in the skill or tool.

Wizards can now be as good in Arcana as Rogues without dipping, and Fighters can now out-wrestle all but the highest level Rogues. Huzzah!I'm just going to slip this in my pocket...

This is how I'd prefer it working: Getting better in what you already know, rather than suddenly being an expert stonemason when last level you didn't know which side of the mallet to use. And it's useful for Rogues as it gives something they can't normally do: Be Expert in other tools (insofar as tool expertise is useful).

It's kind of funny. My interest in this feature is due to someone on the wotc forums complaining during playtest that there wasn't a way (mechanically) to make a character that was the best brewer in the world. For some reason, this is what stuck for me as a "must have" option.

[jaydubs]

And the problems arise when you've got a rogue who decides he wants to know stuff about magic and history and be intelligent, and then renders the Wizard obsolete in terms of knowledge checks, because the rogue constantly outshines the Wizard in the fields where the Wizard should be the best. There isn't even a chance for the Wizard to be better.

My argument, actually, was never that it always makes narrative sense. I agree with the "wizard should know more about magic" example. My argument is that these are corner cases. That if we assume normalish attribute allocations (aka, the types of allocations you're likely to see in most characters), expertise helps a lot more often than it hurts to push the game towards what people expect to see. At the end of the day, how many of these corner cases are there? And how many of them are likely to come up in games? Because I'm fairly sure it's significantly outnumbered (in terms of probability of actually being seen in a game) by cases where expertise is beneficial.

I mean, outside of an Arcane Trickster taking Arcana as an expertise, how many can you name that are likely to see play? Ones that 1) are likely to have a high attribute in said skill, 2) are likely to take expertise in it, and 3) doing so outshines the class that is normally expected to be better at that skill?

[rollingForInit]

My argument, actually, was never that it always makes narrative sense. I agree with the "wizard should know more about magic" example. My argument is that these are corner cases. That if we assume normalish attribute allocations (aka, the types of allocations you're likely to see in most characters), expertise helps a lot more often than it hurts to push the game towards what people expect to see. At the end of the day, how many of these corner cases are there? And how many of them are likely to come up in games? Because I'm fairly sure it's significantly outnumbered (in terms of probability of actually being seen in a game) by cases where expertise is beneficial.

I mean, outside of an Arcane Trickster taking Arcana as an expertise, how many can you name that are likely to see play? Ones that 1) are likely to have a high attribute in said skill, 2) are likely to take expertise in it, and 3) doing so outshines the class that is normally expected to be better at that skill?

1) You actually don't have to have high attributes. At level 6, a Wizard with 16 Int would have +6 in arcana. A rogue with 10 Int and Expertise in it would also have +6. By level 20, the 10 Int rogue would have +12, compared to the 20 Int Wizard.

And the cases will come up as soon as a rogue ventures off the beaten path, so to speak, away from the stereotyped rogue who's good at stealth, sleight of hand, thieves' tools and perception. Or something like that.

Again, I'm not arguing that rogues shouldn't be skillmonkeys and that there shouldn't be skills where they can definitely be the best. I am arguing that every class has a typical skill where it shouldn't be outshone by a rogue. The entire skill system (small as it is) in 5e is an abomination.

[Easy_Lee]

1) You actually don't have to have high attributes. At level 6, a Wizard with 16 Int would have +6 in arcana. A rogue with 10 Int and Expertise in it would also have +6. By level 20, the 10 Int rogue would have +12, compared to the 20 Int Wizard.

And the cases will come up as soon as a rogue ventures off the beaten path, so to speak, away from the stereotyped rogue who's good at stealth, sleight of hand, thieves' tools and perception. Or something like that.

Again, I'm not arguing that rogues shouldn't be skillmonkeys and that there shouldn't be skills where they can definitely be the best. I am arguing that every class has a typical skill where it shouldn't be outshone by a rogue. The entire skill system (small as it is) in 5e is an abomination.

Absolutely. I see expertise as advanced training in a thing, artisan level rather than journeyman. I think it should be available to anyone.

I very much like the skill focus idea Malifice posted above. I think I would go with that one.

[jaydubs]

1) You actually don't have to have high attributes. At level 6, a Wizard with 16 Int would have +6 in arcana. A rogue with 10 Int and Expertise in it would also have +6. By level 20, the 10 Int rogue would have +12, compared to the 20 Int Wizard.

So the 10 intelligence rogue goes from having 1 less bonus at level 1, to the same bonus at level 6 (I'd argue it's likely to still be 1 less, with the wizard taking +2 Int at level 4), to having 1 higher at level 20 (the 20 Int wizard ends with +11 vs +12). That doesn't seem to me like it makes the wizard irrelevant. It just puts them on the same level, if the rogue decided to make "expert at arcana" be one of his defining points. Again, most won't.

If anything, that's exactly how I'd want expertise to work - put the rogue at roughly the same level as someone with a better stat, on something they don't have a good stat on. Like say, climbing when compared to a strength-based class.


And the cases will come up as soon as a rogue ventures off the beaten path, so to speak, away from the stereotyped rogue who's good at stealth, sleight of hand, thieves' tools and perception. Or something like that.

Sure. I just don't see it happening very often in real games, or at least I see it veering towards other rogue-y things (persuasion, deception,insight, etc.). But that's from personal experience and therefore could be wrong. So to me, that's a lot less worrisome than the suggestions for making skilled grant 2-3 expertise choices, and diluting the skillmonkey classes. At the end of the day, expertise is either a really nice thing, and worth more than half a feat. Or it's not that important, at which point why do we need a feat that grants it? I personally believe in the former.

Though after reading the thread, I can see making expertise worth 2/3 of a feat. Aka, skilled granting 3 skills, or 1 expertise and 1 skill (or tool proficiency/language/whatever).

[Easy_Lee]

that's a lot less worrisome than the suggestions for making skilled grant 2-3 expertise choices, and diluting the skillmonkey classes.

Who suggested that?

[jaydubs]

Who suggested that?


I would think adding a new feat would do it, one that grants Expertise in, say, two skills you're already proficient with.

There have also been several suggestions for expertise + 1 attribute point, which would place expertise at 1/2 a feat. I'm saying it's worth more than half a feat, which would make expertise + attribute point inappropriate.

What's less than an attribute point, more than nothing, and thematically appropriate? A choice of proficiency.

[Easy_Lee]

There have also been several suggestions for expertise + 1 attribute point, which would place expertise at 1/2 a feat. I'm saying it's worth more than half a feat, which would make expertise + attribute point inappropriate.

Actually I can prove you wrong on that. As shown in the free PDF, rogues gain expertise in two skills at sixth level while fighters gain an ASI at the exact same level. For both, this is their only feature gained at that level. So, according to WotC, expertise in a skill is actually worth exactly half a feat.

In other words, Malifice's skill focus is perfectly balanced.

[jaydubs]

Actually I can prove you wrong on that. As shown in the free PDF, rogues gain expertise in two skills at sixth level while fighters gain an ASI at the exact same level. For both, this is their only feature gained at that level. So, according to WotC, expertise in a skill is actually worth exactly half a feat.

In other words, Malifice's skill focus is perfectly balanced.

That logic is easy enough to disprove.

At level 6, the only feature that Paladins gain is Aura of Protection. Unless you believe that Aura of Protection should be given out for the cost of a feat, then your reasoning is flawed.

[Demonic Spoon]

Actually I can prove you wrong on that. As shown in the free PDF, rogues gain expertise in two skills at sixth level while fighters gain an ASI at the exact same level. For both, this is their only feature gained at that level. So, according to WotC, expertise in a skill is actually worth exactly half a feat.

In other words, Malifice's skill focus is perfectly balanced.


Are you seriously implying that we can create balanced feats by taking any level 6 class feature and making it a feat, simply because for one class, level 6 could be a feat?

Balance is more complicated than that, and nothing you said is 'according to WotC'.

[Easy_Lee]

That logic is easy enough to disprove.

At level 6, the only feature that Paladins gain is Aura of Protection. Unless you believe that Aura of Protection should be given out for the cost of a feat, then your reasoning is flawed.


Are you seriously implying that we can create balanced feats by taking any level 6 class feature and making it a feat, simply because for one class, level 6 could be a feat?

Balance is more complicated than that, and nothing you said is 'according to WotC'.

I'm saying that equal features for classes ought to be roughly equivalent. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that a level 6 feature for any class ought to be roughly equivalent in value.

"Balance is more complicated than that." So, in other words, I can achieve an imbalanced character by taking the right levels in the right classes, since a level 6 feature from one class is good while a level 6 feature from another is less so?

If either of you believe your own post, you are saying that the game as a whole is imbalanced, since class features and the classes themselves at various levels are not balanced. If that is the case, then it literally does not matter what any feat we homebrew does, since the entire game is imbalanced from the start.

Or, we could say that class features at a given level should be roughly balanced. We can point out that expertise is only useful to some builds, and a different feat would be more useful to others. We can point out that rogues and bards should not be better at all of their chosen skills than anyone else can ever hope to become, since that's silly.

More importantly, we could accept the fact that WotC is not perfect, and neither are house rules inherently incorrect or imbalanced themselves.

[JBPuffin]

I'm saying that equal features for classes ought to be roughly equivalent. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that a level 6 feature for any class ought to be roughly equivalent in value.

"Balance is more complicated than that." So, in other words, I can achieve an imbalanced character by taking the right levels in the right classes, since a level 6 feature from one class is good while a level 6 feature from another is less so?

If either of you believe your own post, you are saying that the game as a whole is imbalanced, since class features and the classes themselves at various levels are not balanced. If that is the case, then it literally does not matter what any feat we homebrew does, since the entire game is imbalanced from the start.

Or, we could say that class features at a given level should be roughly balanced. We can point out that expertise is only useful to some builds, and a different feat would be more useful to others. We can point out that rogues and bards should not be better at all of their chosen skills than anyone else can ever hope to become, since that's silly.

More importantly, we could accept the fact that WotC is not perfect, and neither are house rules inherently incorrect or imbalanced themselves.

...Duh? I'm slightly confused what the problem is here - is it because both sides of this debate are assuming only one can be true?

Fact: some people think only 2+1/2 classes getting expertise is unfair.
Fact: some people think it's fair enough.
Solution: those who find it unfair fix it, those who don't don't.
Why'd it turn into a debate? Someone shared an opinion, another person said it was wrong, fight begins? That makes some sense, actually, but on the other dinosaur, both opinions are correct.

Also, Lee, you're right, except it's an AND not an OR; other than that, a decent point.

So, let's all just return to our mind palaces before someone pops a gasket. And/or a barrel of flaming oil. Have to protect the Plane of Internet, folks.

[ad_hoc]

The issue isn't that rogues can be good at anything they want, or that they can master many skills. It's that they (along with bards and to a limited extent Knowledge Clerics) are the only ones who can truly master a skill. They're the only ones who can completely excel at Arcana or History. Or at Athletics. Or Medicine. Survival. Anything. There's is no wizard in the entire world who's better at arcana than an intelligent rogue who's studied the same field.

5e only makes rules for PCs, not NPCs.

[jaydubs]

I'm saying that equal features for classes ought to be roughly equivalent. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that a level 6 feature for any class ought to be roughly equivalent in value.

Ought to be or not, it isn't. As hopefully demonstrated by the Aura of Protection example.


"Balance is more complicated than that." So, in other words, I can achieve an imbalanced character by taking the right levels in the right classes, since a level 6 feature from one class is good while a level 6 feature from another is less so?

Except multiclassing doesn't work like that. A Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Druid 1 doesn't get a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th level class feature. He gets 5 1st level class features. But yeah, if you could cherry pick class features at each level from different classes, you'd end up with a much more powerful class than anything that's actually there already. Luckily, you can't.


If either of you believe your own post, you are saying that the game as a whole is imbalanced, since class features and the classes themselves at various levels are not balanced. If that is the case, then it literally does not matter what any feat we homebrew does, since the entire game is imbalanced from the start.

We don't have perfect balance, so any other efforts to maintain balance are pointless? We're not saying that, because that's a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy).


Or, we could say that class features at a given level should be roughly balanced.

Again, should be does not mean they are. And venturing forth as if they are balanced, just because they should be, isn't prudent.


We can point out that rogues and bards should not be better at all of their chosen skills than anyone else can ever hope to become, since that's silly.

Again, 5e character progression is just a method by which we determine the characteristics of PCs as they level up. You're getting silly results, because you're trying to have them make sense as an explanation of the whole campaign world, rather than something that's just there to make the game run smoothly and to expectations. Remember that most NPCs (and therefore most people in the world) don't have to follow those rules. The world's most reknowned expert on subject X can just be an expert on subject X, without any class levels.


More importantly, we could accept the fact that WotC is not perfect, and neither are house rules inherently incorrect or imbalanced themselves.

I'm not saying "that's imbalanced because it's homebrew." I'm saying "that particular homebrew seems imbalanced, and here's why."

[Easy_Lee]

Ought to be or not, it isn't. As hopefully demonstrated by the Aura of Protection example.



Except multiclassing doesn't work like that. A Rogue 1/Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Druid 1 doesn't get a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th level class feature. He gets 5 1st level class features. But yeah, if you could cherry pick class features at each level from different classes, you'd end up with a much more powerful class than anything that's actually there already. Luckily, you can't.



We don't have perfect balance, so any other efforts to maintain balance are pointless? We're not saying that, because that's a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy).



Again, should be does not mean they are. And venturing forth as if they are balanced, just because they should be, isn't prudent.



Again, 5e character progression is just a method by which we determine the characteristics of PCs as they level up. You're getting silly results, because you're trying to have them make sense as an explanation of the whole campaign world, rather than something that's just there to make the game run smoothly and to expectations. Remember that most NPCs (and therefore most people in the world) don't have to follow those rules. The world's most reknowned expert on subject X can just be an expert on subject X, without any class levels.



I'm not saying "that's imbalanced because it's homebrew." I'm saying "that particular homebrew seems imbalanced, and here's why."

Firstly, perfect balance or not, this feat isn't imbalanced. In order for something to be imbalanced, we need a clear definition of what "balance" is. I'm the only person in this thread who has provided any kind of a definition of balance. I suggested we use the published material to determine what is and is not balanced. And some posters are not okay with that. This makes no sense to me, since I would think that using the published materials to determine balance within those published materials would be the best possible approach.

A nirvana fallacy does not apply to the situation at hand. The nirvana fallacy states that "a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented." The problem is that rogues and bards are each better at multiple skills than anyone else, even a dedicated practitioner of a skill, could ever become, that a rogue or bard achieve higher numbers than are possible for others and thus break the bounded system. This solution fixes that problem. Of course the game will not be made perfect through solving this problem; this merely fixes a problem that many consider both egregious and immersion-breaking.

"Again, should be does not mean they are. And venturing forth as if they are balanced, just because they should be, isn't prudent." As I said, we have literally no other means to determine balance other than using the published materials. Two features gained independently at level 6 - that's pretty clear. Two versatile features gained by martial classes which can be used to customize one's character and are gained independent of other features at level 6 - that's as clear-cut as it gets. If you do not believe this is a good enough means of determining balance, then I wish you would suggest a better method.

Saying that NPCs should follow different rules from PCs is to suggest that the two are not part of the same world, particularly when you are talking about members of the same race. This is a major case of gameplay and story segregation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation), also known as "ludonarrative dissonance," where the gameplay (what PCs can do) and story (what pet NPCs can do) do not follow the same rules. Further, just because NPCs don't necessarily need to be outshone by rogues and bards in the skill department does not mean that it's okay for a cleric PC to be worse at religion than a rogue with a passing interest in it, for instance.

Which brings me to my final point. You said "that particular homebrew seems imbalanced, and here's why." You did not say the why part. "There have also been several suggestions for expertise + 1 attribute point, which would place expertise at 1/2 a feat. I'm saying it's worth more than half a feat, which would make expertise + attribute point inappropriate." You never explained why you think this, beyond saying that it's just part of the rogue's and bard's niche, which has already been shown multiple times to not be threatened by a change like this. Spending a feat one one source of expertise is no where near gaining multiple sources of expertise, more skills than other classes, and jack of all trades / reliable talent. The only thing the feat does is allow someone who wants to max a skill to max that skill. Rogues and bards are in no way threatened by that.

[Demonic Spoon]

"Balance is more complicated than that." So, in other words, I can achieve an imbalanced character by taking the right levels in the right classes, since a level 6 feature from one class is good while a level 6 feature from another is less so?

If either of you believe your own post, you are saying that the game as a whole is imbalanced, since class features and the classes themselves at various levels are not balanced. If that is the case, then it literally does not matter what any feat we homebrew does, since the entire game is imbalanced from the start.

Or, we could say that class features at a given level should be roughly balanced. We can point out that expertise is only useful to some builds, and a different feat would be more useful to others. We can point out that rogues and bards should not be better at all of their chosen skills than anyone else can ever hope to become, since that's silly.

More importantly, we could accept the fact that WotC is not perfect, and neither are house rules inherently incorrect or imbalanced themselves.


Class features are balanced with the context of that class' prior features in mind. A rogue's level 6 feature in the hands of a rogue is not the same as a rogue's level 6 feature in the hands of a fighter, just like it would be imbalanced for a rogue to be able to choose level 3 spells instead of his third sneak attack die.

[ad_hoc]

Saying that NPCs should follow different rules from PCs is to suggest that the two are not part of the same world, particularly when you are talking about members of the same race.

We're not saying that NPCs should follow different rules, we're saying that they do. That is how 5e is designed.

I also happen to agree with it. It is also a waste of space in the books to spell out everything any character in the world can learn to do. It's not needed. If a special group wants to play characters that just spend their lives being farmers they can houserule it. Farmer not being a class doesn't make farmers not exist.

3.x took a different approach which I found tedious, limiting, and unnecessary.

Whether you like it or not, it is how 5e is designed. It's not an oversight, it was intentional.

[jaydubs]

Firstly, perfect balance or not, this feat isn't imbalanced. In order for something to be imbalanced, we need a clear definition of what "balance" is. I'm the only person in this thread who has provided any kind of a definition of balance. I suggested we use the published material to determine what is and is not balanced. And some posters are not okay with that. This makes no sense to me, since I would think that using the published materials to determine balance within those published materials would be the best possible approach.

I gave a very straightforward example on why your definition of balance is flawed. If we go by it, Aura of Protection would be available for a feat. Are you saying it should be? Because it seems pretty self-evident to me why it's worth more than that.


A nirvana fallacy does not apply to the situation at hand. The nirvana fallacy states that "a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented."

My link was to the perfect solution fallacy, the first example of which is:

Posit (fallacious)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
Rebuttal
Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.

You said:


If either of you believe your own post, you are saying that the game as a whole is imbalanced, since class features and the classes themselves at various levels are not balanced. If that is the case, then it literally does not matter what any feat we homebrew does, since the entire game is imbalanced from the start.

So in this case:

Posit (fallacious)
The game is imbalanced, so the balance of any homebrew feat is irrelevant.
Rebuttal
Perfect balance is not the expected outcome. The goal is to prevent the introduction of imbalanced feats.

So either you were using the perfect solution fallacy to come to a conclusion I never made, or you were using a straw man fallacy to attribute a conclusion I never came to.


Saying that NPCs should follow different rules from PCs is to suggest that the two are not part of the same world, particularly when you are talking about members of the same race. This is a major case of gameplay and story segregation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation), also known as "ludonarrative dissonance," where the gameplay (what PCs can do) and story (what pet NPCs can do) do not follow the same rules.

NPCs not following the same rules as PCs is a huge, conscious, design decision made for 5e. Now, you may not agree with it. But saying "we need this because otherwise NPCs don't make sense" when the game is clear you don't need to follow PC creation rules, is silly.


Further, just because NPCs don't necessarily need to be outshone by rogues and bards in the skill department does not mean that it's okay for a cleric PC to be worse at religion than a rogue with a passing interest in it, for instance.

The feature is called Expertise, not Hobby. Passing interest is something like Jack-of-All-Trades. Expertise means you're an expert.

To put it another way, would you be surprised if Indiana Jones (a rogue with Expertise in Religions) knew more about ancient religious artifacts than a priest in that applicable religion?

I mean, it seems like that's part of what you're misunderstanding. Expertise doesn't mean the character read some cliffnotes of a subject on the side. It means they took the time to sit down, and truly master something.


Which brings me to my final point. You said "that particular homebrew seems imbalanced, and here's why." You did not say the why part. "There have also been several suggestions for expertise + 1 attribute point, which would place expertise at 1/2 a feat. I'm saying it's worth more than half a feat, which would make expertise + attribute point inappropriate." You never explained why you think this, beyond saying that it's just part of the rogue's and bard's niche, which has already been shown multiple times to not be threatened by a change like this. Spending a feat one one source of expertise is no where near gaining multiple sources of expertise, more skills than other classes, and jack of all trades / reliable talent. The only thing the feat does is allow someone who wants to max a skill to max that skill. Rogues and bards are in no way threatened by that.

I'm going to go back to my "likely to be seen in a game" scenario. Let's say some characters pick up this feat. What are some common class/ability/skill combinations that would reach into skillmonkey niches?

Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Strength/Athletics - there goes rogue being the go-to climber. We're likely to see this, because of how grapple works.
Cleric/Druid/Monk/Wisdom/Perception - at least 3 now better than the rogue at finding ambushes. We're likely to see this, because of how good perception is.
Sorcerer/Charisma/Persuasion - sorcerer is now the go to for diplomatic situations. Insert social skill of choice.

In terms of explanation, I'd point out a few things. First, balance isn't simplistic enough to be boiled down to a level chart comparison, as clearly demonstrated with Aura of Protection. So we point to likely byproducts, as I point to above. For many classes, the likely choices for expertise will directly dig into skillmonkey niches.

Next, even if we assume your system of level for level comparisons, expertise is worth more than half a feat. First of all, because fighters get better hit dice than rogues. So even on a pure equivalency system, the feat you're asking for would look like "Expertise, + 1 attribute point, -1 hp." Second, there's a case of diminishing returns. Your first choice is always going to be more valuable and your second, which is more valuable than your third, and so forth.

For those reasons, expertise should cost more than half a feat.

[Malifice]

Are you seriously implying that we can create balanced feats by taking any level 6 class feature and making it a feat, simply because for one class, level 6 could be a feat?

Balance is more complicated than that, and nothing you said is 'according to WotC'.

Expertise is a 1st level class feature that grants double P bonus in two skills.

A feat (or ASI) is a class feature gained by all classes at 4th level (and by humans at 1st).

A 'half feat' is +1 to an ability score which is half a class feature. Half of expertise (double bonus in one skill) is also around half of a class feature.

Its perfectly balanced, and helps the game and allows many character concepts. A Fighter advancing to 4th level who wanted to be a great athlete and wrestler could dip Rogue (for 2 skills at double bonus and sneak attack and a proficiency or two). But what if teh concept didnt include sneak attack, thieves tools and the like? With my house ruled feat he can now simply take a level in fighter and get +1 to Strength and double athletics skill, as a class feature of Fighter for that level, without slowing down his advancement in Fighter (but costing him a feat and a whole level in Fighter).

Does (+1 to an ability score and double prof bonus in a single skill) as a whole levels class feature seem OP or unbalanced in any way to you?

It works for me fine. I can now have grappling Monks and Fighters, super perceptive Rangers, Wizards who are Arcana masters and so forth whom all don't also have to also be great with thieves tools and backstabbing.

[Demonic Spoon]

Its perfectly balanced, and helps the game and allows many character concepts. A Fighter advancing to 4th level who wanted to be a great athlete and wrestler could dip Rogue (for 2 skills at double bonus and sneak attack and a proficiency or two). But what if teh concept didnt include sneak attack, thieves tools and the like? With my house ruled feat he can now simply take a level in fighter and get +1 to Strength and double athletics skill, as a class feature of Fighter for that level, without slowing down his advancement in Fighter (but costing him a feat and a whole level in Fighter).


I didn't say your feat was unbalanced (though it does infringe upon a class niche, which is a separate issue). I said that simply exchanging class features between classes is not by definition 'perfectly balanced' as easy_lee was saying.

[Naanomi]

Is the rogue loremaster really a practical problem? Has anyone ever made a rogue who chose expertise in a knowledge skill or medicine; excepting perhaps as a dip specifically for expertise in those skills?

If such a feat were made, I would guess 90% of people taking it would be Athletics for grapple/shove benefit; 5% for some other combat advantage (stealth, maybe perception); and the rest for 'flavor' when they are fine burning a feat for no real mechanical benefit to fit a concept.

[Malifice]

I didn't say your feat was unbalanced (though it does infringe upon a class niche, which is a separate issue). I said that simply exchanging class features between classes is not by definition 'perfectly balanced' as easy_lee was saying.

It wouldnt always be I agree. There are things behind the scenes that add to balance.

I see cunning action and sneak attack more of a niche for Rogues than I do expertise (which is also available to Bards).

I see expertise more like second wind (from Fighter) which I am also considering making into a half feat. For mine, Action surge, additional feats and more than 2 attacks per round really ID the Fighter.

[rollingForInit]

5e only makes rules for PCs, not NPCs.

And at level 20, PC's are at the pinnacle of human ability. It wouldn't be strange at all to have a level 20 wizard be considered on of the most knowledgeable arcane loremasters in the entire world. Oh, but wait, that Thief in the party who wanted to be good at arcana ...

Anyway, I don't think Expertise as a feat is bad. I think getting 1 Expertise once from a feat is decent enough. More will really start to creep onto the rogue's and bard's, and especially knowledge cleric's, turf. Actually, 2 would just step right over the knowledge cleric's 1st level feature. I don't like the skill system at all, but as things are, Expertise is an important part of the two full classes and one subclass. If we start giving that ability away too easily, we'd have to compensate those classes.

[Easy_Lee]

Is the rogue loremaster really a practical problem? Has anyone ever made a rogue who chose expertise in a knowledge skill or medicine; excepting perhaps as a dip specifically for expertise in those skills?

If such a feat were made, I would guess 90% of people taking it would be Athletics for grapple/shove benefit; 5% for some other combat advantage (stealth, maybe perception); and the rest for 'flavor' when they are fine burning a feat for no real mechanical benefit to fit a concept.

Expertise in nature would allow one to nearly always succeed at harvesting poison. Expertise in religion would be good in a religion-heavy adventure, and may one to gain a high amount of insight unachievable without the feat. This same thing could be said about most skills. Sometimes feats are selected because they fit well with the campaign, and this is indeed the only reason i could see to take the linguist feat.

Athletics is an obvious choice for expertise for many reasons, not least of which is shoving creatures prone for the sake of advantage. However, expertise in any skill could be advantageous in one's campaign. Since it flatly raises numbers, I don't believe that it is fair for only rogues and bards to have it. I consider it as unfair as if sorcerers had flatly higher DCs for their spells, or if only fighters were able to use martial weapons. Since so many would otherwise be forced to take a dip just for the expertise they need for their build concept, I think that allowing one expertise selection on a feat is valid.

One could also solve the problem by changing expertise to grant advantage, or changing it to yield a minimum roll similar to reliable talent, or any of a long list of other possible fixes. But rogues and bards having flatly higher numbers in every skill they choose? That's really not okay from any kind of a balance perspective. If skills matter and are useful, it's not fair for only these two classes to be able to use them particularly well. That's what I believe.

[georgie_leech]

One could also solve the problem by changing expertise to grant advantage, or changing it to yield a minimum roll similar to reliable talent, or any of a long list of other possible fixes. But rogues and bards having flatly higher numbers in every skill they choose? That's really not okay from any kind of a balance perspective. If skills matter and are useful, it's not fair for only these two classes to be able to use them particularly well. That's what I believe.

Which benefit would you give to the rogues and bards in return for removing one of their unique advantages then? Would you accept a feat that let anyone Smite because it's unfair that only a Paladin can do so?

[ChubbyRain]

You mean that's not how dice rolling is suppose to go?

There are rumors that back in the day you had to roll under a certain number with a d20 in order to please the DM.

We dismissed those gossips as crazy ones...

[Easy_Lee]

Which benefit would you give to the rogues and bards in return for removing one of their unique advantages then? Would you accept a feat that let anyone Smite because it's unfair that only a Paladin can do so?

In my post, I said that higher numbers are not a valid class feature. Every other class feature (yes, including smites) can largely be replicated. Wizards have the largest spell selection, but other classes can cast the same spells collectively, and those spells don't do something special in the hands of a wizard. Paladins can smite, but fighters can action surge and get more attacks. Warlocks can do consistent ranged damage, but so can rangers.

Then we have rogues and bards, who can simply hit higher numbers with skills. There's no answer to that in any other class. These classes are the best at using skills, and their numbers are higher than anyone else's.

Why should that be? Jack of all trades, reliable talent, and having multiple sources of expertise already solidify these classes as the best skill monkeys. They didn't need to have near-exclusive access to the only feature which lets you hit those numbers freely.

Don't get me wrong, I love the rogue class and bards have a special place in my heart. Both are very interesting classes and are fun to play. Having other classes able to spend a feat to gain expertise in one skill would not tread on them in the slightest. They would still be the best skill monkeys. Further, they could take the same feat to gain even more expertise, further solidifying themselves as skill-masters. Rogues even get a bonus feat. One could say that rogues and bards would benefit from this kind of feat just as much as anyone else, if we assume that expertise and +1 attribute is an equally valid choice of feat for all classes.

[Naanomi]

Not that I would change it per se, but I wonder how unbalanced it would be to give out class appropriate expertise to a few classes at say... Level 10 or so. Wizards and Arcane, Clerics and Religion, Druids and Nature... Maybe barbarians/Rangers for survival; bards with History; and Life Clerics with Medicine

Not stepping on bard/rogue toes because these are skills 99% wouldn't take expertise on anyways

[jaydubs]

Not that I would change it per se, but I wonder how unbalanced it would be to give out class appropriate expertise to a few classes at say... Level 10 or so. Wizards and Arcane, Clerics and Religion, Druids and Nature... Maybe barbarians/Rangers for survival; bards with History; and Life Clerics with Medicine

Not stepping on bard/rogue toes because these are skills 99% wouldn't take expertise on anyways

I like the spirit of that suggestion in regards to rogues and bards. Assign mid-level expertise (or proficiency if they don't have it) by class or archetype, limited to those skills that are outside normal rogue/bard expertise choice. Aka, limited to the 4 knowledges, animal handling, medicine, and survival.

Though unfortunately, it still runs smack dab into the knowledge domain cleric. Would have to find something to compensate for it.

[eastmabl]

Then we have rogues and bards, who can simply hit higher numbers with skills. There's no answer to that in any other class. These classes are the best at using skills, and their numbers are higher than anyone else's.

Why should that be? Jack of all trades, reliable talent, and having multiple sources of expertise already solidify these classes as the best skill monkeys. They didn't need to have near-exclusive access to the only feature which lets you hit those numbers freely.

In 5e, the dice rolls are still supposed to matter. Feats that reliably let players ignore rolls flies in the face of this.

Certainly, rogues and bards get expertise. But they are the skill monkeys. If anyone should get it, it should be them.

[Easy_Lee]

In 5e, the dice rolls are still supposed to matter. Feats that reliably let players ignore rolls flies in the face of this.

Certainly, rogues and bards get expertise. But they are the skill monkeys. If anyone should get it, it should be them.

And wizards are the most iconic casters. I guess you believe that means they should have higher DCs for their spells. Oh wait, no, you don't believe that because that would be ridiculous. What was I thinking...

If skills matter, at all, then no two classes should be the only ones capable of using them effectively. Rogues and bards should absolutely be the best at them, but that doesn't mean they need to crap on everyone else from great heights (heights they reached because their numbers are arbitrarily higher than others can possibly achieve).

[SharkForce]

conveniently, said heights can be reached with a 1-level rogue dip to represent a greater effort put into being skilled or knowledgeable in that field.

[Joe the Rat]

conveniently, said heights can be reached with a 1-level rogue dip to represent a greater effort put into being skilled or knowledgeable in that field.

Which comes with sneak attack for some reason. And doesn't help alchemy or navigation one lick.

[Easy_Lee]

conveniently, said heights can be reached with a 1-level rogue dip to represent a greater effort put into being skilled or knowledgeable in that field.

Which is exactly what shouldn't be required because it breaks immersion. Do you think that every craftsman, every scholar, every athlete and survivalist of your world has taken a level in rogue, implicitly learning thieves' cant and how to attack enemies in dastardly, underhanded ways? That really doesn't work for me, and I doubt it works for many.

[Naanomi]

I like the spirit of that suggestion in regards to rogues and bards. Assign mid-level expertise (or proficiency if they don't have it) by class or archetype, limited to those skills that are outside normal rogue/bard expertise choice. Aka, limited to the 4 knowledges, animal handling, medicine, and survival.

Though unfortunately, it still runs smack dab into the knowledge domain cleric. Would have to find something to compensate for it.
Perhaps knowledge clerics, under such a system, would get expertise in all four knowledge skills; making thier 'special thing' that while individuals know as much about stuff as them via their class; only knowledge clerics (and I'd guess properly oriented Lore bards which is fine) know a lot about all academic subjects

[Talderas]

Firstly, perfect balance or not, this feat isn't imbalanced. In order for something to be imbalanced, we need a clear definition of what "balance" is. I'm the only person in this thread who has provided any kind of a definition of balance. I suggested we use the published material to determine what is and is not balanced. And some posters are not okay with that. This makes no sense to me, since I would think that using the published materials to determine balance within those published materials would be the best possible approach.

Just because you're the only one to present a definition of balance does not mean that is the definition that must be used. People can either present evidence as to why it is a bad definition or present counter definitions. Either is a perfectly acceptable response.

In this case your entire homebrew is relying on the foundation of an ASI being equivalent to expertise because that's what a fighter gains at lv 6 (ASI) and what a rogue gains at lv 6 (expertise). If your foundation and definition for balance is believed to be incorrect then there is nothing else that needs to be addressed if people believe that your definition is flawed.

The major flaw with your definition is that it's relying on examining two abilities in isolation of the rest of the class or even other classes when balance is going to be built from the sum of abilities thus gained. All I have to do is simply look at when and how bard gets expertise. They never get it in isolation and they always get it with other class features and more spell slots. The balance of expertise is obviously far more complex than you're attempting to make it since bard would suggest that expertise is very low value. Further, rogue gets six ASIs during their levels to fighter's seven or standard class's five.

We don't have to look very far to find significant cracks in the foundation of your homebrew's balance.

[SharkForce]

Which is exactly what shouldn't be required because it breaks immersion. Do you think that every craftsman, every scholar, every athlete and survivalist of your world has taken a level in rogue, implicitly learning thieves' cant and how to attack enemies in dastardly, underhanded ways? That really doesn't work for me, and I doubt it works for many.

i see no particular problem with sneak attack. you don't even have to describe it in the fight. it's just +1d6 damage once per round in certain situations. it could be an adrenaline surge, or you noticing a vulnerable spot that the person keeps exposing, etc. frankly, nothing about sneak attack says it's dastardly or underhanded that i can recall. you're just hitting a point of particular vulnerability.

thieve's cant should be easy enough to modify. instead of thieve's cant, you get the ability to speak academia (for example, how to talk for 20 minutes about 2 minutes worth of subject matter... and more importantly, how to listen to some guy blather on for 20 minutes and fish out the 2 minutes worth of actual useful information from the entire mess). if you didn't pick knowledge skills, then just pick the ability to understand experts who use highly technical (or slang) in your field of expertise.

[Easy_Lee]

I've found that if WotC does a thing, then there are people who will defend it no matter whether it is game breaking. Similarly, if a person suggests a fix to that thing, then there are those who will attack the fix specifically because it was not WotC who suggested it. I will assume that is the case with all critics of Malifice's skill focus feat, since rogues and bards being the only ones who can reach a given number breaks the concept of a bounded system.

If you believe rogues and bards should just be better than the other classes at all skills, and indeed should break the inherent system under which those skills run, then more power to you. But that has never been the case before, likely will never be again due to the backlash, and doesn't make any sense in any kind of context. And nor is it balanced if skills matter at all.

Rogues and bards get the most skills; that used to be enough to solidify them as the skill monkeys. I think it still is.

I've addressed every argument in this thread, and will not repeat myself further.

[Giant2005]

Just because you're the only one to present a definition of balance does not mean that is the definition that must be used. People can either present evidence as to why it is a bad definition or present counter definitions. Either is a perfectly acceptable response.

In this case your entire homebrew is relying on the foundation of an ASI being equivalent to expertise because that's what a fighter gains at lv 6 (ASI) and what a rogue gains at lv 6 (expertise). If your foundation and definition for balance is believed to be incorrect then there is nothing else that needs to be addressed if people believe that your definition is flawed.

The major flaw with your definition is that it's relying on examining two abilities in isolation of the rest of the class or even other classes when balance is going to be built from the sum of abilities thus gained. All I have to do is simply look at when and how bard gets expertise. They never get it in isolation and they always get it with other class features and more spell slots. The balance of expertise is obviously far more complex than you're attempting to make it since bard would suggest that expertise is very low value. Further, rogue gets six ASIs during their levels to fighter's seven or standard class's five.

We don't have to look very far to find significant cracks in the foundation of your homebrew's balance.

His balancing theory falls apart when you consider that a Rogue gets a bonus feat at level 10. Using his logic that would mean the Champion's level 10 ability is the equivalent to a feat. That ability is an extra fighting Style, the most apt of which (Due to having direct analogues to feats) is the Defense Style.
The Defense Style has the potential to add +1 AC but we already have feats (Medium Armor Master, Dual Wielder) that have the potential to add +1 to AC while also providing other benefits. Therefore that potential +1 to AC cannot be the equivalent of a feat and the entire theory is debunked.

[SharkForce]

i don't think rogue and bard should be the only ones with access to expertise.

i just don't think that it should be available as a feat. subclass feature as an optional swap for something else after discussion with your DM? sure, sounds fine to me. heck, even swap out base class features if appropriate.

[Easy_Lee]

His balancing theory falls apart when you consider that a Rogue gets a bonus feat at level 10. Using his logic that would mean the Champion's level 10 ability is the equivalent to a feat. That ability is an extra fighting Style, the most apt of which (Due to having direct analogues to feats) is the Defense Style.
The Defense Style has the potential to add +1 AC but we already have feats (Medium Armor Master, Dual Wielder) that have the potential to add +1 to AC while also providing other benefits. Therefore that potential +1 to AC cannot be the equivalent of a feat and the entire theory is debunked.

That sounds like a flaw in the armored fighting style, not in my logic. That said, there are times when the armored fighting style is exactly the one you want, and when having another feat would not allow you to get the extra AC. In other words, the value of a feat vs a fighting style depends on the build, therefore the two can be said to be of similar value.

Also, semantics. Also, this debate is already over and I've little idea why it's continuing.

[georgie_leech]

Also, semantics. Also, this debate is already over and I've little idea why it's continuing.

Because people continue to disagree with you. Fiat declaring yourself the "victor" does little to convince anyone of your position. Outside of debate halls, scoring points is less important than actually communicating why you're in the right.

[Easy_Lee]

Because people continue to disagree with you. Fiat declaring yourself the "victor" does little to convince anyone of your position. Outside of debate halls, scoring points is less important than actually communicating why you're in the right.

Who declared me victor? I said I'm done arguing about it, that I've said what I have to say, addressing other's arguments, and I'm done repeating it. Does that make me the winner? On the Internet, perhaps it does, but I would think it just means I'm tired of this debate.

[SharkForce]

Who declared me victor? I said I'm done arguing about it, that I've said what I have to say, addressing other's arguments, and I'm done repeating it. Does that make me the winner? On the Internet, perhaps it does, but I would think it just means I'm tired of this debate.

for someone who's done with the discussion, you sure are discussing an awful lot.

perhaps it's not over because you keep trying to have the last word.

[jaydubs]

Perhaps knowledge clerics, under such a system, would get expertise in all four knowledge skills; making thier 'special thing' that while individuals know as much about stuff as them via their class; only knowledge clerics (and I'd guess properly oriented Lore bards which is fine) know a lot about all academic subjects

That sounds fair to me. It's probably what I'll end up doing if my players ever bring up the wizard-arcana, cleric-religion, and so forth skill issue to me.

[MrStabby]

That sounds fair to me. It's probably what I'll end up doing if my players ever bring up the wizard-arcana, cleric-religion, and so forth skill issue to me.

It does seem reasonable. I do think that Academics can safely get a boost but there is now way in hell I will be handing round expertise in my games to any other classes. It would annoy my Bard a bit but make my rogue furious.

[jaydubs]

It does seem reasonable. I do think that Academics can safely get a boost but there is now way in hell I will be handing round expertise in my games to any other classes. It would annoy my Bard a bit but make my rogue furious.

Yeah, I'd probably speak to any bard/rogue players I had ahead of time to see if they were okay with it. And I'd definitely nix it if a bard/rogue in my game actually put their expertise in those kinds of skills.

It's just in my experience most bards and rogues tend to put it in things like social skills, "sense" skills (perception/insight/investigation), or physical skills (acrobatics, stealth, the thief stuff, and so forth).

Also, I'm taking some of this from PF/3.x, so it might not be completely applicable. But the academic/knowledge skills tend to be "thank god someone has it" in party terms. While things like party face, party scout/thief/what have your tend to involve enough spotlight that people fight over it (figuratively fight, not literally).