Expertise as a Feat

[krugaan]

What do you think it would be worth?

Gain expertise in one skill you are proficient in, and +1 stat to related ability score?

Too strong?

[bid]

That's basically what UA feats does. For instance:

Burglar
You pride yourself on your quickness and your close study of certain clandestine activities. You gain the following benefits:
• Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You gain proficiency with thieves’ tools. If you are already proficient with them, you add double your proficiency bonus to checks you make with them.

[Specter]

Since the guys at Wizards did exactly that in this month's Unearthed Arcana, I'd say it's pretty fair.

[MintyNinja]

There was a recent Unearthed Arcana about building Feats, and from what little I can remember plus my GM instincts I'd say that seems fair. As long as it's 1 Skill and the linked Ability Score. I could see that being a great starter for Variant Humans.

EDIT: Double Ninja'd.... Nice.

[R.Shackleford]

After lookingniver the feats in UA... They suck. Like at first I liked them but... Just no.

Didn't those feats stack with expertise?

[krugaan]

After lookingniver the feats in UA... They suck. Like at first I liked them but... Just no.

Didn't those feats stack with expertise?

That is an odd wording... if they chose to allow that, that must not have been intentional, because triple proficiency bonus is beyond breaking the bounds of bounded accuracy, especially for things like stealth, perception, and athletics.

Oh look, that valor bard has a +23 grappling modifier, not including spells!

[Easy_Lee]

I proposed expertise as a feat not long after D&D 5e came out, and some people said I was crazy...=D

I don't like the WotC Burglar, etc., just because of the triple prof mentioned above. But I do like the idea of taking expertise as a feat, just because it's so crucial to certain character concepts. How I would write the feat:

Expertise (Feat)
Gain expertise (add double your proficiency to skill checks) with one skill in which you are proficient.
Increase your attribute which controls this skill by 1, to a maximum score of 20.

Edit: That said, I would change base expertise since it breaks the bounded math a bit. But that's another story, for another thread.

[RickAllison]

I can't remember where in the PHB it talks about it, but you can't double your proficiency bonus for it twice. It came up when I researched plans to get the Amulet of the Sphere with an Expertised Arcana, but didn't pan out due to that rule.

So the feat is much less useful for a rogue who took thieves' tools Expertise, as they don't benefit from that bonus.

[R.Shackleford]

I always liked advantage for expertise rather than double proficiency.

[Kryx]

I always liked advantage for expertise rather than double proficiency.
Agreed, but lets not bog this thread down with that topic.

[Saggo]

I can't remember where in the PHB it talks about it, but you can't double your proficiency bonus for it twice. It came up when I researched plans to get the Amulet of the Sphere with an Expertised Arcana, but didn't pan out due to that rule.

So the feat is much less useful for a rogue who took thieves' tools Expertise, as they don't benefit from that bonus.

Pg 12, Proficiency Bonus

"Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll or that it should be multiplied more than once, you nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once, and halve it only once."

So yeah, no stacking.

[TheFlyingCleric]

What do you think it would be worth?

Gain expertise in one skill you are proficient in, and +1 stat to related ability score?

Too strong?

To be honest, I think it might be too weak. Remember that you can't take a feat more than once unless specifically stated.

A level 1 dip of rogue nets you 1 skill proficiency, thieves tool proficiency, and 2 expertise. Also sneak attack.
It is a bit apples and oranges to compare the relevant downsides of multiclassing as opposed to feats, but still important to consider. If a level 1 dip is simply better than the feat...


I would say to at least have two skills become expertised (replacing the +1 to stat), as well as not restricting the skills you pick.
Even then i'm not really sure. Compare it to the skilled feat, which gives 3 proficiencies, but is usually a pretty sub-par feat. Expertise > normal proficiency gain, but even so...

I'm wondering as to how you could make the skilled feat better, perhaps making it a way to provide expertise...

[RickAllison]

To be honest, I think it might be too weak. Remember that you can't take a feat more than once unless specifically stated.

A level 1 dip of rogue nets you 1 skill proficiency, thieves tool proficiency, and 2 expertise. Also sneak attack.
It is a bit apples and oranges to compare the relevant downsides of multiclassing as opposed to feats, but still important to consider. If a level 1 dip is simply better than the feat...


I would say to at least have two skills become expertised (replacing the +1 to stat), as well as not restricting the skills you pick.
Even then i'm not really sure. Compare it to the skilled feat, which gives 3 proficiencies, but is usually a pretty sub-par feat. Expertise > normal proficiency gain, but even so...

I'm wondering as to how you could make the skilled feat better, perhaps making it a way to provide expertise...

Actually, I think letting two skills get is is a bad idea, as it steps on the toes of the Rogue/Bard feature. If anything, I would give a skill as part of the feat that may or may not be the one given Expertise. That way, a PC can get it for any skill they wish.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Actually, I think letting two skills get is is a bad idea, as it steps on the toes of the Rogue/Bard feature. If anything, I would give a skill as part of the feat that may or may not be the one given Expertise. That way, a PC can get it for any skill they wish.

I disagree with this sentiment. Note the other feats that already imitate important class features (Martial Adept to Battlemaster Fighters, Tavern Brawler to Monk unarmed strikes, Ritual Caster to Wizards' wonderful ritual casting, etc.). Also remember that both rogues and bards get additional features that make them better skill monkeys (jack of all trades, reliable talent, bardic inspiration), as well as getting an additional 2 expertise at higher levels (which you can't do with this feat), so they're still better at this role than anyone who merely takes the feat.

In essence, it allows other class' to get a taste of a rogue or bard's most basic skill-monkey feature, but nothing like their full capabilities, without multiclassing. Similar to how magic initiate gives you some of a class' spellcasting, but to a very limited extent. It improves the ability for players to customize their characters, allowing them to make them really good at a particular skill without being forced by the expertise monopoly to dip rogue or bard. I like that.

[Townopolis]

Yes, other feats already imitate other class features. Specifically, Martial Adept gives a severely (I think excessively) nerfed version of battlemaster maneuvers, Tavern Brawler gives the weakest form of monk unarmed damage possible (the version even monks only use when they have to), and so on and so forth. Ritual Caster can be good, if your party doesn't have a wizard or bard.

It's entirely in-line with these feature-poaching feats to only get expertise in 1 skill with a feat.

[R.Shackleford]

Agreed, but lets not bog this thread down with that topic.

Make that the feat instead of expertise.


Yes, other feats already imitate other class features. Specifically, Martial Adept gives a severely (I think excessively) nerfed version of battlemaster maneuvers, Tavern Brawler gives the weakest form of monk unarmed damage possible (the version even monks only use when they have to), and so on and so forth. Ritual Caster can be good, if your party doesn't have a wizard or bard.

It's entirely in-line with these feature-poaching feats to only get expertise in 1 skill with a feat.

Stepping on toes is so overrated.

If you are so insecure with your character that your class has to be sacred ground then you have issues to deal with that doesn't involve me.

Make a character and not just a ability score + class combo

[Kryx]

Make that the feat instead of expertise.
Indeed that's the direction I'd go.

But I don't know if a class feature as a feat is the best option (half feat). It's a large cost that count be taken via dipping 1 level rogue, but it just feels wrong. Martial Adept seems ok because it's a muted version of the feature.

[RickAllison]

Make that the feat instead of expertise.



Stepping on toes is so overrated.

If you are so insecure with your character that your class has to be sacred ground then you have issues to deal with that doesn't involve me.

Make a character and not just a ability score + class combo

The hostility is strong with this one.

But there is a reason why feats that mimic class features are weaker than the original. Class levels are part of a character and reflect the choices and priorities of the PC. Someone who takes a level of Rogue for Expertise has decided that the abilities learned are of great enough importance to take part of their life off for it. By contrast, a feat represents a sideshow they are hitting while staying on the same path.

Taking a level in Rogue is like getting an associate's degree, while taking this feat would be more like taking night classes in the particular subject.

[R.Shackleford]

The hostility is strong with this one.

But there is a reason why feats that mimic class features are weaker than the original. Class levels are part of a character and reflect the choices and priorities of the PC. Someone who takes a level of Rogue for Expertise has decided that the abilities learned are of great enough importance to take part of their life off for it. By contrast, a feat represents a sideshow they are hitting while staying on the same path.

Taking a level in Rogue is like getting an associate's degree, while taking this feat would be more like taking night classes in the particular subject.

No hostiity at all.

I just see the argument as "hey, other player, play/create your character the way I want you to play/create a character or else in going to be sad".

It is none of your business how another player builds their character. If they ask for advice or are actively causing a problem (such as stealing from the party) then you have a valid reason to go complain but not a second before.

For the most part it isn't what you have but how you use it. Some classes may not get as much to use as others but that doesn't give you, mw, or anyone else (expect the DM) the right to try and push others away from the class features they want for their characters.

[RickAllison]

No hostiity at all.

I just see the argument as "hey, other player, play/create your character the way I want you to play/create a character or else in going to be sad".

It is none of your business how another player builds their character. If they ask for advice or are actively causing a problem (such as stealing from the party) then you have a valid reason to go complain but not a second before.

For the most part it isn't what you have but how you use it. Some classes may not get as much to use as others but that doesn't give you, mw, or anyone else (expect the DM) the right to try and push others away from the class features they want for their characters.

And there it is. No one is telling them they can't have a class feature they want, they can get that for the low price of 1 level in rogue. The issue comes when someone wants the class feature of another class without taking the cost of those levels.

Now, maybe it could be fine in a system that accepts greater powered feats. If the rogue can spend a feat to gain Extra Attack or Wild Shape, then it makes perfect sense for the other classes to get the full class feature of a rogue.

But feats already provide examples of how to handle it, they get the features at reduced power levels. Alternative ideas could be doing 1.5X times proficiency. At least that way, it remains consistent with the current system.

[R.Shackleford]

And there it is. No one is telling them they can't have a class feature they want, they can get that for the low price of 1 level in rogue. The issue comes when someone wants the class feature of another class without taking the cost of those levels.

Now, maybe it could be fine in a system that accepts greater powered feats. If the rogue can spend a feat to gain Extra Attack or Wild Shape, then it makes perfect sense for the other classes to get the full class feature of a rogue.

But feats already provide examples of how to handle it, they get the features at reduced power levels. Alternative ideas could be doing 1.5X times proficiency. At least that way, it remains consistent with the current system.


Saying "you can't make a feat of that because it steps on the toes of my class" or "you can't make a subclass feature that is like my class" or anything else similar falls under the same category of Player X trying to dictate Player Y's character.

This can even lead into MC or class choice, I hear these a lot.

The avenue is slightly different the the outcome and issue is the exact same.

Keep your nose out of another player's character unless they ask for advice or are actively being antagonistic.

Edit

"Stepping on toes" is a PvP mentality. I do not have this mentality.

[Easy_Lee]

I look at things a bit differently. Say a fighter hangs out with a wizard. He doesn't become a wizard, but he might pick up a small (magic initiate) or

[RickAllison]

Saying "you can't make a feat of that because it steps on the toes of my class" or "you can't make a subclass feature that is like my class" or anything else similar falls under the same category of Player X trying to dictate Player Y's character.

This can even lead into MC or class choice, I hear these a lot.

The avenue is slightly different the the outcome and issue is the exact same.

Keep your nose out of another player's character unless they ask for advice or are actively being antagonistic.

Edit

"Stepping on toes" is a PvP mentality. I do not have this mentality.

And the Strawman commences as well...

No one said that you couldn't make a feat that replicated a class feature. Several feats that do just that were pointed out! Martial Adept, Magic Initiate, Tavern Brawler, and Ritual Caster all replicate class features.

Martial Adept replicates the Battlemaster's maneuvers, at the cost of only having one and one maneuver to choose from. The feat is a weaker version of the feature.

Magic Initiate gives you two cantrips and a 1/day first-level spell. This imitated the three or more cantrips and two 1st-level slots per long rest of those classes, but is weaker.

Tavern Brawler gives the weakest unarmed damage die of the monk and a bonus action attack similar to the Martial Arts feature. It is weaker than the actual feature.

Ritual Caster is the debatable one. It is weaker in that the ritual spells cannot be cast with spell slots, but it gains power in not being restricted to a class. In this way, it is most similar to the Tomelock invocation. It is at the same power, and stands out because of this.

So no one has said that Player Y can't have a similar feature. I have stated they shouldn't get the full-power feature because that would be inconsistent with the design present with already-existing feats. So the Expertise feat should (by the standards of the PHB) be weaker than the Expertise class feature.

[bid]

Saying "you can't make a feat of that because it steps on the toes of my class" or "you can't make a subclass feature that is like my class" or anything else similar falls under the same category of Player X trying to dictate Player Y's character.
You seem to be saying you should get for free what another had to sweat blood and tears. Don't you think this behavior is actively antagonistic?

[pwykersotz]

Saying "you can't make a feat of that because it steps on the toes of my class" or "you can't make a subclass feature that is like my class" or anything else similar falls under the same category of Player X trying to dictate Player Y's character.

The point of distinctive classes is to keep them distinct. To create archetypal roles. To have expectations. So when a player comes to the table with those expectations supported by the rules and finds them subverted, they are well within their rights to be annoyed.

And it's perfectly acceptable to have a conflict where a player needs to change their character because they are too similar to another. Your belief that it's fair to build "what you want" is just as valid as another player's belief that they want to be unique. This means that if there's a conflict, compromise or adjustment might need to happen.

[Townopolis]

Shackleford, the only person bringing up niche protection is you. Everyone else is arguing over the value of a feat vs. the value of a class level, mostly pointing out that class levels are much more valuable than feats (and so creating a feat that's at least half the value of rogue 1 is probably op).

RickAllison: Ritual Caster is restricted to one class. You must pick a class (e.g. wizard) when you take it and can only learn rituals from that class' spell list.

[RickAllison]

Shackleford, the only person bringing up niche protection is you. Everyone else is arguing over the value of a feat vs. the value of a class level, mostly pointing out that class levels are much more valuable than feats (and so creating a feat that's at least half the value of rogue 1 is probably op).

RickAllison: Ritual Caster is restricted to one class. You must pick a class (e.g. wizard) when you take it and can only learn rituals from that class' spell list.

Well great, then my point is further made. I was at work on break and couldn't reference my book.

[DeAnno]

Shackleford, the only person bringing up niche protection is you. Everyone else is arguing over the value of a feat vs. the value of a class level, mostly pointing out that class levels are much more valuable than feats (and so creating a feat that's at least half the value of rogue 1 is probably op).

I would argue that they are about the same, actually. Many class levels are ASIs after all. I guess the casters get spells too, but never new spell levels.

[Townopolis]

That does confuse the issue a bit. Specifically, the fact that not all levels are created equal confuses the issue. Fighter 1 is nice, but not nearly as good as Fighter 2, and the only time dipping a single level of any full caster is worth it seems to be Cleric 1 for domain features (which makes sense, since Magic Initiate is actually relatively close to the first level in most full caster classes). Every class will have some levels that are stronger than others.

In the case of rogue, specifically, the first level is one of the strongest. Rogue 2 is really good for Cunning Action, but there's a reason dipping Rogue 1 for Expertise is considered highly, and that is that Expertise is one of those abilities that scales with level. While first level spell slots quickly go from "I'll end this whole encounter with sleep" to "No point using these for anything but Mage Armor and Shield,"* Expertise keeps its initial value for the whole campaign. Some rogue features would be fine as a feat, like Uncanny Dodge, but not Expertise in 2 skills.

*A bit hyperbolic, but you get the idea.

[Zalabim]

Level 1 in rogue gives 1d6 sneak attack, an extra skill proficiency if you're multiclassing (or two extra if you started here), thieves' tools, and expertise in two skills (or one skill and thieves' tools). So there's really a lot to cut down from for an expertise feat. It also requires 13 Dexterity and teaches Thieves' Cant as well. Then at level 6, they just get expertise again as their only improvement.

I think the biggest hurdle for the feat is coming up with the other features to round out the power and actually being interesting between the value of one expertise and the value needed for a feat. I don't think it should give expertise in two different skills unless they can be thematically linked, and that leaves little room for another feature. Something in line with Observant is probably better than making it in line with Skilled.

[SharkForce]

i dislike expertise as a feat.

suddenly, in order for your character to be good, they need to spend a feat on it. and that feat doesn't let them do anything cool or interesting, it just gives them a bigger number.

i'm not interested in seeing feats that basically just amount to "you do the exact same thing you could always do before except now your numbers are bigger". expertise is the exact opposite of what i want to see in a feat. it is too much of a power increase to offer much of anything else, it is generic, it is boring, and it doesn't let you do anything new or interesting, and now it is competing with feats that *do* offer new and more interesting options that could be taken instead.

we need less feats like the proposed expertise feat, and more feats like mounted combatant or keen mind (not necessarily in terms of power, but rather in terms of how they give you new things you can do that you couldn't before; a keen minded character has perfect recall abilities. a mounted combatant can keep their mount alive even against the most deadly adversaries. way more interesting than expertise).

[BurgerBeast]

To be honest, I think it might be too weak... A level 1 dip of rogue nets you 1 skill proficiency, thieves tool proficiency, and 2 expertise. Also sneak attack. It is a bit apples and oranges to compare the relevant downsides of multiclassing as opposed to feats, but still important to consider. If a level 1 dip is simply better than the feat...

Yeah, I think it is too apples and oranges. Assuming you want the higher level abilities in your class, that's what you get at the ASI level. You're not just getting the ASI, you're also getting access to high-level abilities. So if you take Rogue 1, you still need to take your current class's ASI level to progress. To me that seems okay.


It is none of your business how another player builds their character. If they ask for advice or are actively causing a problem (such as stealing from the party) then you have a valid reason to go complain but not a second before.

I’m not sure I’ve read anything so ridiculous. It’s not my business if another character is using new or modified or exclusive rules in the same campaign as my core character?

Let’s be clear about what the topic of this discussion is: changing the rules of the game by introducing a new feat that grants a power to another character. When the rules change, that’s everybody’s business. It’s certainly my business to know if another player at the same table is using optional rules to which I don’t have access, or for which there are no equivalencies in terms of how class abilities thorugh feats. There’s a reason why balance is a thing.


...i'm not interested in seeing feats that basically just amount to "you do the exact same thing you could always do before except now your numbers are bigger"... etc.

Pretty much this. A feat should be active, not passive. It's only opinion but it seems to have been the design philosophy, and it works very well.

[RickAllison]

i dislike expertise as a feat.

suddenly, in order for your character to be good, they need to spend a feat on it. and that feat doesn't let them do anything cool or interesting, it just gives them a bigger number.

i'm not interested in seeing feats that basically just amount to "you do the exact same thing you could always do before except now your numbers are bigger". expertise is the exact opposite of what i want to see in a feat. it is too much of a power increase to offer much of anything else, it is generic, it is boring, and it doesn't let you do anything new or interesting, and now it is competing with feats that *do* offer new and more interesting options that could be taken instead.

we need less feats like the proposed expertise feat, and more feats like mounted combatant or keen mind (not necessarily in terms of power, but rather in terms of how they give you new things you can do that you couldn't before; a keen minded character has perfect recall abilities. a mounted combatant can keep their mount alive even against the most deadly adversaries. way more interesting than expertise).

On the one hand, I like having the Expertise putting someone above normally skilled people. It creates a sense of investment that differentiates hobbyists from true experts (in a blacksmith, the head has Expertise, while hired help only has proficiency). On the other, I agree that the feat should give something active as well.

I am rather stumped on how to create an active ability that is relevant to all checks and is useful.

[BurgerBeast]

I am rather stumped on how to create an active ability that is relevant to all checks and is useful.

Well, this isn't applicable to all checks but covers "useful."

What about feats that expand upon the possibilities available in a skill or tool proficiency? I'm just spitballing here, but what if being an "expert" blacksmith (via the feat) let you craft better items (whatever that may mean). Or what if expertise with cooking did what Gourmand does and gave you additional uses with tangible mechanical benefits? Seems like a decent model that needs to be balanced.

As a secondary thought, what if the feat version of expertise opened up the ability to take 10 or 20 in situations that are just a little more pressing than otherwise allowed. This to reflect that an expert can perform better under pressure. Again just spitballing.

[Kryx]

we need less feats like the proposed expertise feat, and more feats like mounted combatant or keen mind (not necessarily in terms of power, but rather in terms of how they give you new things you can do that you couldn't before
Agreed, there is a problem of bigger numbers. But I also think there is a problem of Combat feats vs non-combat feats.

I split those between feats and traits (which have their own progression) in my half feat system (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H19CLykV).

[SharkForce]

Agreed, there is a problem of bigger numbers. But I also think there is a problem of Combat feats vs non-combat feats.

I split those between feats and traits (which have their own progression) in my half feat system (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H19CLykV).

*shrug* i don't mind non-combat feats taking up the same resources as combat feats. especially if they offer something *new* in non-combat situations. i think it would be great for a fighter to just be able to be happy with their already good combat capabilities and invest in doing interesting things out of combat via feats instead of just grabbing polearm master and great weapon master (or sharpshooter and crossbow expert, or shield expert) to boost their combat effectiveness. you could have two fighters who are very different; one is an extraordinary warrior, while the other is still a mighty warrior but is also a great leader, and a third is known for being able to talk his way out of anything (say, by removing the penalty for hostility level in social skill checks and giving the ability to stun a target that can understand their language with fast-talk for a single round, DC of 8 + cha + proficiency, once per target per day).

[kaoskonfety]

We were tossing around a variant on the Skilled feat that allowed you to use one of the 3 skill choices to upgrade a skill to expertise in a skill.

so the options were...
- gain 3 skills
- gain expertise in a known skill and 2 new skills
- gain a new skill and expertise in that same new skill and learn another skill.

It seemed fair enough and doesn't tread too hard on the actual skill monkey PC tricks. No one has taken it (so far, if I have a "throwaway utility feat" on my characters its ritual caster - whole crap ritual caster, and my players are big on MAOR STATS), but its on the table should some wizard decide they are THE expert on the arcane - you know, like a wizard. They can brush up on their history and herbalism while they are at it...

[MrStabby]

The problem is that different levels on different classes are worth different amounts.

Things like casters that max their casting stats, get warcaster and then still have spare ASIs - its no cost to get what other characters had to expend class levels for. To me, being a level behind in spell levels known for a caster from taking a level in rogue is a more appropriate cost for gaining extra proficiency in an extra skills.

At high levels, feats are actually a pretty small thing to give up on.

[krugaan]

The problem is that different levels on different classes are worth different amounts.

At high levels, feats are actually a pretty small thing to give up on.

Pretty much this, I think. There are a couple of feats which are worth it for any particular build, and you usually will have them by level 12 (8 if vuman).

Also, while it would be nice if there were a ton more feats, I think the devs are a leery of adding more new mechanics to the game, for balancing purposes.

That's why it seems like a majority of the feats are either watered down class powers, arguably "broken" feats (GWM, PAM, Lucky) or incredibly niche (Mounted combatant, charger).

Besides, I was thinking of the fighters, with their billions of ASIs.

[Kryx]

i think it would be great for a fighter to just be able to be happy with their already good combat capabilities and invest in doing interesting things out of combat via feats instead of just grabbing polearm master and great weapon master (or sharpshooter and crossbow expert, or shield expert) to boost their combat effectiveness.
Why would they? The game proclaims 3 pillars, but many games are easily 50% combat. Some as high as 75%

If the game wants pillars then it should have alternate advancement options to encourage those pillars. GMs can do their part, but they shouldn't force a poor design imo.

The system I propose splits combat and the other 2 "pillars" in order to allow both to be progressed.

[Shining Wrath]

I home brewed this as a straight "gain expertise in one skill or tool" = 1 feat. To me that's a logical extension of the "Skilled" feat.

[RickAllison]

I home brewed this as a straight "gain expertise in one skill or tool" = 1 feat. To me that's a logical extension of the "Skilled" feat.

Interestingly, the feat like that does become the only way to obtain Expertise in non-thieves' tools.

Maybe the Gourmand and the other feat from the new UA could be an example. Rather than giving a single effect that has to be applicable across all skills and tools, we can divide it up so each one has a unique trait that is only unlocked by the feat.

[mephnick]

Why would they? The game proclaims 3 pillars, but many games are easily 50% combat. Some as high as 75%

If the game wants pillars then it should have alternate advancement options to encourage those pillars.

Exactly. Adam Koebel (co-designer of Dungeon World) had a great discussion about this in one of his videos I've seen. It was a discussion about how systems show you what kind of game they want you to run via the mechanics. D&D wants you to fight. It always has and 5e is no different. The game is designed around combat with a couple throwaways towards the other "pillars". If you're running a D&D 5e game that isn't combat heavy, you would be much more satisfied with a different system. People that try and force it into something it's not are deluding themselves. That's not to say you can't run a mystery noir in 5e, but it will be frustrating and clunky. You should just use a system that wants you to run a mystery.

TL:DR 5e is made for dungeon crawls set around a combat driven adventure day. Therefore, feats that influence combat will always be better, both mechanically and thematically, unless you warp the system via house rules (which we've all done to various degrees).

[Cybren]

I always liked advantage for expertise rather than double proficiency.

I don't. Game mechanics should hand out advantage rarely, because multiple instances of advantages don't stack, and therefore it makes the prime intended use of advantage- to handle situational bonuses from in-gameplay actions

[Easy_Lee]

I don't. Game mechanics should hand out advantage rarely, because multiple instances of advantages don't stack, and therefore it makes the prime intended use of advantage- to handle situational bonuses from in-gameplay actions

There are house rules for that.

[Zalabim]

Why would they? The game proclaims 3 pillars, but many games are easily 50% combat. Some as high as 75%

If the game wants pillars then it should have alternate advancement options to encourage those pillars. GMs can do their part, but they shouldn't force a poor design imo.

The system I propose splits combat and the other 2 "pillars" in order to allow both to be progressed.

If there's three pillars, why not split it into three? Or if we're starting from what we have in the rules already, merge it into one, so each of the three pillars is more applicable in the others. This is things like morale and persuasion in combat, navigating obstacles and hazards on the battlefield, using weapons and spells to clear new paths, and considering the capability for violence in not-openly-violent conflict resolution.


There are house rules for that.

House rules to make my house rules work.

[Kryx]

If there's three pillars, why not split it into three?
Because the 3 pillars aren't even in most games. D&D, as pointed out above, is a combat game. The other pillars are important, but not equal to combat.
You could try to simulate equality though.


House rules to make my house rules work.
Advantage should be Houseruled to stack anyways. It makes fluff sense and is so rare. If I'm poisoned, attacking at a range outside of my normal range, and attacking a proned enemy there are no additional penalties. That's rather silly imo. (There are better examples, but I forget them currently)

[Easy_Lee]

Advantage should be Houseruled to stack anyways. It makes fluff sense and is so rare. If I'm poisoned, attacking at a range outside of my normal range, and attacking a proned enemy there are no additional penalties. That's rather silly imo. (There are better examples, but I forget them currently)

Here's a silly one: two archers are having a fight. Archer A casts darkness on himself and has devil's sight, granting advantage for his attacks, disadvantage for his opponent's. Archer B, being a clever fellow, falls prone. His attacks already had disadvantage, but now his foe's also have disadvantage, canceling A's advantage. B now fires with double disadvantage, which is just regular disadvantage, and A fires normally.

Another one: a group of adventurers find themselves in a situation where their attacks have disadvantage and their foes have advantage. So, they cast darkness, the great equalizer, upon themselves. Now, everyone's attacks have disadvantage since they can't see who they're hitting, and everyone has advantage to hit each other since the foe can't see the attack coming, as per the Unseen Attackers rules in the PHB. And of course, none of the sources of advantage or disadvantage stack. Now they can have a proper rumble in the dark.

[krugaan]

Hah, I don't think the developers really were tailoring the system for your level of analysis, there, Kryx. The (dis)advantage system is meant to be simple and meant to keep the game moving at a brisk pace, without falling into a game of statistics and "bonus stacking."

5E expects the DM to provide a lot of the other pillars, I think.

[Cybren]

Hah, I don't think the developers really were tailoring the system for your level of analysis, there, Kryx. The (dis)advantage system is meant to be simple and meant to keep the game moving at a brisk pace, without falling into a game of statistics and "bonus stacking."

5E expects the DM to provide a lot of the other pillars, I think.
Right, once you let advantage stack, you defeat the impetus for advantage over static situational modifiers.

[ZenBear]

Expertise should be available through a Feat. It's frustrating to have a high STR Fighter or Barbarian that is either flatly worse at grappling than a Rogue or Bard, or have to dip Rogue for it and delay all my F/B class features by one level, completely miss out on the capstone feature and have Sneak Attack languishing uselessly on my character sheet. The game should be more modular.

[djreynolds]

And maybe we should all get the wish spell... just joking.

I don't want a perfect system, because then it is predictable. Are there pitfalls in the games, yes? Is expertise on of them, I'm not sure. Expertise is a 1 level dip of rogue and comes with a skill, or 3 levels of bard.

Athletics is very powerful, and I suppose arcana for counterspell/dispel could also be very powerful. So getting expertise in these is a big deal. A 13 in dexterity sounds cheap, but assuming at least a 10 in dexterity, 3 points in dexterity could go somewhere else.

I have two thoughts on this...

1) how difficult would it be to simply switch out the 3.5/pathfinder skill system and manage it for both DM and player.

2) any changes I think about with skills and expertise and proficiency ect.. devalues jack of all trades, and even worse remarkable athlete.

[RickAllison]

And maybe we should all get the wish spell... just joking.

I don't want a perfect system, because then it is predictable. Are there pitfalls in the games, yes? Is expertise on of them, I'm not sure. Expertise is a 1 level dip of rogue and comes with a skill, or 3 levels of bard.

Athletics is very powerful, and I suppose arcana for counterspell/dispel could also be very powerful. So getting expertise in these is a big deal. A 13 in dexterity sounds cheap, but assuming at least a 10 in dexterity, 3 points in dexterity could go somewhere else.

I have two thoughts on this...

1) how difficult would it be to simply switch out the 3.5/pathfinder skill system and manage it for both DM and player.

2) any changes I think about with skills and expertise and proficiency ect.. devalues jack of all trades, and even worse remarkable athlete.

Arcana has nothing to do with Counterspell/Dispel Magic. Those are ability checks so they are just the spellcasting stat. Abjurers get proficiency, Bards get half, and Enhance Ability can give you advantage.