Expertise fix?

[Sans.]

As has been mentioned frequently, 5e's skill system is not its strong point. A Rogue who's never seen a vine can be far better at the Nature skill than a Druid who lives in the jungle. To fix this, what if we gave classes Expertise on their main area of... well, expertise? Eg. Barbarian to Athletics, Cleric to Religion, Druid to Nature, etc., etc., ... Wizard to Arcana? Bardic and Roguish Expertise would be unaffected, to let them keep their skill monkey status and just let the other classes catch up a bit. All that's left is giving them the Expertise at a level which wouldn't encourage Rogues dipping in solely for the Expertise, such as 8.

What do you guys think?

[Honest Tiefling]

I like the UA skill feats, honestly. If you REALLY want to be good at a skill, you get Expertise AND a nifty little bonus.

Through if your rogue has expertise in Nature and has never seen a vine I think you need to take the booze away from your players.

[Rysto]

I'd modify this slightly to require the PC to forfeit a skill proficiency in order to gain expertise. Not every wizard should be an expert in Arcana, after all. Let the players decide whether they want a PC with a broader array of skills or a narrower focus.

Also, I'm a bit wary of the prospect of giving out expertise so easily in Athletics given that it has real combat utility. I agree that Rogues and Bards shouldn't be better grapplers than Fighters and Barbarians, I'm just worried that expertise in Athletics would become a must-have for classes that can get it, and I'm not sure what they should have to give up to make the choice an interesting one again.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I think Expertise wouldn't be so over-the-top if it was just a +2 or +3 bonus and that was it. Doubling your proficiency is just too much.

[Slipperychicken]

Through if your rogue has expertise in Nature and has never seen a vine I think you need to take the booze away from your players.
Even the typical rogue should be well-acquainted with vines. After all, how else would he have scaled the side of the girl's dormitory as a kid, or climbed up to a noble's window to nick his jewels. It's important to think about your backstory when it comes to these things!


But this does make me think about how often character abilities go unexplained, especially powerful ones like expertise for combat feats. Perhaps we need some explicit way to nudge players to make lore explanations for how their characters are good at things, like mini-backgrounds for powers and skills.

[MaxWilson]

As has been mentioned frequently, 5e's skill system is not its strong point. A Rogue who's never seen a vine can be far better at the Nature skill than a Druid who lives in the jungle. To fix this, what if we gave classes Expertise on their main area of... well, expertise? Eg. Barbarian to Athletics, Cleric to Religion, Druid to Nature, etc., etc., ... Wizard to Arcana? Bardic and Roguish Expertise would be unaffected, to let them keep their skill monkey status and just let the other classes catch up a bit. All that's left is giving them the Expertise at a level which wouldn't encourage Rogues dipping in solely for the Expertise, such as 8.

What do you guys think?

I assume you're talking about a Rogue with Expertise in Nature. Why would you assume that someone with Expertise in Nature has never seen a vine? I'd think that indicates that they have studied vines, trees, animals, etc. extensively.

(Also, the Druid likely has a higher wisdom--my experience with Expertise is that it often merely offsets penalties for lower attributes than specialized characters, so they come out roughly the same unless you're playing at 13th+ level.)

I have much dissatisfaction with the 5E skill system, but mostly because it's too simplistic and ill-defined. Expertise doesn't contribute to any of the problems that concern me.

[mephnick]

First, I personally have absolutely no problem with the Expertise mechanic. A rogue with expertise Nature has definitely seen a vine before and has likely studied nature intently. Not every Druid is a master of nature, the guy could just be a tribal shaman who doesn't actually understand how the natural world works.

That being said, I think people would be a lot happier if they had limited it to a certain set of choices instead of letting you take anything, like the Purple Dragon Knight and Persuasion.

If I were to "fix it" I'd allow rogues to take any STR, DEX or WIS skill and Bards any INT, CHA or WIS skill. The rogues stick to scouting, fighting and awareness stuff and the bards stick to academic, personality and awareness stuff. That way you avoid the somewhat weird situations of a rogue with Arcana expertise with a ham-fisted explanation.

[Slipperychicken]

If I were to "fix it" I'd allow rogues to take any STR, DEX or WIS skill and Bards any INT, CHA or WIS skill. The rogues stick to scouting, fighting and awareness stuff and the bards stick to academic, personality and awareness stuff. That way you avoid the somewhat weird situations of a rogue with Arcana expertise with a ham-fisted explanation.

There go my dreams of making an archaeologist whip-rogue.

[Honest Tiefling]

If I were to "fix it" I'd allow rogues to take any STR, DEX or WIS skill and Bards any INT, CHA or WIS skill. The rogues stick to scouting, fighting and awareness stuff and the bards stick to academic, personality and awareness stuff. That way you avoid the somewhat weird situations of a rogue with Arcana expertise with a ham-fisted explanation.

Arcane Trickster. Why would that be a ham fisted explanation? They cast magic!

[Sir cryosin]

I'd modify this slightly to require the PC to forfeit a skill proficiency in order to gain expertise. Not every wizard should be an expert in Arcana, after all. Let the players decide whether they want a PC with a broader array of skills or a narrower focus.

Also, I'm a bit wary of the prospect of giving out expertise so easily in Athletics given that it has real combat utility. I agree that Rogues and Bards shouldn't be better grapplers than Fighters and Barbarians, I'm just worried that expertise in Athletics would become a must-have for classes that can get it, and I'm not sure what they should have to give up to make the choice an interesting one again.

Why can't a bard or rogue be better in grappling then a fighter or barbarian. I can totally see a bard or rogue putting a heavy armor fighter in a arm bar or any other grappling locks. Also just because a druid lives in a forest doesnt mean they know about creatures living in the desert or a thundra ect... Also cleric's would devote them self's to there god. They wouldn't spen much time studying and prasing a different god.

They problem is not expertise it's people explaing how there character knows alot about what skill they have expertise in.

[mephnick]

There go my dreams of making an archaeologist whip-rogue.

You can still take History as a proficient skill and pump INT if you so desire. Why should you being an archaeologist be completely dependent on the Rogue class?


Arcane Trickster. Why would that be a ham fisted explanation? They cast magic!

Give certain subclasses access to bonus choices.

[Findulidas]

Not every wizard should be an expert in Arcana, after all.

Oh I disagree. Wizards get the magic they have from studying and practicing arcane magic a lot. Thats why they are the only ones with int based magic and why they use a book. Unlike sorcerors or locks who have some sort of innate magic. Wizards spend a lot of time thinking and searching for more knowledge about the arcane. They really stress this in the PHB about wizards.

You could probably say the same about druids and nature, although not as strongly since you can be a more religion druid who gets his magic from a diety instead. Clerics dont need to be proficient on religion though, all they need to know is how to communicate with thier own god and how to get that magic that way. Not really other gods.

Wizards really should be really proficient in arcana though. Hence why it annoys that other classes that get expertise quickly get higher arcana, despite having lower intelligence and not spending huge amounts of time on studying it.

[rollingForInit]

They problem is not expertise it's people explaing how there character knows alot about what skill they have expertise in.

The issue is mostly that RAW, there's no way for a Wizard to be more knowledgeable about magic than a rogue, for instance. You could take a 20th level Wizard with 20 Intelligence, who's played as a scholar and who has studied magic thoroughly for their entire life, and the wizard will still "only" have +11 on the rolls. Meanwhile, a rogue with 10 Intelligence and Expertise in Arcana will have +12. A smart rogue could get +17. And they'll outclass the Wizard, who is 100% devoted to studying magic. Literally, that's the entire point of the class.

I don't think anyone minds that a rogue could be a super expert at arcana, or nature, or religion, or anything. It's mostly that wizards, druids, rangers and clerics (except Knowledge) can't be that good at it. No matter how hard they try.

[Steampunkette]

"Fix" skills?

Have the person who is skilled roll 2d10 or 3d6 to get their result. Everyone else rolls a d20 like normal.

It gives them an average roll in the middle-range rather than a flat chance, increasing the odds they'll do the thing or know the thing. Meanwhile there's still the off-chance that someone else might know something more.

Though, honestly, having only the skilled players make the check makes more sense.

[mephnick]

Anyway, giving every class expertise in their "class skill" actually hurts character building more than helps it. Why should every Fighter be an expert in Athletics? The skill (per the PhB) is about climbing, swimming and jumping. Are all Fighters expert swimmers? I just wanted to make a pit fighter, born and raised in the arena, but now I have to explain why I have expertise in climbing and swimming.



They problem is not expertise it's people explaing how there character knows alot about what skill they have expertise in.

Pretty much. A bard who studies for years about nature to shape his writings, or a rogue who's a military scout utilizing the forest every day to stay alive could easily be experts in the Nature field. Yes, above a Druid who could just be some weird dude that lives in a cottage and talks to animals. Players get caught up in "Oh...Arcana checks come up a lot, I'll take that." and then don't justify the choice in character in anyway.

[Lombra]

A rogue with 10 int that doesn't want to level it up gets: +4, +6, +8, +10, +12 to any expertised knowledge skill. Notice that he is better than the proficient wizard only from 17th level, at these levels, if the wizard actually cared about his knowledge expertise, he probably would have reached magic items / multiclass to either increase his intelligence or gain some sort of advantage to knowledge related skills. An expertise means that you trained hard for it, and probably, you lived and experienced it way more pragmatically than a very intelligent book-reader.

The knowledge cleric gets his knowledge bestowed upon him by a god, so it makes sense that he can outmatch a mere mortal.

[Honest Tiefling]

I wonder if the backgrounds make people think more about the character for most groups, or if they just string together features to get what they want. That way, people could choose 2 skills or 1 skill and an expertise relevant to their backstory.

[RSP]

The issue is mostly that RAW, there's no way for a Wizard to be more knowledgeable about magic than a rogue, for instance. You could take a 20th level Wizard with 20 Intelligence, who's played as a scholar and who has studied magic thoroughly for their entire life, and the wizard will still "only" have +11 on the rolls. Meanwhile, a rogue with 10 Intelligence and Expertise in Arcana will have +12. A smart rogue could get +17. And they'll outclass the Wizard, who is 100% devoted to studying magic. Literally, that's the entire point of the class.

I don't think anyone minds that a rogue could be a super expert at arcana, or nature, or religion, or anything. It's mostly that wizards, druids, rangers and clerics (except Knowledge) can't be that good at it. No matter how hard they try.



If I were to "fix it" I'd allow rogues to take any STR, DEX or WIS skill and Bards any INT, CHA or WIS skill. The rogues stick to scouting, fighting and awareness stuff and the bards stick to academic, personality and awareness stuff. That way you avoid the somewhat weird situations of a rogue with Arcana expertise with a ham-fisted explanation.

To me, "fixes" that just reinforce stereotypes aren't what's needed. Just giving Rogues a limited choice of skills reduces variety in builds and role playing, likewise with the Bard.

I think the entire point of RPGs is the role playing, which includes making interesting, non-boilerplate characters. The Rogue who spent all their days actually studying Arcana rather than studying/practicing spells, should be better at Arcana than their Wizard counterpart.

A Bard who is a master of grapples should be better than a less trained Barbarian. Think of a UFC grappler verses a boxer. Just because the boxer is big and strong, doesn't mean they're better at grappling.

[VanCucci]

If I were to "fix it" I'd allow rogues to take any STR, DEX or WIS skill and Bards any INT, CHA or WIS skill. The rogues stick to scouting, fighting and awareness stuff and the bards stick to academic, personality and awareness stuff. That way you avoid the somewhat weird situations of a rogue with Arcana expertise with a ham-fisted explanation.

So that Rogues can't take expertise in Investigation, Persuasion and DECEPTION?
I think it would be much easier, for who thinks it's a problem, to limit Expertise to the Skills given by the class.

Still i don't see the issue: a rogue with high Athletics, won't use the skill with the same benefits as a Fighter, which has more attacks. A rogue that knows a lot about magic, even an AT, won't surpass the mechanical benefits of full spellcasting (also, you can even have a Wizard with no Arcana proficency, he can still do his job, maybe not counterspelling so well), it's like an electrician and a nuclear physicist: one has incredibile knowledge, but has limited pratical application for what he knows. It's understandable that fluff wise may be off, but come on, see it as something like that, from years of study, instead of getting double proficency on Arcana checks, a wizard knows how to bend reality on his will.

[Honest Tiefling]

A rogue that knows a lot about magic, even an AT, won't surpass the mechanical benefits of full spellcasting (also, you can even have a Wizard with no Arcana proficency, he can still do his job, maybe not counterspelling so well), it's like an electrician and a nuclear physicist: one has incredibile knowledge, but has limited pratical application for what he knows. It's understandable that fluff wise may be off, but come on, see it as something like that, from years of study, instead of getting double proficency on Arcana checks, a wizard knows how to bend reality on his will.

I think the problem isn't that rogues aren't great at wizards and other classes in their traditional area of expertise, but that the rogue and bard with expertise will surpass the guy who has spent their entire life studying magic. Your argument is baffling to me as well because the one who knows the theory is NOT the class who has spent all of that time learning theory. The class without the knowledge of magic is the one who literally uses knowledge of magic to do anything. The class that is a scholar can't be a scholar.

If a bard or rogue wants to be as good as a wizard, I think that's fine as long as the group can coordinate. The bard or rogue being better is the issue.

[Cybren]

As has been mentioned frequently, 5e's skill system is not its strong point. A Rogue who's never seen a vine can be far better at the Nature skill than a Druid who lives in the jungle. To fix this, what if we gave classes Expertise on their main area of... well, expertise? Eg. Barbarian to Athletics, Cleric to Religion, Druid to Nature, etc., etc., ... Wizard to Arcana? Bardic and Roguish Expertise would be unaffected, to let them keep their skill monkey status and just let the other classes catch up a bit. All that's left is giving them the Expertise at a level which wouldn't encourage Rogues dipping in solely for the Expertise, such as 8.

What do you guys think?

Why would a rogue who has never seen or studied a vine be allowed to take proficiency in nature, let alone expertise?

Why not just use the UA for skill feats?


The issue is mostly that RAW, there's no way for a Wizard to be more knowledgeable about magic than a rogue, for instance. You could take a 20th level Wizard with 20 Intelligence, who's played as a scholar and who has studied magic thoroughly for their entire life, and the wizard will still "only" have +11 on the rolls. Meanwhile, a rogue with 10 Intelligence and Expertise in Arcana will have +12. A smart rogue could get +17. And they'll outclass the Wizard, who is 100% devoted to studying magic. Literally, that's the entire point of the class.

I don't think anyone minds that a rogue could be a super expert at arcana, or nature, or religion, or anything. It's mostly that wizards, druids, rangers and clerics (except Knowledge) can't be that good at it. No matter how hard they try.

Sure there is. A rogue without proficiency is less knowledgeable about magic that a wizard with proficiency

[mephnick]

So that Rogues can't take expertise in Investigation, Persuasion and DECEPTION?
I think it would be much easier, for who thinks it's a problem, to limit Expertise to the Skills given by the class.

Ok, yeah. I forgot about those. Limiting it to class skill choice is a better fix.

The problem with limiting expertise to class skills or certain abilities is that every rogue and bard will look exactly the same.

[Sir cryosin]

The issue is mostly that RAW, there's no way for a Wizard to be more knowledgeable about magic than a rogue, for instance. You could take a 20th level Wizard with 20 Intelligence, who's played as a scholar and who has studied magic thoroughly for their entire life, and the wizard will still "only" have +11 on the rolls. Meanwhile, a rogue with 10 Intelligence and Expertise in Arcana will have +12. A smart rogue could get +17. And they'll outclass the Wizard, who is 100% devoted to studying magic. Literally, that's the entire point of the class.

I don't think anyone minds that a rogue could be a super expert at arcana, or nature, or religion, or anything. It's mostly that wizards, druids, rangers and clerics (except Knowledge) can't be that good at it. No matter how hard they try.

Wizards study's HOW magic WORKS. Then they specialized in a school of magic AKA picking a school Magic. It like saying I'm a scientist so I should know everything about biology, physics, ect... If you really want skill to matter it on the DM a rogue may roll a 15+12= 27 were the wizard rolled 15+10=25. The DC for the check was 20. They rogue may know from his studies of magical traps that the rune on the was is a rune used in adjuration magic and it a magical trap with some kind of Tigger when something get in it range. But the Wizard​ knows that it's a grift awarding from the adjuration School of magic. I would also give the wizard that they see on the circle the Griff that it tells them what the trigger might be.

Expertise and skills is really not a problem it's how a DM handles giving information based off of the roll for a skill. But people meta game too much and let there player knowledge and the character know blend to much.

[Sir cryosin]

I wonder if the backgrounds make people think more about the character for most groups, or if they just string together features to get what they want. That way, people could choose 2 skills or 1 skill and an expertise relevant to their backstory.

In the game I just started I told my players to come up with a back story. And not to pick a background. I told them to pick two skills and either a tool or language proficiency. Which is a standard for the backgrounds.

[VanCucci]

Ok, yeah. I forgot about those. Limiting it to class skill choice is a better fix.

The problem with limiting expertise to class skills or certain abilities is that every rogue and bard will look exactly the same.

Well, Bards can get any Skill, so they wouldn't, maybe Rogues could get samey, but not so much, you can have the Charmer (expertise in social skills and insight), the Scout (Perception, Stealth and Investigation), the Cat Burglar(Athletics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Perception) ect...

Actually, making these themes up, i think Rogues would still have enough variety with their Expertise choices.

[Sir cryosin]

Well, Bards can get any Skill, so they wouldn't, maybe Rogues could get samey, but not so much, you can have the Charmer (expertise in social skills and insight), the Scout (Perception, Stealth and Investigation), the Cat Burglar(Athletics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Perception) ect...

Actually, making these themes up, i think Rogues would still have enough variety with their Expertise choices.

Why wouldn't​ the thief rogue not study up on magical effects. To break into magic locks, figure out magical traps, magical hazards, lore on magical items and what these magical items do. It even ties in with the thief archetype because they get magical devices or they can use any magical item regardless for if it has requirements. That in itself would indicate that the Rogue is somewhat knowledgeable on magical things.

[VanCucci]

Why wouldn't​ the thief rogue not study up on magical effects. To break into magic locks, figure out magical traps, magical hazards, lore on magical items and what these magical items do. It even ties in with the thief archetype because they get magical devices or they can use any magical item regardless for if it has requirements. That in itself would indicate that the Rogue is somewhat knowledgeable on magical things.
The limit would be in what you can be Expert with this """fix""", not what you can be proficent in.
What you said is the same reason i don't undertand why Rogues should all be street urchins that never picked up a book, instead of the some kind of Indiana Jones, or some sort of criminal archivist (???). Gotta be hooded guy, that steal and wields double daggers :smalltongue:

[Honest Tiefling]

Why wouldn't​ the thief rogue not study up on magical effects. To break into magic locks, figure out magical traps, magical hazards, lore on magical items and what these magical items do.

Did rogues make all of those magical items? I would find it quite silly if WIZARDS THE MAGICAL NERD CLASS could make magical locks, traps, hazards, items, and make new spells but trying to figure out how to work any of those? Better get someone who HASN'T solely studied that, what would the robe wearing guy who came here from a magical academy know about magic? Move over Elminster, you're in the way of Artemis the assassin figuring out what this magical item does.

[Findulidas]

Did rogues make all of those magical items? I would find it quite silly if WIZARDS THE MAGICAL NERD CLASS could make magical locks, traps, hazards, items, and make new spells but trying to figure out how to work any of those? Better get someone who HASN'T solely studied that, what would the robe wearing guy who came here from a magical academy know about magic? Move over Elminster, you're in the way of Artemis the assassin figuring out what this magical item does.

This is sort of my point. Its specifically stressed in the PHB that wizards are really focused on arcane magic. Studying it, searching for knowledge about it really its THE main priority for them. Thats why they cast the spells. Thats how they can read other spells and add them to the book. For any other class to have higher is just bad.

I can give knowledge clerics the doubt of having the same expertise and perhaps a lore bard that really lives for studying magic as well. They really shouldnt have higher though.

[Slipperychicken]

Why wouldn't​ the thief rogue not study up on magical effects. To break into magic locks, figure out magical traps, magical hazards, lore on magical items and what these magical items do. It even ties in with the thief archetype because they get magical devices or they can use any magical item regardless for if it has requirements. That in itself would indicate that the Rogue is somewhat knowledgeable on magical things.

Here's one you might not have thought of: Magic items tend to be extremely valuable for their weight, and untraceable like priceless works of art. It makes perfect sense for an expert burglar to know a thing or two about them, if only to enrich himself while keeping safe from potential hazards.

[Sir cryosin]

This is sort of my point. Its specifically stressed in the PHB that wizards are really focused on arcane magic. Studying it, searching for knowledge about it really its THE main priority for them. Thats why they cast the spells. Thats how they can read other spells and add them to the book. For any other class to have higher is just bad.

I can give knowledge clerics the doubt of having the same expertise and perhaps a lore bard that really lives for studying magic as well. They really shouldnt have higher though.

Ok sure rogue can't take expertise in Arcane. So a wizard can't take proficiency in theif tools. Nobody can take performance because that's what bards do.

Barbarian are shirtless rage monsters
Bards are charming rock stars
Clerics are healers
Druids are hippy nature shape change magical dudes
Fighter is a meat head chaaarrgggeee
Paladin stop being evil or I shall smite ye.
Monk pow bang whaaaaaa
Ranger swish swish I think it went that way
Rogue can you shut up I'm trying to pick this lock
Sorcerer pew pew pew pew
Warlock letsake a deal muhahahahaha
Wizard I read in a book once that ..................
My point is there is so many different types of people out there. Just because your a wizard doesn't me you paid attention in magcal history class.

I read about a lot of history watch documentaries. But I'm not a historian or a history teacher. Skills should reflect who you are. Just because I work as a assassin dosent mean I don't injoy reading magical tomes and learning about magic even if I can't cast spells. Knowledge is power my friend.

[Honest Tiefling]

Ok sure rogue can't take expertise in Arcane. So a wizard can't take proficiency in theif tools. Nobody can take performance because that's what bards do.


Again, the issue for many is not that the assassin who studies magic isn't on par with the wizard, the issue is when you use Tasslehoff the Kender Thief to determine anything about magic instead of Raistlin, the master wizard for anything magically related because the wizard can't compete with the thief at higher levels. When the thief is heads above the wizard (and I use wizard as the example because it has consistently been the magical nerd class since 1st and kinda has only one niche), THAT'S the problem.

That's like having the skinny bard able to rip off their shirt and do athletics better then the hulking barbarian. Both should be GOOD at it, but when the barbarian can't do their thing well, that's a bit of an issue.

[Findulidas]

Here's one you might not have thought of: Magic items tend to be extremely valuable for their weight, and untraceable like priceless works of art. It makes perfect sense for an expert burglar to know a thing or two about them, if only to enrich himself while keeping safe from potential hazards.

Yes. But for a wizard its literally all he does. Not just for the value of items. The wizard literally should be a scholar in arcane according to PHB. That takes much more motivation and time than just a mere interest. The lore bard and knowledge cleric seem to be the closest non wizard in scholar level and they for some reason do get expertise while wizards dont. Those classes arent fueled by arcane knowledge either.

[Sir cryosin]

Again, the issue for many is not that the assassin who studies magic isn't on par with the wizard, the issue is when you use Tasslehoff the Kender Thief to determine anything about magic instead of Raistlin, the master wizard for anything magically related because the wizard can't compete with the thief at higher levels. When the thief is heads above the wizard (and I use wizard as the example because it has consistently been the magical nerd class since 1st and kinda has only one niche), THAT'S the problem.

That's like having the skinny bard able to rip off their shirt and do athletics better then the hulking barbarian. Both should be GOOD at it, but when the barbarian can't do their thing well, that's a bit of an issue.

Your forgetting what expertise stands for. Expertise means you are above Average people in that skill because you've dedicated time to learning things that associate with that skill. That skinny bard that ripped off his shirt might be out classed in str but that bard studied judo and LEARNED how to use the barbarians momentum to knock him off balance then pinning him to the floor with a arm lock.

[Honest Tiefling]

Your forgetting what expertise stands for. Expertise means you are above Average people in that skill because you've dedicated time to learning things that associate with that skill. That skinny bard that ripped off his shirt might be out classed in str but that bard studied judo and LEARNED how to use the barbarians momentum to knock him off balance then pinning him to the floor with a arm lock.

Player character barbarians and wizards are so much above the average person that this argument doesn't make sense. The average person isn't running around with 16 INT or STR as well as a good array of above average stats. The average person hasn't devoted their life to arcane study or fighting. This argument is saying that the rogue and bard are the only two non-average people in the party which is ridiculous.

[Sir cryosin]

Expertise reflects that you have spent time to study something that is why the two skill monkeys of the book have expertise. Expertise is about dedicating yourself to the knowledge of a certain skill that's why you can only have expertise in a skill that you have already proficient in.

[rigolgm]

(Also, the Druid likely has a higher wisdom--my experience with Expertise is that it often merely offsets penalties for lower attributes than specialized characters, so they come out roughly the same unless you're playing at 13th+ level.)

I have much dissatisfaction with the 5E skill system, but mostly because it's too simplistic and ill-defined. Expertise doesn't contribute to any of the problems that concern me.

Nature is INT not WIS, so Druids tend to be either cr*p at Nature or usually just alright at it, as they probably took Proficiency in it.

Druids are usually very good at Survival, but Druids being quite mild at Nature is still a good example of the problem with D&D skills.

I avoid most Unearthed Arcana stuff, but the Feats that allow expertise (i.e. double proficiency) seem thematically solid and not too unbalanced (except maybe double-Athletics on dedicated grapplers etc).

[Sir cryosin]

Player character barbarians and wizards are so much above the average person that this argument doesn't make sense. The average person isn't running around with 16 INT or STR as well as a good array of above average stats. The average person hasn't devoted their life to arcane study or fighting. This argument is saying that the rogue and bard are the only two non-average people in the party which is ridiculous.

I'm not talking about the average NPC I'm talking about the average PC.

[JackPhoenix]

Again, the issue for many is not that the assassin who studies magic isn't on par with the wizard, the issue is when you use Tasslehoff the Kender Thief to determine anything about magic instead of Raistlin, the master wizard for anything magically related because the wizard can't compete with the thief at higher levels. When the thief is heads above the wizard (and I use wizard as the example because it has consistently been the magical nerd class since 1st and kinda has only one niche), THAT'S the problem.

That's like having the skinny bard able to rip off their shirt and do athletics better then the hulking barbarian. Both should be GOOD at it, but when the barbarian can't do their thing well, that's a bit of an issue.

See, there's your problem. You sound like ANY random thief was a better at arcane theory than ANY random wizard... that's not true, the rogue would have to pick up Arcana in the first place, actually studying it... it's not a class skill for rogue, so that means background focused on that knowledge. Average rogue isn't proficient in Arcana and definitely doesn't take expertise in it, average wizard is and has better intelligence... yeah, and he can do that one magically related thing rogue can't match no matter how hard he studies that theory and lore: cast actuall spells. Sure, there are arcane tricksters, but level 7 wizard is much better spellcaster than level 20 AT rogue. Yes, there are exceptions on both sides: scholarly rogues who focus on magical theory and wizards who don't give a damn about the same (my current battlemage, for example: fighter 1/abjurer, she doesn't care how her spells work or tries to invent better Fireball, but she knows that if she mumbles certain words, waves her wand just right and points it at someone, that someone's day will suddenly get a lot worse.

[Honest Tiefling]

See, there's your problem. You sound like ANY random thief was a better at arcane theory than ANY random wizard...

Because they can be, easily. Half-Elf and Variant Human grant skills, along with the Backgrounds. The customization options aren't presented as optional rules, and I have never heard of a table not using them. So getting Arcana in the first place is pretty easy, especially since Half-Elves are really good as bards and V-Humans are good at anything.

Arcana and Athletics are flavor skills, both have actual use in the game and tend to be used heavily. Others have presented WHY a thief would invest in Arcana and they do make sense such as trying to determine what loot is valuable to grab. Saying that a rogue can't have Arcana is unfair to the rogue, but I'm still having an issue with rogues and bards hands down being the best at whatever skill and other classes not being able to match their numbers AT ALL.

The fact that wizards are better spellcasters means that the fluff isn't matching mechanics, because the rogue is just plain better despite a lack of spellcasting. Why would they know the theory of what the wizard literally does better?

[MrStabby]

None of these things are problems unless you forbid multiclassing. Allowing players who want a deeper understanding of the theory of something to dip rogue for expertise seems a perfectly reasonable trade-off to getting the feature they want. Likewise if they don't care about the best theoretical understanding and are happy to have a more practical or superficial approach they continue uninterupted in their base class. The problem isn't expertise, the problem is players playing classes rather than characters.

Expertise is one of the (almost) unique defining points of the rogue/bard. I would never seek to diminish the class by taking away the specialness of their skill. I wouldn't give classes other than the wizard spellbooks and access to their range of spells, I wouldnt give classes other than the fighter/hunter 3rd attacks on an attack action, I wouldn't give metamagic to anyone other than the sorcerer. Classes have things that make them special and unique. For the skillmonkey classes it is expertise. Diminishing that seriously cuts into what the class is good at. I see the losses outweighing any gains that might be made.

[JNAProductions]

I think it'd be fine to let the non-Expertise granting classes trade one skill proficiency for Expertise in their main area. That ALLOWS players to specialize, but doesn't require it.

So you have Wizards who are way into magical theory, and know way more spells than are in their book (even if they can't cast them all) but you also have utilitarian Wizards, who learn how it works and don't bother diving into theory.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think it'd be fine to let the non-Expertise granting classes trade one skill proficiency for Expertise in their main area. That ALLOWS players to specialize, but doesn't require it.

Hrm, this works well. Maybe tie to the background, so you aren't just giving up a class skill, but ANY skill. Druids/Wizards/Barbarians don't always have the best class list after all, depending on the campaign.

[JNAProductions]

Hrm, this works well. Maybe tie to the background, so you aren't just giving up a class skill, but ANY skill. Druids/Wizards/Barbarians don't always have the best class list after all, depending on the campaign.

Yeah, that'd be good. And I'd be open for persuasions on what counts as a main skill.

Wizards could probably nab any knowledge skill, Druids could get Nature or Survival, etc. etc.

[JackPhoenix]

Because they can be, easily. Half-Elf and Variant Human grant skills, along with the Backgrounds. The customization options aren't presented as optional rules, and I have never heard of a table not using them. So getting Arcana in the first place is pretty easy, especially since Half-Elves are really good as bards and V-Humans are good at anything.

Arcana and Athletics are flavor skills, both have actual use in the game and tend to be used heavily. Others have presented WHY a thief would invest in Arcana and they do make sense such as trying to determine what loot is valuable to grab. Saying that a rogue can't have Arcana is unfair to the rogue, but I'm still having an issue with rogues and bards hands down being the best at whatever skill and other classes not being able to match their numbers AT ALL.

The fact that wizards are better spellcasters means that the fluff isn't matching mechanics, because the rogue is just plain better despite a lack of spellcasting. Why would they know the theory of what the wizard literally does better?

At which point you're not talking about any random rogue, but about, say, Breland Jones, adventuring archaeologist, treasure seeker and a Morgrave University professor. Yes, there are ways to get proficiencies beyond class skills, but if you can't explain why your character should be an expert in a skill vastly removed from its archetype better than "I think the skill will be used heavily in this game so I took it" then no, that character is not going to run at my table. If you can come up with background, than sure, go ahead... I'm willing to work with my players, handwave RAW and change fluff to help them create the character they want, but I'm not letting random mash of abilities without any real explanaition or connection to run in my games.

The wizard can grab expertise too through various means... rogue, bard, knowledge cleric multiclass, the feat from UA, so the claim that no other character can match the rogue is patently false... the wizard who gets expertise is propably still better than the rogue, because he's got better Int. Yes, rogue can spend ASIs on Int too... but at that point, he sacrifices something (skill and expertise choices, ASIs) to be expert, just as the wizard does.

Why would the rogue know the lore better? Well, because that's what the character does... while the rogue studied the theory, the wizard paid more attention how to actually cast the spell... no amount of obscure lore will allow the rogue to do the same, it's not that the fluff isn't matching the mechanics.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As has been mentioned frequently, 5e's skill system is not its strong point. A Rogue who's never seen a vine can be far better at the Nature skill than a Druid who lives in the jungle. To fix this, what if we gave classes Expertise on their main area of... well, expertise? Eg. Barbarian to Athletics, Cleric to Religion, Druid to Nature, etc., etc., ... Wizard to Arcana? Bardic and Roguish Expertise would be unaffected, to let them keep their skill monkey status and just let the other classes catch up a bit. All that's left is giving them the Expertise at a level which wouldn't encourage Rogues dipping in solely for the Expertise, such as 8.

What do you guys think?
If you want to go this route, I think I might tie Expertise to your background, instead of your class-- that makes background choice more important, and it supports unconventional class concepts a lot better. But I don't recommend it. Expertise is just... all-around doofy. And tying it to specific, flavorful classes is even weirder. Bards are supposed to be charming jack-of-all-trades; why are they also master specialists? Rogues are universally plugged into the underworld; they literally get a class feature about it at first level, to say nothing of Sneak Attack.

Instead, I suggest granting double-Proficiency to all skills and tools-- which makes it matter more than a high ability score, and makes the scaling nice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20685794&postcount=81), and draws a nice line between "trained" and "untrained" without blowing the curve completely out of the loop-- and granting the Rogue and Bard non-numerical replacements. Rerolls 1/short rest, perhaps. Minimum die results. Unique new class features. Anything

(For what it's worth, my suggestions:

At 3rd level, the Bard can make Charisma (Insight) checks against creatures of the same type; at 10th level they don't take penalties to Charisma checks and can't accidentally offened someone, short of magic.
At 1st level, the Rogue can attempt to hide even when only lightly obscured or they can auto-succeed on Dex (Acrobatics) checks of DC 10 or less; at 6th level they can attempt to hide even when there is no cover, though they cannot move while doing so or they can auto-succeed on Dex (Acrobatics) checks of DC 15 or less.)

[MaxWilson]

Again, the issue for many is not that the assassin who studies magic isn't on par with the wizard, the issue is when you use Tasslehoff the Kender Thief to determine anything about magic instead of Raistlin, the master wizard for anything magically related because the wizard can't compete with the thief at higher levels. When the thief is heads above the wizard (and I use wizard as the example because it has consistently been the magical nerd class since 1st and kinda has only one niche), THAT'S the problem.

That's like having the skinny bard able to rip off their shirt and do athletics better then the hulking barbarian. Both should be GOOD at it, but when the barbarian can't do their thing well, that's a bit of an issue.

Why in the world would Tasslehoff the Kender Thief have Expertise in Arcana, of all things?

[MaxWilson]

Nature is INT not WIS, so Druids tend to be either ---- at Nature or usually just alright at it, as they probably took Proficiency in it.

Touche. I had forgotten.

I have seen a number of Nature-proficient wizards incidentally.

[Cybren]

Why in the world would Tasslehoff the Kender Thief have Expertise in Arcana, of all things?

I appreciate and value your contributions to this forum

[Armored Walrus]

Be Why would they know the theory of what the wizard literally does better?

For the same reasons coaches know more about a game than the actual players. You are comparing knowledge to application. Lots of people can learn about a thing, only certain people can do them. The arcana skill doesn't let you do anything, it only lets you know a thing. It's not hard to fluff that if you happen to be in a group where the rogue insists on pumping up their arcana, and the wizard does the same, resulting in the rogue, once in awhile, knowing something the wizard doesn't. "No, Magey Castsalot, you don't recognize that obscure glyph. You've focused so much time on learning how to practically apply the knowledge you do have in the form of spellcasting that you glossed over this useless piece of knowledge"

[ad_hoc]

Here's the thing, even if you are an expert in a skill you still aren't that great at it. You aren't a master or a grandmaster.

Skills are not what adventurers/classes do very well.

NPCs are the best at any given skill.

[Spacehamster]

As has been mentioned frequently, 5e's skill system is not its strong point. A Rogue who's never seen a vine can be far better at the Nature skill than a Druid who lives in the jungle. To fix this, what if we gave classes Expertise on their main area of... well, expertise? Eg. Barbarian to Athletics, Cleric to Religion, Druid to Nature, etc., etc., ... Wizard to Arcana? Bardic and Roguish Expertise would be unaffected, to let them keep their skill monkey status and just let the other classes catch up a bit. All that's left is giving them the Expertise at a level which wouldn't encourage Rogues dipping in solely for the Expertise, such as 8.

What do you guys think?

A player with expertise does not fall into the category "has never seen a vine", if the char has expertise in nature he has
obviously studied/practised that skill vigorously, and he won´t be much better at it than the Druid with nature skill w/o
expertise since the druid will most likely max WIS while the rogue most likely keeps it at 10 or 12 max. :)

Love expertise and always made sense to me, I see it as that player being the kind of person that is a "genius" in that field. :)

[Kobard]

I don't see the problem with a rogue having Expertise in Arcana. Can a rogue be better at Arcana than a wizard? I don't see why not if that's what they want to use their Expertise towards. Let's talk about some of the obvious points, a number of which have already been mentioned or floated around, by looking at the wizard and rogue with Arcana.

Wizard: The wizard will likely pick up Arcana, either as one of their class skills or background skills. If they do, then they will have a +2-6 proficiency bonus to their Arcana checks. Wizards are also incentivized to max their Intellect, so they will likely have an additional +3-5 bonus to those Arcana checks. Wizards in their career will likely have a roughly +5-11 bonus to Arcana checks, proficiency and ability modifiers included.

Rogue: A rogue is less likely to pick up Arcana. (1) It's not one of their class skills, which would require them to pick up Arcana via race or background selection. Furthermore, picking up an Arcana skill also requires that they not pick up a typical rogue skill (e.g. Sleight of Hands, Acrobatics, etc.). (2) Arcana is modified by Intellect, while Rogue design favors high Dexterity (Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics, etc.) and possibly Charisma (e.g. Intimidation, Deception, Persuasion). The rogues that would potentially favor Arcana are unsurprisingly Arcane Tricksters, but even then one can build a low-Int Arcane Trickster who does not rely on save spells. Let us work with a hypothetical Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) rogue. What would the Intellect for your typical rogue likely be with this standard array? So even if a rogue took Arcana, the rogue's modifier would likely not be as comparably high as the wizard who also had the Arcana skill. So the rogue character is presumably choosing to take the unconventional Arcana skill for the sake of a character concept. So a rogue who cares enough may have a +2-3 Intellect bonus compared to the wizard's +5. So we are talking about a wizard's +5-11 bonus versus the rogue's +4-9 bonus, assuming the rogue has (a) starting 14 Int and then (b) subsequently bumps it up to a 16.

But the Rogue can take Expertise! Okay? So what? A rogue who takes Expertise in Arcana is using one of their relatively scarce class resources (one of four expertise options) to pick the unconventional Arcana. That is Expertise that the character cannot take in another skill. If the Rogue has Expertise in a hypothetical listing of Arcana, Perception, Stealth, and Thieves' Tools, then notice all the other useful rogue skills that are not taken. If the Rogue really wants Expertise in Arcana, then why is that a problem. A wizard studies spells so that they can cast them. An Arcana rogue may have a far greater scope or specialization within their interest in Arcana: e.g., magic items, magical traps, or strange dungeon denizens. Who knows? But in choosing Arcana, they are losing out on something else valuable for their Expertise. So suddenly, this hypothetical rogue gets a +12 max flat bonus from their proficiency, and possibly +5 Int, if they really want it.

Overall, this rare hypothetical case of the Arcana Expertise rogue does not make me peeved; it makes me curious. What is the backstory for this rogue? Sure, one would potentially like for a wizard who really wants to be the know-it-all of magic to have Expertise in Arcana, but (1) those options may be on the horizon, and (2) does not require as much of a build investment as it does for the rogue.

[Findulidas]

For the same reasons coaches know more about a game than the actual players. You are comparing knowledge to application. Lots of people can learn about a thing, only certain people can do them. The arcana skill doesn't let you do anything, it only lets you know a thing. It's not hard to fluff that if you happen to be in a group where the rogue insists on pumping up their arcana, and the wizard does the same, resulting in the rogue, once in awhile, knowing something the wizard doesn't. "No, Magey Castsalot, you don't recognize that obscure glyph. You've focused so much time on learning how to practically apply the knowledge you do have in the form of spellcasting that you glossed over this useless piece of knowledge"

This is just wrong though. The PHB specifically says its based on knowledge and study. Not just innate magic like sors and locks. Wizard magic is based on knowing the theories and much about it, not just how to cast a magic missile.

And with expertise its not just every once in a while, its very often at the higher levels. Even when the wizard has maxed int.

[JackPhoenix]

This is just wrong though. The PHB specifically says its based on knowledge and study. Not just innate magic like sors and locks. Wizard magic is based on knowing the theories and much about it, not just how to cast a magic missile.

Not really. Is the know-how required to cast Magic Missile knowledge? Yes. Does the wizard need to study how to cast the spell first? Yes. Does it says he needs to study the theory instead of learning the spell by rote? Not at all.

It works that way with many subjects in real life. An IT technician doesn't need to know the physics behind CPU or the source code of OS to put new one on the motherboard or to reinstall the other, and it works both way... just because someone's read studies about how processors work and how they are made doesn't mean he knows how to plug one in, or can diagnose that faulty processor is the reason his computer isn't working. Wizard doesn't have to be physicist or programmer, just IT technician or trained user.

[Contrast]

This is just wrong though. The PHB specifically says its based on knowledge and study. Not just innate magic like sors and locks. Wizard magic is based on knowing the theories and much about it, not just how to cast a magic missile.

And with expertise its not just every once in a while, its very often at the higher levels. Even when the wizard has maxed int.

You can have a wizard with no proficiency in arcana. They know exactly what words to chant, how to chant them and how to focus the energy to cause a spell but they've never studied the fundemental underpinnings of how magic itself actually works.

Maybe think of a spellcasting like an engineer, proficiency in arcana as physicist/chemist training while expertise in arcana is theoretical physicist training. One certainly can help you with the other and the skills and knowledge are similar but you can definately be one without being the other.

edit - ninjad /edit

I agree that there was a slight issue previously whereby the only way to access expertise was by multiclassing so I was happy to see the feat UA. That has personally resolved the concerns I had - the 5E skill system is wildly simplistic but I see that as a good thing honestly. I feel it strikes a reasonable balance between providing a framework without getting too bogged down in minutiae for what is meant to be a fantasy game about storming dungeons and killing monsters.

[mephnick]

It does smack of a white room theory problem. I've never seen a rogue with expertise Arcana or Nature.

Sure, they could outclass a wizard at one of those things, but they probably won't, and Nature not tying to the Druid's main stat isn't the rogue or expertise's fault.

[Findulidas]

Not really. Is the know-how required to cast Magic Missile knowledge? Yes. Does the wizard need to study how to cast the spell first? Yes. Does it says he needs to study the theory instead of learning the spell by rote? Not at all.

It works that way with many subjects in real life. An IT technician doesn't need to know the physics behind CPU or the source code of OS to put new one on the motherboard or to reinstall the other, and it works both way... just because someone's read studies about how processors work and how they are made doesn't mean he knows how to plug one in, or can diagnose that faulty processor is the reason his computer isn't working. Wizard doesn't have to be physicist or programmer, just IT technician or trained user.

Im telling you that you are wrong though. Read the PHB about wizards. The first one is literally called "masters of the arcane". The second paragraph even exlicitly uses the word "expertise" and after years of studying the magic. It even says that a wizards life is not normal because he or she has to spend so much time studying magic. There are also two paragraphs talking about how much wizards into knowledge about magic and the arcane.

You can of course change the fluff for the class by yourself, but this the reason wizards have magic by default. They dont have it innate, they must learn loads to get it from knowledge.

[Findulidas]

It does smack of a white room theory problem. I've never seen a rogue with expertise Arcana or Nature.

I have. Also a bard and a cleric.

[JackPhoenix]

Im telling you that you are wrong though. Read the PHB about wizards. The first one is literally called "masters of the arcane". The second paragraph even exlicitly uses the word "expertise" and after years of studying the magic. It even says that a wizards life is not normal because he or she has to spend so much time studying magic. There are also two paragraphs talking about how much wizards into knowledge about magic and the arcane.

You can of course change the fluff for the class by yourself, but this the reason wizards have magic by default. They dont have it innate, they must learn loads to get it from knowledge.

They are masters of the arcane, with or without the proficiency or expertise in Arcana skill: they have the biggest and strongest spell list of all arcane casters.
The mention of expertise is fluff... the next paragraf mentions everything is secondary to actual spells... "everything else" includes Arcana skill.
And yes, they are the only class who may spend time (and gold) to learn new "class abilities"... spells.
And of course wizard's life is not normal... they are PC class, they are, by definition, special. Spellcasters with "normal" life are NPCs like Apprentices or Mages. I don't think anyone ever played a character doing through "normal" daily routine, like random guard who stands watch on his post, then gets drunk in tavern and crawls back home to sleep, and the most exciting things he lived through in the last 40 years was a king's visit to his town, bunch of stray goblins wandering by once, and occassional tavern brawl. Even Joe Wood the commoner led quite an extraordinary life by virtue of being a PC.

By the same logic, there are no rogues with Arcana expertise, because the few paragraphs in their class description talk about lockpicking, sneaking and thievery, not Arcana, and if your rogue does have Arcana expertise, you're changing the fluff too.

[Findulidas]

They are masters of the arcane, with or without the proficiency or expertise in Arcana skill

That doesnt make any sense though. You are making things up so that you can interpret it in a way that such a statement does.

[JackPhoenix]

That doesnt make any sense though. You are making things up so that you can interpret it in a way that such a statement does.

Not really. There are two things that would fall under "arcane" in 5e, the Arcana skill and arcane magic. Being a master of either would, indeed, made one "a master of the arcane", they don't have to be masters of both. And any wizard is master of the arcane (magic) by virtue of his or her class.

[Findulidas]

Not really. There are two things that would fall under "arcane" in 5e, the Arcana skill and arcane magic..

There isnt though, thats the thing. Arcana is arcana and not two diffrent things. The arcana skill is literally what determines your knowledge in arcana. Hence why wizards should have it the highest since thier magic is literally based upon knowledge of arcana. Thats what it says. Thats why it says master of the arcane. Thats why it mentions how they have years of experience with studying magic and arcana. One might say they have expertise in it.

Except mechanically they dont for some reason. Thats what this thread is about, fixing whats obviously not meshing with the fluff for the classes.

[ZorroGames]

I have. Also a bard and a cleric.

Pretty much any possible proficiency available to class or background is possible and there are many reasons a character might have that.

[Findulidas]

Pretty much any possible proficiency available to class or background is possible and there are many reasons a character might have that.

For a lore bard and knowledge cleric it makes sense fluff wise to pick it. It also makes sense for a arcane trickster. So its not just some strange offbrand character either I think.

[JackPhoenix]

There isnt though, thats the thing. Arcana is arcana and not two diffrent things. The arcana skill is literally what determines your knowledge in arcana. Hence why wizards should have it the highest since thier magic is literally based upon knowledge of arcana. Thats what it says. Thats why it says master of the arcane. Thats why it mentions how they have years of experience with studying magic and arcana. One might say they have expertise in it.

Except mechanically they dont for some reason. Thats what this thread is about, fixing whats obviously not meshing with the fluff for the classes.

Propably because your interpretation is wrong. Arcana skill is what determines your knowledge of arcane LORE. "Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes." Note how it in any way doesn't measure your ability to actually cast arcane spells, create magic items, do... whatever you actually do with eldritch symbols, use abilities originating from those magical traditions, practically survive or navigate planes of existence or interact with their inhabitants. It also isn't required to interact with a wizard's spellbook in any way or to copy wizard's spells from scrolls.

Those are measured by, respectively: your spellcasting class and level, magic item crafting rules (such as they are), whatever you use to interact with eldritch symbols, having a class features associated with the magical traditions, Survival or other appliable skills and social skills or combat abilities, depending on the type of interaction required. And by being a wizard, or, interestingly enough, having Ritual Caster feat for wizard rituals.

A hedge witch who has learned her magic from the notes left by her grandmother, a battlemage who focuses on practical application of combat spells without bothering with learning the theory or a thief who has stolen a spellbook from a passing wizard and learned to cast the illusions and enchantments written within through trial-and-error are all perfectly valid character concepts and not in any way lesser Wizards for their lack of proficiency (or expertise) in Arcana skill.

[Findulidas]

Propably because your interpretation is wrong. Arcana skill is what determines your knowledge of arcane LORE.

Lore is just another word for knowledge though. Its a way more fitting one for a fantasy setting obviously. What you describe afterwards is literally arcane knowledge. The reason you cant cast spells and use a spellbook with it is because of mechanical reasons within the game. I bet arcana as a skill would just be in all optimization builds there ever was if it allowed you to. It would also destroy the boundaries of the classes. This just seems obvious to me.

Look lets just agree to disagree. Were obviously not convincing each other. What seems obvious to me clearly isnt to you.

[Cybren]

Lore is just another word for knowledge though. Its a way more fitting one for a fantasy setting obviously. What you describe afterwards is literally arcane knowledge. The reason you cant cast spells and use a spellbook with it is because of mechanical reasons within the game. I bet arcana as a skill would just be in all optimization builds there ever was if it allowed you to. It would also destroy the boundaries of the classes. This just seems obvious to me.

Look lets just agree to disagree. Were obviously not convincing each other. What seems obvious to me clearly isnt to you.

You just honestly don't understand what the arcana skill is. It's been explained, you just didn't really like the response so you shut down. "How to cast spells" and "how spellcasting works" are two different things. Being able to do a literary analysis doesn't qualify you to write the next great american novel, and being able to explain the operations of a nuclear sub doesn't qualify you to build one

[PhoenixPhyre]

You just honestly don't understand what the arcana skill is. It's been explained, you just didn't really like the response so you shut down. "How to cast spells" and "how spellcasting works" are two different things. Being able to do a literary analysis doesn't qualify you to write the next great american novel, and being able to explain the operations of a nuclear sub doesn't qualify you to build one

Exactly. I'm a theoretical physicist by training. I could (on paper, in theory) design a ion-beam collision set-up (the experimental tools used in the area of my PhD research). Could I operate one or interpret the results? Not without significant additional training. On the other hand, my experimental colleagues may not know how to generalize from those results to other systems. That's my training.

Arcana (the skill) is knowledge about how magic works. Wizards are masters of the arcane, not necessarily of arcana. They have learned through study (as opposed to innate ability or pacts) how to manipulate magical energy. This does not make them experts at understanding the processes involved. Will they generally be better at it due to good intelligence? Sure. Are they theory specialists?

Another analogy--it's entirely possible to be a great inventor without really understanding the theory underlying the invention. Many of the tinkerer types fall into this category. It's also possible to understand the underlying theory without being able to do any physical tinkering. The great theoretician Wolfgang Pauli (one of the fathers of quantum mechanics) was reputed to be able to cause experimental or demonstration failures by being in the same city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_effect) as the experiment.

Note also that these are skills for adventurers. An academic mage (NPC) would be built using completely different systems, skills, etc than a player character. A rogue who has been around magical traps, effects, etc may know much more about magic encountered in the adventuring field than a cloistered wizard who has lived most of her life around controlled, routine magic. The wizard probably knows much more about that magic than does the rogue though. The wizard also can pick up information much more quickly (higher Intelligence score).


As a side note--Expertise is a class feature. Not a game term. Only bards and rogues have expertise. In anything. They also only have it once. They can apply double their proficiency bonus to a selection of skills. This does not mean that they are experts, any more than champion fighters always being victorious (after all, you don't call a loser a champion :smallamused:). It only means that they have increased proficiency in a few skills based on their training or life experiences.

[Sir cryosin]

For a lore bard and knowledge cleric it makes sense fluff wise to pick it. It also makes sense for a arcane trickster. So its not just some strange offbrand character either I think.

In 5e the bard is classified as a ARCANE caster. So why shouldn't a bard be able to have expertise in Arcane?

[PhoenixPhyre]

In 5e the bard is classified as a ARCANE caster. So why shouldn't a bard be able to have expertise in Arcane?

As a pedantic side note, this distinction is only found in a sidebar (PHB page 205) and has little meaning outside of the Forgotten Realms setting. This is different from earlier editions where there was a fundamental mechanical difference that many things (feats, items, prestige classes, etc) depended on.

Different settings may not even distinguish between arcane and divine spellcasting. Mine certainly doesn't--a spell is a spell. The only difference is the source of the spell's pattern.

Other than that pedantry, you're correct.

[Findulidas]

Nah, I still dont agree. It doesnt make sense to have a knowledge based class grounded in arcana magic and have it separated from the skill called arcana which is about arcane knowledge. All those things listed under arcana seems like things you would learn about even if you were interested in just the practical parts of arcane magics. Remember wizards are all about knowledge.

Surely you would know about arcane traditions if you wanted to know how to traditionally cast a spell?

Surely you would know something about magical symbols if you were reading knowledge about magics and ritual magic all day?

Surely you would know about other dimensions if you wanted to some day be able to cast a spell that summoned an elemental? (Let alone learn such a spell in hours.)

Surely you would know atleast rough facts about how magical items work since sometimes are able to cast spells you wanted to cast yourself?

I dont see it guys. The fluff clearly seems to imply wizards having studied these things and be really good at knowing things about them.

[Cybren]

Nah, I still dont agree. It doesnt make sense to have a knowledge based class grounded in arcana magic and have it separated from the skill called arcana which is about arcane knowledge. All those things listed under arcana seems like things you would learn about even if you were interested in just the practical parts of arcane magics. Remember wizards are all about knowledge.

Surely you would know about arcane traditions if you wanted to know how to traditionally cast a spell?

Surely you would know something about magical symbols if you were reading knowledge about magics and ritual magic all day?

Surely you would know about other dimensions if you wanted to some day be able to cast a spell that summoned an elemental? (Let alone learn such a spell in hours.)

Surely you would know atleast rough facts about how magical items work since sometimes are able to cast spells you wanted to cast yourself?

I dont see it guys. The fluff clearly seems to imply wizards having studied these things and be really good at knowing things about them.

They studied casting spells, and specialized in a school of magic to cast spells. A great painter studied too, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily more knowledgeable about the chemical properties of paint than a molecular chemist, or know more about art history than an art historian, or know more about the logistics of running a gallery, etc, etc, etc.

[Beelzebubba]

Nah, I still dont agree. It doesnt make sense to have a knowledge based class grounded in arcana magic and have it separated from the skill called arcana which is about arcane knowledge. All those things listed under arcana seems like things you would learn about even if you were interested in just the practical parts of arcane magics. Remember wizards are all about knowledge.

I know some amazing software developers that can code up a storm.

They can't explain the evolution of software, which would trace how languages have developed over time.

They can't name any names of important people in the history of computer science.

They don't know how a CPU works, or how the code they write actually gets executed by the hardware or even the software middleware.

They can't explain various theoretical and academic concepts that underlie all their work.

But

They can code. Man, can they code.

And a whoooole bunch of people who took all those classes to learn computer science are the most inefficient, inelegant, verbose, awkward, and unproductive coders you've ever seen.

I leave it to you to draw the parallel to a thing that is actually true in reality and how it may apply here.

[Sir cryosin]

Nah, I still dont agree. It doesnt make sense to have a knowledge based class grounded in arcana magic and have it separated from the skill called arcana which is about arcane knowledge. All those things listed under arcana seems like things you would learn about even if you were interested in just the practical parts of arcane magics. Remember wizards are all about knowledge.

Surely you would know about arcane traditions if you wanted to know how to traditionally cast a spell?

Surely you would know something about magical symbols if you were reading knowledge about magics and ritual magic all day?

Surely you would know about other dimensions if you wanted to some day be able to cast a spell that summoned an elemental? (Let alone learn such a spell in hours.)

Surely you would know atleast rough facts about how magical items work since sometimes are able to cast spells you wanted to cast yourself?

I dont see it guys. The fluff clearly seems to imply wizards having studied these things and be really good at knowing things about them.

Let me ask you this? Can you blame someone who has spent the last month studying for a history and scoring higher then the guy that is gifted with remembering history. Are you going to tell the guy that sent the month studying " no you can't score higher then the guy that guifted in remembering history.

By saying the classes that get expertise should not be better then a class that has strong ties to a skill. is telling some the has spent time to study to gain this vast amount of knowledge.

[JackPhoenix]

Surely you would know about arcane traditions if you wanted to know how to traditionally cast a spell?

Not necessarily. You would know about the tradition you're using by virtue of belonging to that tradition, you don't have to know anything about any other traditions. I don't need to have a degree in theology to know what Christianity is all about, neither does majority of believers.


Surely you would know something about magical symbols if you were reading knowledge about magics and ritual magic all day?

Yes, if you're "reading about magics and ritual magic all day", then yes, the character is propably proficient in Arcana. The hedge witch, battlemage and illusionist from my earlier example don't do that, though. One does normal everyday stuff, though perhaps sometimes use her magic to deal with chores... and then one day finds out there are adventurers who could use some of the tricks she has learned from her grandmother who in turn learned from her grandmother, etc..., other blasts his enemies all day, and the last one steals anything not nailed down without anyone noticing because the (illusion) of the stolen item is still there when he leaves.


Surely you would know about other dimensions if you wanted to some day be able to cast a spell that summoned an elemental? (Let alone learn such a spell in hours.)

Not really. All you need to do is to read a note: "This spell, when cast, will summon an elemental", think: "Sounds neat. I have no idea what an elemental is, let alone where does it come from, let's try the spell and find out!", learn the spell (which doesn't require Arcana skill, only time, gold and access to the source of the spell, like scroll or spellbook) and cast it.


Surely you would know atleast rough facts about how magical items work since sometimes are able to cast spells you wanted to cast yourself?

Yes. If you play with magic item for an hour, you'll know what it does and how to use it. No Arcana required. Just as you don't have to know chemical reactions in gunpowder and the physics involved to find out which end of a gun to point at the target and what happens when you pull the trigger.

[Contrast]

There isnt though, thats the thing. Arcana is arcana and not two diffrent things. The arcana skill is literally what determines your knowledge in arcana. Hence why wizards should have it the highest since thier magic is literally based upon knowledge of arcana. Thats what it says. Thats why it says master of the arcane. Thats why it mentions how they have years of experience with studying magic and arcana. One might say they have expertise in it.

Except mechanically they dont for some reason. Thats what this thread is about, fixing whats obviously not meshing with the fluff for the classes.


My question is why doesn't the UA feat option already fix that?

Yes a base rogue/bard/knowledge cleric who has invested in intelligence and extensively studied the history and theoretical underpinings of magic is better than a bog standard wizard who has spent much of his time learning how to cast spells rather than studying the history and theoretical underpinings of magic. They have probably given something up something stat wise so they're worse at doing their main thing however. If your wizard wants to spend some time brushing up on the history and theoretical underpinings of magic then he's probably going to be better than them because he's going to be boosting intelligence as well.

The rulebook obviously disagrees with you that they're the same thing otherwise there would be a requirement for someone to take arcana to be a wizard or multiclass into one. There isn't.

The UA feat options mean if you want your character to be particularly good at a thing, they can be. It also doesn't lock players into having to take a skill and them have an awkward situation where someone doesn't think their character should be good at a thing.

[User_Undefined]

Maybe this analogy will work. Wizards are like racecar (Indy, NASCAR, F1, take your pick) drivers. They are the ones who have the skill and ability to drive the car around the circuit without (usually) crashing (they can cast spells). The rogue/character with the UA feat is a car engineer or mechanic. They probably couldn't get a single lap in at speed, but they know exactly how the car works inside and out. There can be some overlap. A driver might take an interest in the engineering of their car (wizard getting expertise), or a mechanic might double as a test driver (arcane trickster and most bards), but in general, the two have different skill sets even though they are both focused on the same thing (a car or arcane magic).

[mephnick]

I'm Mephnick the Firestarter. I can create fire with just a couple of sticks and kindling. Amazing. That dude over there? Jerkface the Marshal. He knows the physical reactions that start the fire, the history of fire, fire safety, the signs of past fires, the ability of ash to help plants and how fire reacts to the rest of the natural world. But he just doesn't have the knack to create it like I do.

[thereaper]

I'll say the same thing I said last time I saw this thread:

The Rogue with expertise spends just as much time reading magic scrolls as the Wizard; he just skips the parts about actually casting the spells (which, for all we know, are the majority of the document) so that he can get through more scrolls in less time. Therefore, he ends up knowing more than the Wizard, until it comes time to actually cast; then he knows nothing.

[Findulidas]

I'm Mephnick the Firestarter. I can create fire with just a couple of sticks and kindling. Amazing. That dude over there? Jerkface the Marshal. He knows the physical reactions that start the fire, the history of fire, fire safety, the signs of past fires, the ability of ash to help plants and how fire reacts to the rest of the natural world. But he just doesn't have the knack to create it like I do.

The thing is this analogy breaks apart once you read the class fluff. Like most of the others Ive read.

It literally says scholars of the arcane which implies not just being able to do it but also having both studied it for years and having the knowledge behind it. Infact it even says that being able to cast a spell seems easy, but you really must study how it works for years beforehand. Which is why I dont agree that you arent atleast proficient in arcane by default. Infact it even implies that just being able to cast a spell requires LOADS of knowledge and study in arcane. You have to be obsessed by it, which wizards are. Please note it says scholars of the arcane and not just scholars of spellcasting, if its not obvious enough. The very same paragraph says that they have expertise in it. Expertise in what? The arcane. That which the paragraph is about. Which all wizards are scholars in.

The very next paragraph goes into detail about how they really go out of thier way to find more knowledge about the arcane, how all wizard think that by learning more from the past they can perhaps attain more power and knowledge about the arcane. It also goes into detail about how often it is that the wizards are sages and teachers about how the universe works, which means they very much know about it and how people previously thought about it. This really does not seem to be just practical knowledge, but very much theoretical and even the historical behind it. Because as it is in real life when you teach and learn about something you dont only learn about how it is now, but also how other people thought and think about it. I have yet to be taught about a subject where this wasnt atleast mentioned at some point. If you are a scholar in the subject, a sage and/or a teacher then really you should know. Which another reason as to why they really should be atleast proficient in arcane.

More so looking at the mechanics of just being able to learn how to cast fireball in hours this really implies that the wizards have not only studied how to cast these spells but also do have the theories behind because otherwise anyone could do it. I dont at all see it as them just having the practical knowledge and nothing else because there is nothing implying there even is such a thing as just practical knowledge in arcana in the class description. Infact if anything it seems to imply its mostly theoretical stuff that you have to sit down and read about and then test out. Only to read some more. Going through how other people thought about it in the past and trying it out. Going through loads of notes related to the most obscure lore related to the arcane because you are driven to learn about it because this is how you learn to cast the spell you want.

So once again I dont agree that wizards should not have the highest arcana of all the classes by default. The class fluff just implies that they do have the arcane skill and are very good at it. At one point even uses the word expertise in relation to the arcane for them.

[grub]

I don't understand why people are so stuck on Rogues perhaps choosing expertise in Arcana when they:
a) don't get proficiency without backgrounds
b) would have very little need to choose that proficiency (short of characterization)
c) would have even less need or desire to become an expert at it (acrobatics, perception, stealth, thieves tools, and sleight of hand being far more important in a standard game).

Yes a Rogue or Bard could be better at a non-class skill, but why would they choose to be?

[Findulidas]

I don't understand why people are so stuck on Rogues perhaps choosing expertise in Arcana when they:
a) don't get proficiency without backgrounds
b) would have very little need to choose that proficiency (short of characterization)
c) would have even less need or desire to become an expert at it (acrobatics, perception, stealth, thieves tools, and sleight of hand being far more important in a standard game).

Yes a Rogue or Bard could be better at a non-class skill, but why would they choose to be?

Because people dont just pick optimized skills. I mean most people I play with do not read about optimization guides, pick skills that are for the best or even spells. They pick stuff they think is fun. If they are an arcane thief they might very well pick arcana as expertise because they might well think its fun. Why not either? Arcana is a good knowledge skill. There certainly are magical traps as well so even as a straight rogue you certainly can benefit from it.

[grub]

There is still only one background that grants a Rogue the arcana skill (sage). If a player wants to choose one of their few expertise in arcana why is that such an issue? If you want to focus on that one thing why can't you be the best?

I understand that wizards won't meet that same skill proficiency, but there are few arcana checks (in my experience) of that high DC anyways. I don't get why this has to be such a sticking point.

All rogues (and bards to some degree) have is skills, they don't have the same dpr as other fighters and they lack the world bending powers of casters, why can't skills just be their "thing"?

[Findulidas]

There is still only one background that grants a Rogue the arcana skill (sage).

If your background gives you proficiency in a skill you already have picked then you can choose any additional skill you want. Thats actually by RAW (page 124 PHB). Like I said earlier there are many reasons as to why you would pick arcana like thinking of playing an arcane thief or perhaps picking initiate for some additional spells. Or just wanting to have arcana as a skill because it fits your character background or idea of your character. Also remember that many people dont actually play with the base backgrounds, they make thier own background and discuss it with the dm as to what skills, tools, features and languages that background would give.

As for arcana not being used often as a skill, that highly depends on what kind of campaign and dm you are playing with. The current campaign Im in we have killed and looted the mages tower, infiltrated a mages organization and also frequently searched for magical traps. There was even one point where the insane rogue ate a cursed item. Needless to say arcana has come up a lot.

[Kobard]

Nah, I still dont agree. It doesnt make sense to have a knowledge based class grounded in arcana magic and have it separated from the skill called arcana which is about arcane knowledge. All those things listed under arcana seems like things you would learn about even if you were interested in just the practical parts of arcane magics. Remember wizards are all about knowledge.

Surely you would know about arcane traditions if you wanted to know how to traditionally cast a spell?

Surely you would know something about magical symbols if you were reading knowledge about magics and ritual magic all day?

Surely you would know about other dimensions if you wanted to some day be able to cast a spell that summoned an elemental? (Let alone learn such a spell in hours.)

Surely you would know atleast rough facts about how magical items work since sometimes are able to cast spells you wanted to cast yourself?

I dont see it guys. The fluff clearly seems to imply wizards having studied these things and be really good at knowing things about them.Answer one simple question: Can you play a wizard without taking the Arcana skill?

But so far you just sound petulant that what is presumably your pet class is not a god class in all things arcane and that others could possibly know more than a wizard about the arcane.


Because people dont just pick optimized skills. I mean most people I play with do not read about optimization guides, pick skills that are for the best or even spells. They pick stuff they think is fun. If they are an arcane thief they might very well pick arcana as expertise because they might well think its fun. Why not either? Arcana is a good knowledge skill. There certainly are magical traps as well so even as a straight rogue you certainly can benefit from it.Oh, God no! The horror of it all! How dare they?!

[Findulidas]

Answer one simple question: Can you play a wizard without taking the Arcana skill?

But so far you just sound petulant that what is presumably your pet class is not a god class in all things arcane and that others could possibly know more than a wizard about the arcane.


Im sorry but according to the fluff it seems that they should have. Which is what this thread is about. Im a bit irritated about the fact that as a wizard I have to pick a UA feat (which isnt really allowed in many games) to have expertise in the skill that my class is about. It doesnt ruin 5e at all for me, infact I think 5e is the best version so far.

However since this is a thread about fixing expertise this is where we argue about it. The only reason I sound petulant to you is because Im defending the position that I think is right. If you dont like arguing about expertise and who should have it and who shouldnt, then really what are you doing in the thread about it?



Oh, God no! The horror of it all! How dare they?!

LOL, you misunderstood completely. I dont just pick optimized skills either. I was just explaining in what type of situation a rogue might pick arcana.

[Kobard]

Im sorry but according to the fluff it seems that they should have. Which is what this thread is about. Im a bit irritated about the fact that as a wizard I have to pick a UA feat (which isnt really allowed in many games) to have expertise in the skill that my class is about. It doesnt ruin 5e at all for me, infact I think 5e is the best version so far.

However since this is a thread about fixing expertise this is where we argue about it. The only reason I sound petulant to you is because Im defending the position that I think is right. If you dont like arguing about expertise and who should have it and who shouldnt, then really what are you doing in the thread about it?This does not answer my question: Can you play a wizard without taking the Arcana skill?

[Findulidas]

This does not answer my question: Can you play a wizard without taking the Arcana skill?

Oh Im sorry. Im not feeling too well today so I might miss some things.

You can play any class without taking any skill. However this seems to be a complete design decision on the dev teams part to me. What we are talking about here though is fixing things like this that doesnt make any sense in the fluff or actually at all.There are many things like these in 5e.

Like I said earlier I very much agree that druids that get their magic from nature (not the druids that get magic from gods) also should have expertise in nature or atleast have the nature skill be wisdom based for them. This is very much similar to this arcane issue infact and its also frequently argued about. Clearly there is something about nature thats also wisdom based. If we go from skills to something else then its the fact that polearm mastery is working on quarterstaff but not spears (or even the trident, but that one is forgotten I think). Doesnt make any sense either. Specially now when spear has a separate feat for mastery. Really quarterstaff should have one as well then. Or that the pike is clearly much too heavy. Or that invisible creatures are as easy to attack as attacking someone while prone regardless of weapon. These could all be oversights, balance issues or things that are just handwaved due to it being a game.

I honestly think they decided that no class should have a proficiency to begin with and then went from there. Not really thinking of the consequences. The consequences being that it doesnt match the class background.

[Saiga]

I think the issue is not that some Rogues can be better than Wizards at Arcana, because you can come up at individual explanations for why one Rogue may be particularly skilled or a Wizard not as deep into it.

The issue is that Rogues and Bards have a higher ceiling, despite nothing about their classes suggesting they'd be more inclined to reach greater heights than a Wizard. The Feats for Skills UA is one fix, allowing Wizards to at least reach the same heights. Before that (or without that allowed), it IS strange to have Wizards just be unable to be that good at Arcana unless they multiclass (in which case, they don't have it for being a Wizard).

Expertise pre-UA just seems like a game mechanic thing more than a logical fluff thing.

[Findulidas]

I think the issue is not that some Rogues can be better than Wizards at Arcana, because you can come up at individual explanations for why one Rogue may be particularly skilled or a Wizard not as deep into it.

The issue is that Rogues and Bards have a higher ceiling, despite nothing about their classes suggesting they'd be more inclined to reach greater heights than a Wizard. The Feats for Skills UA is one fix, allowing Wizards to at least reach the same heights. Before that (or without that allowed), it IS strange to have Wizards just be unable to be that good at Arcana unless they multiclass (in which case, they don't have it for being a Wizard).

Expertise pre-UA just seems like a game mechanic thing more than a logical fluff thing.

Yes. You might be right, although I still think its stupid to not have arcana if you read the class background. I suppose you can handwave it with blanket statements like saying hes a genius, in the fictional kind of genius sense. Which should be fine in a magical game like dnd.

That said all skills are just game mechanics and so if we dont think they match the fluff we can change them according to our needs. That is of course as long as everyone on the table you are playing with agree to the changes.

[Kobard]

You can play any class without taking any skill. However this seems to be a complete design decision on the dev teams part to me. What we are talking about here though is fixing things like this that doesnt make any sense in the fluff or actually at all.There are many things like these in 5e.Be honest: Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean that others share your personal hangups over the matter. That's clear from this thread. Have you considered why so many others in this thread don't share your sentiments?


The consequences being that it doesnt match the class background.Or maybe the fluff is wrong or just that - fluff - and so you should just get over it. :smallwink:

[Findulidas]

Be honest: Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean that others share your personal hangups over the matter. That's clear from this thread. Have you considered why so many others in this thread don't share your sentiments?

Or maybe the fluff is wrong or just that - fluff - and so you should just get over it. :smallwink:

Oh Im well aware that there are people that dont agree to what I believe or think is right. Infact I expect there to be atleast one person alive to not agree with any given statement I say. Im not at all bothered with it. Im annoyed by the fact that the game Im playing in doesnt fit the fluff in certain cases.

Also like I said before this thread here is where we discuss how these mechanics should be according to what it says in the fluff. More specifically how some people like me think its bad that the classes that should logically have expertise according to the fluff dont, while other classes easily get higher values in said skills despite not even investing any attributes in it. Maybe you should get over the fact that there is a discussion about it here if you feel annoyed with it.

[Kobard]

Im annoyed by the fact that the game Im playing in doesnt fit the fluff in certain cases.You are falsely equating your opinion with a fact. Cut it out.


Also like I said before this thread here is where we discuss how these mechanics should be according to what it says in the fluff. More specifically how some people like me think its bad that the classes that should logically have expertise according to the fluff dont, while other classes easily get higher values in said skills despite not even investing any attributes in it. Maybe you should get over the fact that there is a discussion about it here if you feel annoyed with it.You stubbornly banging your head against the wall in defiance against the overwhelming prevalence of counter-arguments against you on this particular issue hardly qualifies as a discussion.

[ad_hoc]

Maybe this analogy will work. Wizards are like racecar (Indy, NASCAR, F1, take your pick) drivers. They are the ones who have the skill and ability to drive the car around the circuit without (usually) crashing (they can cast spells). The rogue/character with the UA feat is a car engineer or mechanic. They probably couldn't get a single lap in at speed, but they know exactly how the car works inside and out. There can be some overlap. A driver might take an interest in the engineering of their car (wizard getting expertise), or a mechanic might double as a test driver (arcane trickster and most bards), but in general, the two have different skill sets even though they are both focused on the same thing (a car or arcane magic).

This isn't right because Expertise doesn't make you that good at a skill.

All of the actual skill masters in the game are NPCs. All PCs are dabblers, just some more than others.

[Findulidas]

You are falsely equating your opinion with a fact. Cut it out.

Thats just stupid to say. Im not convinced by the arguments and I have stated why.



You stubbornly banging your head against the wall in defiance against the overwhelming prevalence of counter-arguments against you on this particular issue hardly qualifies as a discussion.

Also you used argumentum ad populum quite blatantly if we are using philosophical flaws. This is one of them again. The number of arguments has nothing to do with any side being right. Turns out 90% of the arguments so far has been the same. That there is a diffrence between arcane knowledge and the knowledge used to cast a spell. However reading the fluff for wizards that doesnt seem to be correct. Which is why I dont agree.

[Kobard]

Thats just stupid to say. Im not convinced by the arguments and I have stated why.How is it stupid to say? You claim it's a fact; it's not.


Also you used argumentum ad populum quite blatantly if we are using philosophical flaws.Aren't you glad then that I didn't note your flagrant use of the Is/Ought fallacy upon which your entire argument hinges?

[JNAProductions]

Oh Im well aware that there are people that dont agree to what I believe or think is right. Infact I expect there to be atleast one person alive to not agree with any given statement I say. Im not at all bothered with it. Im annoyed by the fact that the game Im playing in doesnt fit the fluff in certain cases.

Also like I said before this thread here is where we discuss how these mechanics should be according to what it says in the fluff. More specifically how some people like me think its bad that the classes that should logically have expertise according to the fluff dont, while other classes easily get higher values in said skills despite not even investing any attributes in it. Maybe you should get over the fact that there is a discussion about it here if you feel annoyed with it.

Fluff is highly mutable. Hell, the mechanics are mutable too, but they require more consensus to change than fluff does.

But think about it this way-a Wizard is an engineer. He understands a decent amount of theory, but focuses primarily on the PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS of magic.

Someone with Expertise in Arcana is a scientist. They focus mostly on theory and understanding it, even if they can't do as much practically as the Wizards/Engineers of the world.

I do think it'd be cool to have some way to gain Expertise without dipping Rogue or Bard (since gaining Sneak Attack and Thieve's Cant or Bardic Inspiration doesn't usually fit) to represent someone who focuses more of their life on study of theory instead of practical applications, and oh would you like at that? UA has feats for you!

I am willing to agree that yeah, they probably should've had something like that IN THE BASE GAME. Maybe in the DMG, as a variant rule, or something. But as it is, the options are out there now. All it costs is one feat (which can be gotten at level 1 with VHuman, or 4 with anyone else) and BAM! Your Wizard is AT LEAST as good as the Rogue (who for some reason took Expertise in Arcana) and probably better, due to a higher Int score.

[Findulidas]

How is it stupid to say? You claim it's a fact; it's not.

Aren't you glad then that I didn't note your flagrant use of the Is/Ought fallacy upon which your entire argument hinges?

Please do explain. Perhaps you should begin with it instead.

Are refering to the fact that "scholars of the arcane" does not in fact stand for them being scolars in the arcane?

Are you refering to the fact that being driven by the "lure of the knowledge" does not mean that it means the class is driven by the lure of knowledge?

[JNAProductions]

Please do explain. Perhaps you should begin with it instead.

Are refering to the fact that "scholars of the arcane" does not in fact stand for them being scolars in the arcane?

Are you refering to the fact that being driven by the "lure of the knowledge" does not mean that it means the class is driven by the lure of knowledge?

Sure, they're scholars in the same way engineers are-practically, rather than focusing on theory.

And lure of knowledge is the knowledge of HOW TO DO SPELLS-not the theory behind them, but how to actually work magic.

[Findulidas]

Sure, they're scholars in the same way engineers are-practically, rather than focusing on theory.

And lure of knowledge is the knowledge of HOW TO DO SPELLS-not the theory behind them, but how to actually work magic.

There is no such distincition made in the paragraph though. It just tells about secrets of magic, the power of magic and magic in the past, which really falls under the arcane skill.

[JNAProductions]

There is no such distincition made in the paragraph though. It just tells about secrets of magic, the power of magic and magic in the past, which really falls under the arcane skill.

It sounds like you're making an assumption, and treating it as fact.

I'll grab my PHB right now, and look at the paragraph myself.

Yeah, reading through the opening fluff, I see nothing that says "Wizards are scholars of magical theory and not magical practice".

[Findulidas]

It sounds like you're making an assumption, and treating it as fact.

I'll grab my PHB right now, and look at the paragraph myself.

Yeah, reading through the opening fluff, I see nothing that says "Wizards are scholars of magical theory and not magical practice".

The thing is it says scholars of the arcane and that they are good at the knowledge relating to it. There is never made a distinction between the theory of magic and the practice of it in it. I would say that there is an assumption that needs to be proven that there is.

If anything it says that they are driven to learn as much as they can about the arcane and anything about magic in particular. This is very general and would relate to both the practical and the theories even if they could be separated. Related to the past specially it seems as well. This is all the arcane skill by the way. It relates to knowledge about the arcane.

[JackPhoenix]

There is no such distincition made in the paragraph though. It just tells about secrets of magic, the power of magic and magic in the past

And here we go. This part is true. But YOU create such distinction, because you claim that "secrets of magic, power of magic and magic in the past" is solely the domain of Arcana skill, and that ability to actually cast those spells doesn't fall under the secrets of magic, that the power of magic means knowledge of theory, and that magic in the past means only Arcana skill, and not History or learning the spells wizards in the past created


which really falls under the arcane skill.

which is only your opinion, and in this case, false.

[JNAProductions]

The thing is it says scholars of the arcane and that they are good at the knowledge relating to it. There is never made a distinction between the theory of magic and the practice of it in it. I would say that there is an assumption that needs to be proven that there is.

If anything it says that they are driven to learn as much as they can about the arcane and anything about magic in particular. This is very general and would relate to both the practical and the theories even if they could be separated. Related to the past specially it seems as well. This is all the arcane skill by the way. It relates to knowledge about the arcane.

I think it can go either way. You CAN have knowledgeable Wizards, who pour over tome after tome, not just of spells, but of magical history and theory. Or you can have Wizards who are constantly on the hunt for new spells, ignoring magical theory beyond what's needed to cast spells, and focusing pretty much solely on gaining more magical abilities, rather than theories about it.

There's more than one way to play a Wizard. I do agree-Wizards should have an OPTION to gain Expertise. A feat, a subclass (that I might write, actually...), something, but not ALL WIZARDS should be forced to take Expertise (or even Proficiency!) in Arcana.

[Honest Tiefling]

There's more than one way to play a Wizard. I do agree-Wizards should have an OPTION to gain Expertise. A feat, a subclass (that I might write, actually...), something, but not ALL WIZARDS should be forced to take Expertise (or even Proficiency!) in Arcana.

This is how I think about it. If you want to have a rogue coach the wizard on magical theory, I think that's fine too. But I have NEVER played with a wizard who wasn't a giant Magical Nerd who started to breathe heavily around magical tomes. I think that should be a valid option as well, not just assuming that the Intelligence based caster sorta just picked it up and never thought to learn more. Both should be valid and achievable, but currently, it's a little harder to get a wizard to feel like a master of the Arcane.

I think I will implement both the UA feats and the background expertise in my next game. I'm abandoning the background features anyway, maybe that'll make up for it.

[JNAProductions]

I made a new subclass (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526043-Magical-Scholar-Wizard-Subclass&p=22049254#post22049254) for Wizards who want Expertise in Arcana.


This is how I think about it. If you want to have a rogue coach the wizard on magical theory, I think that's fine too. But I have NEVER played with a wizard who wasn't a giant Magical Nerd who started to breathe heavily around magical tomes. I think that should be a valid option as well, not just assuming that the Intelligence based caster sorta just picked it up and never thought to learn more. Both should be valid and achievable, but currently, it's a little harder to get a wizard to feel like a master of the Arcane.

I think I will implement both the UA feats and the background expertise in my next game. I'm abandoning the background features anyway, maybe that'll make up for it.

And yeah, that's perfectly legit. I do think Expertise should be a little more accessible. But I don't think lacking it breaks anything.

[JackPhoenix]

I just realized. There IS a wizard subclass with expertise in Arcana, as fitting the fluff...the only problem is, it's the Lore wizard.

[JNAProductions]

I just realized. There IS a wizard subclass with expertise in Arcana, as fitting the fluff...the only problem is, it's the Lore wizard.

Okay, enjoy my more balanced (hopefully) alternative. :P

[Findulidas]

And here we go. This part is true. But YOU create such distinction, because you claim that "secrets of magic, power of magic and magic in the past" is solely the domain of Arcana skill, and that ability to actually cast those spells doesn't fall under the secrets of magic, that the power of magic means knowledge of theory, and that magic in the past means only Arcana skill, and not History or learning the spells wizards in the past created

which is only your opinion, and in this case, false.

No, its quite easy to prove that all that claimed under the arcana skill quite easily fits under magical power, magical secrets and the past related to magics. Magic being the key word here.

Recall lore about spells. Thats past spells btw. Check
Magic items. Magical and gives power. Check
Eldritch symbols. Secrets of magic, perhaps also past magic. Check
The planes of existance. Where would this be if not magical knowledge? Check
The inhabitants of those places. Same as before. Check

Whereas history does NOT relate to magical spells in the past or any magic of any sort. Infact all thats magical knowledge is under the arcane skill. Sure you might learn some history along the way, but reading the paragraph its quite specific that its magic its about. From history you might know that grimweld the archmage casted a powerful spell in some year, but from arcana will you know the specifics of the spell. Once again, magic being the key word.

[JackPhoenix]

No, its quite easy to prove that all that claimed under the arcana skill quite easily fits under magical power, magical secrets and the past related to magics. Magic being the key word here.

Yes... all that falls under Arcana skill fits under magical power, magical secrets and the past related to magics. However, it doesn't work both ways... not everything related to magical power, magical secrets and magic in the past fits ONLY under Arcana skill

My brother is a human, that doesn't mean that every human is my brother. Even disregarding my attitude towards the rest of the mankind and philosophical implication of such claim, some humans would be my sisters.


Whereas history does NOT relate to magical spells in the past or any magic of any sort. Infact all thats magical knowledge is under the arcane skill. Sure you might learn some history along the way, but reading the paragraph its quite specific that its magic its about. From history you might know that grimweld the archmage casted a powerful spell in some year, but from arcana will you know the specifics of the spell. Once again, magic being the key word.

You're contradicting yoursef. Either History allows me to learn about Grimweld the Archmage and the powerful spell he cast, in which case your claim that the History skill does not relate to magical spells in the past or any magic of any sort is false, or it doesn't, which means that PHB description which fits historical events, legendary people, etc. under History skill is false, because it won't allow me to use the skill if the event or legendary person is related to "any magic of any sort". And what about Religion? Does it mean that I can't use it to learn about rites and prayers or practices of secret cults if either of these is related to magic, in which case it fits only under Arcana and nothing else?

Guess which one is it: Your claim is false.

[Arrogont]

if the arcana skill is the same thing that wizards learn to become wizards, then anyone with proficiency/expertise in arcana should be able to cast spells. if it's not the same thing that wizards learn to become wizards there's no reason wizards need special access to it, beyond it being one of their class skills, much like nature for druids and religion for clerics.

as for rogues with expertise in knowledge skills, they're probably just trained to recall relevant facts quickly on the spot, like someone who trains for a quiz show. it's not such a life or death thing for a wizard in the same way that it is for a rogue who needs to know how to disarm a magical trap in five seconds before it blows up in their face. hence the expertise bonus.

the easiest "solution" to the "problem" is just to restrict expertise to class skills only. so rogues can have expertise in things like stealth and deception but not arcana or religion. it doesn't effect bards, but being weirdly good at everything is their thing. i don't think giving free expertise to anyone is a good idea, it just devalues the classes who rely on it.

[JNAProductions]

if the arcana skill is the same thing that wizards learn to become wizards, then anyone with proficiency/expertise in arcana should be able to cast spells. if it's not the same thing that wizards learn to become wizards there's no reason wizards need special access to it, beyond it being one of their class skills, much like nature for druids and religion for clerics.

as for rogues with expertise in knowledge skills, they're probably just trained to recall relevant facts quickly on the spot, like someone who trains for a quiz show. it's not such a life or death thing for a wizard in the same way that it is for a rogue who needs to know how to disarm a magical trap in five seconds before it blows up in their face. hence the expertise bonus.

the easiest "solution" to the "problem" is just to restrict expertise to class skills only. so rogues can have expertise in things like stealth and deception but not arcana or religion. it doesn't effect bards, but being weirdly good at everything is their thing. i don't think giving free expertise to anyone is a good idea, it just devalues the classes who rely on it.

I agree, especially with the bolded portion.

However, having Expertise be an option that costs something is, I think, good.

[Findulidas]

Yes... all that falls under Arcana skill fits under magical power, magical secrets and the past related to magics. However, it doesn't work both ways... not everything related to magical power, magical secrets and magic in the past fits ONLY under Arcana skill

No, everything related to magic is under arcana, not history. You cannot learn any spells from history.



You're contradicting yoursef. Either History allows me to learn about Grimweld the Archmage and the powerful spell he cast,

No, not with the spell he cast. You dont get to know the spell from history. You need arcana to identify it. That he cast a spell, yes. Not which one. This is a problem related to how the knowledge skills bleed into each other. Obviously in a real setting you would learn some magical lore from history and some history from arcana. In the game its separated though, because you cant have a roll using both checks in a simple manner. It doesnt make perfect sense, but this is how it is. When its related to magic, its arcana. Arcana is the magical counterpart to history. Thats why its lore about spells.

You can know that there was a ancient empire in the past as related to the paragraph we are talking about from history. However its arcana you want if you want its magical secrets, any spells it had and such. Which is what drives wizards. Hence its arcana its about in that paragraph.

[Kobard]

Are refering to the fact that "scholars of the arcane" does not in fact stand for them being scolars in the arcane?I would say that being a wizard in itself is a testament to their scholarship of the arcane. That's arcane knowledge beyond the scope of the ordinary. But that does not mean that wizards are entitled to be the know-it-all of Arcana in any given party or that rogues and bards could somehow know more.


Are you refering to the fact that being driven by the "lure of the knowledge" does not mean that it means the class is driven by the lure of knowledge?There is more knowledge in the world than simply the Arcana skill. Hell, we could even take that statement to mean the Investigate skill. The lure of knowledge does not mean that they have knowledge. In fact, the inherent implication is that you are lured to what you don't have.

Furthermore, none of this implies or necessitates that wizards should have Expertise in Arcana.

Does the fluff no longer apply to the wizard if the wizard player does not have the Arcana skill?

[Findulidas]

i don't think giving free expertise to anyone is a good idea, it just devalues the classes who rely on it.

Unfortunately I think you are right here. Which is a limit on the expertise and skill system as a whole.

[Honest Tiefling]

the easiest "solution" to the "problem" is just to restrict expertise to class skills only. so rogues can have expertise in things like stealth and deception but not arcana or religion. it doesn't effect bards, but being weirdly good at everything is their thing. i don't think giving free expertise to anyone is a good idea, it just devalues the classes who rely on it.

I also agree that it should cost something, but also argue that Expertise in skills other classes should be equally good at shouldn't be a defining feature of the rogue or bard. A nice bonus, sure, but not their defining feature. I think that is part of the reason that the 3.5 rogue was such a mess.

[Findulidas]

I would say that being a wizard in itself is a testament to their scholarship of the arcane. That's arcane knowledge beyond the scope of the ordinary. But that does not mean that wizards are entitled to be the know-it-all of Arcana in any given party or that rogues and bards could somehow know more.

I would say that a life dedicated to searching for knowledge and practicing it in a specific field as a defining trait of a class would give them the highest skill in that field by default.

Its still related to rolls though so at times they would not know things the rogues or bards would.



There is more knowledge in the world than simply the Arcana skill. Hell, we could even take that statement to mean the Investigate skill. The lure of knowledge does not mean that they have knowledge. In fact, the inherent implication is that you are lured to what you don't have.

Furthermore, none of this implies or necessitates that wizards should have Expertise in Arcana.

It says that the wizards are really driven to learn more. Its also heavily mentioned that its magic its about. It also says that they really live like this, constantly searching for more knowledge in the field of magic. They do it to the point thier lives are not like other peoples. Clearly this means that they should have either the highest skill in the field related to magic or atleast be equal to the highest. Because what can you do more than devote your life to a field. Which is why its strange they dont get expertise I think if other classes can have it in the field.



Does the fluff no longer apply to the wizard if the wizard player does not have the Arcana skill?

I would say that the fluff says that the wizard should indeed have proficiency in arcana.

Ive even seen some dms state that you need arcana to even learn spells you find. Which is not too wrong if you think about it. The hell are those eldritch symbols. What does magic missile mean? Whats this about other dimensional planes? Which of all these hundreds of books do actually contain something about magical spells (spell lore)?

Im not too sure about that though.

[JNAProductions]

Let me ask you this, then-is everyone bound 100% by the PHB Fluff? Is no one allowed to make different characters?

[Findulidas]

Let me ask you this, then-is everyone bound 100% by the PHB Fluff? Is no one allowed to make different characters?

No, obviously not bound by fluff. The way I understand it this thread is about how it should be according to the fluff though. Which is why Im arguing about it.

If you made a wizard that worked the same without arcana at my table I would ask you to explain how it worked, but thats about it. As long as its mechanically the same I would never have any objections by default basically. Unless it would ruin the lore of the setting somehow obviously.

[JackPhoenix]

No, everything related to magic is under arcana, not history. You cannot learn any spells from history.

You can't learn any spell from Arcana either. There are rules for learning new spells.


No, not with the spell he cast. You dont get to know the spell from history. You need arcana to identify it. That he cast a spell, yes. Not which one.

False. First, there are no rules for identifying spells, so claiming that I need Arcana to do so isn't true according to the rules. Second, I don't want to identify the spell... I wasn't there, it's history. Someone, either a witness or someone who was writting the history did that for me. History book won't say "Grimweld the Archmage cast some spell to destroy the tower of his enemy, but we can't tell you what spell it was, you must actually study books about magic". They may say "Grimweld the Archmage conjured falling stars to destroy Merlin's tower" which may or may not be enough to identify what spell it was, or they may actually say "The destruction of Merlin's tower by evil archmage Grimweld is considered the first recorded use of Meteor Swarm spell, which has since became a common tool in arsenal of many archmages. And because it's a historical event, it's in this book and not in some obscure magic tome. Obscure magic tomes, however, contain the details of the spell, if you want to know more."

Obviously, you need Arcana to know that the spell works through the combination of increasing the potency of spell matrix of the spell Melf's Minute Meteors through use of Elminster's Arcane Amplification, which he actually stole from Mordekainen and named after himself after using his influence to erase any mention of Mordenianen from the record. Hell, you may even learned that the first known use of Meteor Swarm was when Grimweld the Archmage used it do destroy the tower of his rival Merlin through the same skill... because:


This is a problem related to how the knowledge skills bleed into each other. Obviously in a real setting you would learn some magical lore from history and some history from arcana. In the game its separated though, because you cant have a roll using both checks in a simple manner. It doesnt make perfect sense, but this is how it is. When its related to magic, its arcana. Arcana is the magical counterpart to history. Thats why its lore about spells.

This is not a problem at all, unless you assume that any piece of knowledge must fall into one skill, and one skill only. We already have precedent for the same thing being done by two separate skills, namely resisting grapples is possible both through Acrobatics and Athletics (and in some case, saving throws).


You can know that there was a ancient empire in the past as related to the paragraph we are talking about from history. However its arcana you want if you want its magical secrets, any spells it had and such. Which is what drives wizards. Hence its arcana its about in that paragraph.

Not really true. You may learn that the Bakluni priest-mages cast a spell called Rain of Colourless Fire to destroy Suel Empire in retribution for their use of a spell called Invoked Devastation, and that the spell burned everything it hit from History.

You use Arcana to learn how the spell worked, how it was cast, and some of the theory behind it.

You don't use either to actually learn that spell (assuming it's a spell which can be learned, which it isn't), you use the rules from page 114 in PHB to do that, which do not require or mention Arcana skill at all.

[Mikal]

Look, here's what Arcana represents:



"When someone casts fireball, which is an evocation spell that can be used up to 150 feet away, requiring verbal, somatic, and material components (specifically a tiny ball of bat poop and sulfur), it creates a ball of fire and explosion in a 20-foot sphere. Anyone caught in it will be caught aflame, but more dexterous people can avoid some of the damage. It can spread around corners and ignites things. If you use a higher circle magic level, the fireball does even more harm to those caught in it, though the size and range do not change."

And here's what a wizard's knowledge represents, irrespective of Arcana:

"Oogh boogh Galim Bang!" *Makes random gestures, throws a piece of bat crap with sulfur in it, which ignites into a fireball around 100 feet away*

A Wizard is able to research the actual creation of spells, and thus make new ones, and is able to trade spells via the use of his spellbook with others. That's what makes them masters of the arcane from a research perspective. Arcana does not equal this. They seek to master the mysteries of magic, they don't seek to understand the textbook definition of the spell. They experiment in the creation of spells, not in knowing the minutiae of magic missile. In knowing the "Oogh boogh", not the "When someone casts a fireball, which is an evocation spell".

For them, the knowledge of magic is the knowledge of ancient spells, which they use to add to their power. Arcana may help with it, but there's no need for it.
If anything History helps them more based on the fluff. From the PHB


"Most wizards believe that their counterparts
in ancient civilizations knew secrets of magic that have
been lost to the ages, and discovering those secrets
could unlock the path to a power greater than any magic
available in the present age.

Key phrasing there to me is 'the path to a power'.
Some wizards may want to know how that power works, and for them that's Arcana. The default wizard assumption is just how to gain that power, not necessarily the piddly details behind that.

With regards to Expertise, it's used as a class feature. From a balance perspective, giving it freely to anyone breaks that balance and weakens those classes whose schtick is to be really good at skills.

From an RP perspective, the Wizard is too busy on learning the "Oogh Boogh" aspect of the spell to have an in depth knowledge that the Rogue expertise provides, unless they dedicate themselves to it, either from taking the correct feat, or from becoming a rogue. Either way shows effort of the Wizard from gaining the practical mastery of magic they normally pursue in order to gain the minutiae from the expertise, either by neglecting arcane mastery via arcane feats or intelligence ASIs, and/or by taking a level or levels in Rogue.

You can disagree with the above if you want, but you're factually incorrect in doing so. The rules and definitions in the books and system bear this out. If you know elsewhere which shows otherwise, please, feel free to cite book, chapter, and page.

You know, an Arcana requirement to create or find a spell, or to modify one. One showing that Arcana is needed to cast spells. Anything?

TL;DR
Arcana by the book measures ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magic traditions, the planes and those who dwell in them.
Wizards are masters of the arcane by their ability to use 'Oogh Boogh' to make a spell go off, and trade it with others, or finding 'ancient Oogh Boogh' which makes the spell go off even more.
Neither of them intersect. If you think they do, you're wrong, and will remain wrong until you prove otherwise with factual evidence.

[Contrast]

Im sorry but according to the fluff it seems that they should have. Which is what this thread is about. Im a bit irritated about the fact that as a wizard I have to pick a UA feat (which isnt really allowed in many games) to have expertise in the skill that my class is about. It doesnt ruin 5e at all for me, infact I think 5e is the best version so far.

However since this is a thread about fixing expertise this is where we argue about it.

Apologies for quoting a few pages back in the discussion but it responded to the last point I made so :smalltongue:

I don't see that complaining that UA isn't allowed in all games makes much sense in a thread discussing homebrewing replacement rules. Surely in any place where homebrew is being considered then UA can be put forward to be discussed at least?

It's also worth remembering - being proficient is being good at something (among a group of individuals who are already exceptional). Expertise is being the best of the best of the best.

Should wizards get Reliable Talent as well? Wouldn't want the rogue to be less likely to flunk the arcana check than the wizard. And obviously Use Magic Device should be a wizard skill not a rogue one. Maybe some inspiration dice they can use on arcana checks. In fact what are all the Arcane Trickster abilities doing - if a wizard can't do something with magic no-one should be able to?

I agree that access to expertise was a little too limited in the initial game and I think the best homebrew solution is the feats. Don't like taking a feat in order to be better at something you think your class should be good at? Tough, I'm sure the fighter thinks he should be good at fighting with a great weapon too, still has to take a feat. Think wizards should be the best arcane casters? They are - thats why they can cast rituals better, be the most flexible and scribe all the spells. Thats why bards get inspriation and expertise and jack of all trades to make up for not being as straight up good at casting spells as wizards.

Out of interest would you disallow someone from multiclassing into wizard because the fluff says is requires years of study?

I also think you're going to have to accept that in the rulebook the arcana skill has nothing whatsoever to do with actually casting spells. If you want it to then expertise isn't the thing you need to change - you need to introduce an arcana check into scribing or preparing or casting spells somewhere. Seems a bad idea to me but feel free at your table if you like.

[GlenSmash!]

I never understood why only Bards and Rogues got expertise.

Why should my Barbarian who spent his whole life dedicated to becoming the greatest grappler have to learn Thieves Cant or Bardic Spellcasting to become an expert in Athletics.

I liked the UA with expertise feats for just this reason.

Bards and Rogues will still be the best skill-monkeys, by virtue of having the most skill Proficiencies and Expertises. But now anyone can become an expert in the skill of their choice if they are willing to pay the price.

[Cybren]

I never understood why only Bards and Rogues got expertise.


Because D&D is a class based game, and made up of different subsystems, meaning that different classes are given different subsystems to be the best at. It's the same reason bards and rogues don't get fighting styles or heavy armor proficiency, and wizards have a d6 hit die

[GlenSmash!]

Because D&D is a class based game, and made up of different subsystems, meaning that different classes are given different subsystems to be the best at.

Sure, but why do those specific classes get those specific abilities? Most classes are built on tropes and archetypes from fiction, myth, legend etc. which explain why the Wizard or Rogue doesn't get heavy armor or fighting styles.

What about the Rogue and Bard narrative explains that they are intrinsically able to be better at a skill more than anyone else?

[Tanarii]

Best house-rule fix* for Expertise is to restrict Rogue Expertise to Rogue class skills only. Possibly ith 'Arcana' added to the list for ATs. Bards have no restrictions.

The funniest thing to me is the most common example given is Arcana and Wizards vs Rogues with Expertise. Because Wizards ARE better than any other class at Arcana by the very virtue of needing Int ability score to power their spells. So unless they choose to not be proficient in Arcana, or a Rogue/Bard chooses to spend their Expertise in it AND (has good Int OR the game is at level 9+), Wizards will be better than anyone at Arcana. And Nature, Religion, Investigation and History. Wizards are already trained at everything Lore + Deduction, and that's before you look at any proficiency they chose.

Of course, fix isn't an accurate term, since Expertise isn't broken. There aren't any problems except misperceptions of the people who think that all Wizards should be the best at Arcana, Clerics the best at Religion, Druids at Nature, Barbarians at Athletics. I'm all for strong archetypes, but the reality is these characters aren't required to be proficient in these skills. And the Rogue/Bard archetype's feature is they're better at skill-type things than anyone else. The latter has been true since they were introduced in oD&D as Thieves. However, as implied by my noted house-rule change, it's certainly true that Thieves were limited to being better at a particular sub-set of all possible 'skill' type things back then (Edit: all of which were done without any specified resolution method). All characters could do anything. Thieves were exceptional at things like Climbing Sheer /Slippery surfaces, moving completely silently, hiding in the very shadows, etc etc.

[Cybren]

Sure, but why do those specific classes get those specific abilities? Most classes are built on tropes and archetypes from fiction, myth, legend etc. which explain why the Wizard or Rogue doesn't get heavy armor or fighting styles.

What about the Rogue and Bard narrative explains that they are intrinsically able to be better at a skill more than anyone else?

Because those specific classes are good at the skills subsystem, that's literally what I just said

[GlenSmash!]

Because those specific classes are good at the skills subsystem, that's literally what I just said

But "those classes are good at the skills subsystem because those classes are good at the skills subsystem" is circular logic. *Why* are those two classes *specifically* good at the skill subsystem?

And not only good at it, but the best at it. Not only in the breadth of the skills they can choose to be best at, but also the depth of the of being the best at them.

[Cybren]

But "those classes are good at the skills subsystem because those classes are good at the skills subsystem" is circular logic. *Why* are those two classes *specifically* good at the skill subsystem?

And not only good at it, but the best at it. Not only in the breadth of the skills they can choose to be best at, but also the depth of the of being the best at them.

What? That's not circular logic: the question is "why are rogues and bards the only classes to get expertise"


That's literally what you asked



I never understood why only Bards and Rogues got expertise.

[Arrogont]

*Why* are those two classes *specifically* good at the skill subsystem?

the rogue is typically supposed to represent characters who are experts of stealth and/or subterfuge. those things happen to be covered by the skill subsystem. i suppose it was easier to give rogues a free hand choosing their own skills than pinning them down, since there are really many ways to approach even just the concept of being a "thief" (could be a deceptive con-artist, an acrobatic cat-burgler, or a tomb-robbing trap expert, among other things) let alone assassins, spies, etc.

as for the bard, they are usually intended to represent free-roaming jack-of-all-trades characters who pick up a wide variety of skills on their travels and try a bit of everything.

[Tanarii]

But "those classes are good at the skills subsystem because those classes are good at the skills subsystem" is circular logic. *Why* are those two classes *specifically* good at the skill subsystem?

And not only good at it, but the best at it. Not only in the breadth of the skills they can choose to be best at, but also the depth of the of being the best at them.
Because that's their Schtick. At least,one of them. Originally it was being good at a particular sub-set of adventuring skills. But 5e assumes all skill proficiencies are adventuring skills. So they're good at whichever of them they choose to be good at.

[Talionis]

Honestly, balancing. Fighters are not good at many if any social skills unless they choose to invest feats in social skills which isn't a terrible option. I'm not sure why so many people on these boards want to add something to classes without taking anything away. WotC tried to balance the classes. Rogues and Bards didn't get some other feature in order to be able to choose Expertise in skills.

I'm not totally against the idea that it would be nice for each class to have opportunities for their class to shine in a skill system. 5E is already better about that because skills are not linked to Intelligence like they were in 3.5. But in a way they have backgrounds allow people to pickup just about any skill, so you can change the fluff of your classes some. Also it takes a lot of work, and trading features to be able to get expertise in every skill, but its possible with some creative multiclassing. Most average Rogues and Bards still can't have Expertise in more than two to four skills and they won't have high attributes for each skill. So it should practically allow Rangers to be better at Survival than a Bard. If the Bard really wants to be an expert in Survival, then the Bard can be better than a Ranger, although the Ranger may still have class features which still make him better. That Bard will have to max Wisdom and use expertise in Survival to do it and so the Bard will have foregone Expertise in some other skill.

I'm all for adopting the UA feats that allow for a class to expend a feat gaining Expertise because that is probably pretty balanced. If you are talking about Homebrew fixes to perceived problems, I would hope people would first look at UA material. UA material is far from balanced, but at least an impartial source thinks without playtesting it might be balanced or they wouldn't have proposed the UA.

I'll also point out that Rogue and Bard dips are very common dips for many builds in order to get Expertise. They give people reasons to multiclass. Most multiclassing fluff can be explained well if you try. If you want to provide a feat option, so you aren't getting something for nothing UA material exists you can add to your game.

This whole argument is a virtual non-problem, though because unless you are talking about very specific builds, Rogues and Bards tend to take Expertise in social skills, Athletics, Hiding, etc. They stay away from knowledge skills because they expect the Wizards, Clerics, Rangers, etc to take those skills and for most game purposes its perfectly acceptable for those non Bards/Rogues to merely be proficient with the skill.

[Mikal]

Sure, but why do those specific classes get those specific abilities? Most classes are built on tropes and archetypes from fiction, myth, legend etc. which explain why the Wizard or Rogue doesn't get heavy armor or fighting styles.

What about the Rogue and Bard narrative explains that they are intrinsically able to be better at a skill more than anyone else?

Because Bards and Rogues have access to resources Barbarians, Fighters, et al do not normally.

Gronk the Barbarian may be the strongest there is, and wrestles a bear to the ground, but he doesn't have access to Sifu Char-Li, master of the ancient art of Kenpai, which provides Expertise in Athletics. Char-Li likes to gamble you see, so he owes the Southaven Thieves Guild a favor, and teaches those members who wish to learn the arts for free.

In addition, the ancient art of Kenpai is a bit of esoteric lore. While there are few true masters of it, the person with the right connections can still learn it, like those members of the Bardic college in Northbrook, who love ferreting out things like this.

Gronk may eventually get that access in some manner, either by taking levels in Bard or Rogue, or by taking the UA feat.

[Kobard]

The Lore Master wizard also throws something of a large wrench into many arguments against rogues with Arcana expertise. If at least their level 2 ability remains unchanged from UA, then the LM wizard gets expertise for ALL intelligence skills: Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion. They become inherently better at history than a bard, better at nature than a druid or ranger, and better at religion than a cleric. And what does this mean about the non-LM wizard? Does the LM having expertise in Arcana mean that non-LM wizards are not masters of arcane lore?

[Deleted]

As has been mentioned frequently, 5e's skill system is not its strong point. A Rogue who's never seen a vine can be far better at the Nature skill than a Druid who lives in the jungle. To fix this, what if we gave classes Expertise on their main area of... well, expertise? Eg. Barbarian to Athletics, Cleric to Religion, Druid to Nature, etc., etc., ... Wizard to Arcana? Bardic and Roguish Expertise would be unaffected, to let them keep their skill monkey status and just let the other classes catch up a bit. All that's left is giving them the Expertise at a level which wouldn't encourage Rogues dipping in solely for the Expertise, such as 8.

What do you guys think?

Simpler fix.

Change expertise to advantage on the skill roll.

[JNAProductions]

Simpler fix.

Change expertise to advantage on the skill roll.

Completely negating the need to ever gain advantage in another way, and making the ceiling and floor exactly the same. (I do get that keeping the ceiling and floor the same is INTENTIONAL-I don't agree with it.)

[Cybren]

Simpler fix.

Change expertise to advantage on the skill roll.

Sure, if your goal is to produce the Most Boring Game Possible

[Tanarii]

Simpler fix.

Change expertise to advantage on the skill roll.
Unfortunately, that changes a base assumption that has held true in D&D since oD&D: Thieves (now Rogues) are supposed to be able to do nearly impossible things other characters can't even dream of with their skills.

Bards get to do that as well because originally, then were Thieves (as well as Fighters).

Rogues/Bards are just supposed to be able to take anything normal characters can do and be better at it. Folks may not like that, but it's a sacred cow. Changing that isn't fixing anything, it's actually breaking something to match a personal preference. House ruling to personal preferences is awesome. But we shouldn't try to pretend they're fixes.

(Edit: Got a little Rant-y at the end there. Not directed at you in particular.)

[Specter]

Giving advantage instead of a bonus is not a good change, because then there's no difference between doing something yourself and doing something with help.

[Honest Tiefling]

Giving advantage instead of a bonus is not a good change, because then there's no difference between doing something yourself and doing something with help.

To me, the issue isn't that rogues can be just as good, its that Wizards can't easily catch up. Nerfing expertise really isn't a good answer because it nerfs a rogue using that ability to buy skills that don't step on the toes of the assumed character roles (perception, stealth, insight, etc) or nerfs a rogue who isn't in a party with anyone who has arcana.

[Deleted]

Completely negating the need to ever gain advantage in another way, and making the ceiling and floor exactly the same. (I do get that keeping the ceiling and floor the same is INTENTIONAL-I don't agree with it.)

I don't think my eyes have rolled so hard in quite a while. Seriously, are you trying to show you have expertise in the hyperbole skill? Cause good job!

Expertise = Advantage doesn't stop you from trying to get advantage for attacks, for other skill challenges you may face (or are you the type of player/DM that only has players who are skilled in a skill roll that skill?), or giving other people advantage on an attack or skill roll.

It balances out the skill roll, because expertise is massively broken as is but this change keeps it very useful without being broken.

[Sir cryosin]

Why does this thread keep making its death saving throws.

[Tanarii]

Seriously, are you trying to show you have expertise in the hyperbole skill? Cause good job!


because expertise is massively broken as isThe irony of you accusing someone else of hyperbole just broke the forums a little. Both specifically and generally.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think my eyes have rolled so hard in quite a while. Seriously, are you trying to show you have expertise in the hyperbole skill? Cause good job!

Expertise = Advantage doesn't stop you from trying to get advantage for attacks, for other skill challenges you may face (or are you the type of player/DM that only has players who are skilled in a skill roll that skill?), or giving other people advantage on an attack or skill roll.

It balances out the skill roll, because expertise is massively broken as is but this change keeps it very useful without being broken.

How is Expertise massively broken as-is? It makes you significantly better at skills, but that's sorta its point.

And it renders Advantage moot for any skill you have Expertise in. Obviously it doesn't render the ENTIRE SYSTEM moot, but I figured that'd be obvious from basic context.

[Âmesang]

This thread reminds me of how amusing I find it that my averagely Intelligent drow antipaladin/assassin, who's spent the majority of her (relatively short) life focusing on her martial abilities, is still more knowledgable in Religion (+10) than drow priestesses who have literally spent centuries dedicated to religious rites… save for, probably, Matron Mother Quenthel, herself. :smallamused: (Though for the games played at my group's table it did make sense in the long-run due to the circumstances that arose.)

So I've seen Unearthed Arcana being battered about due to "Expertise feats." Can anyone shed some light on what those feats are? All I've seen are ones related to Weapon styles and Tool proficiencies, but I'll also admit I probably don't have every UA document available, either; it sounds like it could be useful if I ever attempted to update my favorite 3e sorceress/archmage to 5e… though doing so comes with its own share of problems besides simply wanting her to have a better Arcana than rogues and bards—just because she has an innate talent for spellcasting doesn't mean she shouldn't want to further educate herself* …or should someone with an innate talent for drawing never go to art school?.

*(Especially if doing so would enable to recreate her ancestors' most famous spell, the previously mentioned Invoked Devastation.)

[Tanarii]

This thread reminds me of how amusing I find it that my averagely Intelligent drow antipaladin/assassin, who's spent the majority of her (relatively short) life focusing on her martial abilities, is still more knowledgable in Religion (+10) than drow priestesses who have literally spent centuries dedicated to religious rites… save for, probably, Matron Mother Quenthel, herself. :smallamused: (Though for the games played at my group's table it did make sense in the long-run due to the circumstances that arose.)Curious, why didn't your backstory and mechanical choices line up?

[Lombra]

The "fix" to expertise is to not allow players to use it on completely random and character-unrelated skills. "But a rogue can be better at arcana than a wizard" so what? It's not like that the rogue is going to cast 9th level divination spells that may give him all the knowledge that he seeks.
"But the rogue has a passive perception of 20" so what? He's gonna notice most of the things, and that doesn't mean that he has foresight, or that traps get disarmed just because he looks at them, he still can't see what's coming if he literally can't see what's coming. Plus it's an incentive to use exhaustion levels without feeling guilty as a DM. Expertise is wonderful, one single level of rogue makes some characters feel accomplished without breaking the game balance, or requiring improbable multiclassing, and it's such a relief.

[JackPhoenix]

So I've seen Unearthed Arcana being battered about due to "Expertise feats." Can anyone shed some light on what those feats are? All I've seen are ones related to Weapon styles and Tool proficiencies, but I'll also admit I probably don't have every UA document available, either; it sounds like it could be useful if I ever attempted to update my favorite 3e sorceress/archmage to 5e… though doing so comes with its own share of problems besides simply wanting her to have a better Arcana than rogues and bards—just because she has an innate talent for spellcasting doesn't mean she shouldn't want to further educate herself* …or should someone with an innate talent for drawing never go to art school?.

Here you go: http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf

[Coffee_Dragon]

This thread reminds me of how amusing I find it that my averagely Intelligent drow antipaladin/assassin, who's spent the majority of her (relatively short) life focusing on her martial abilities, is still more knowledgable in Religion (+10) than drow priestesses who have literally spent centuries dedicated to religious rites… save for, probably, Matron Mother Quenthel, herself. :smallamused:

Amusement is fine, but it is not at all absurd that an averagely Intelligent drow antipaladin/assassin presumed to have absorbed lots of tidbits of religious lore would, say, recognize the seal of a couatl presiding over a cult in Chult even when drow priestesses hyper-focused on plunging spider-shaped daggers into people in cavernous realms would fail to do so. The takeaway is not that the assassin is better at being a priestess than the priestesses. That's not what ability checks represent.

[Âmesang]

Amusement is fine, but it is not at all absurd that an averagely Intelligent drow antipaladin/assassin presumed to have absorbed lots of tidbits of religious lore would, say, recognize the seal of a couatl presiding over a cult in Chult even when drow priestesses hyper-focused on plunging spider-shaped daggers into people in cavernous realms would fail to do so. The takeaway is not that the assassin is better at being a priestess than the priestesses. That's not what ability checks represent.
That's fair; considering the fact that the character actually left the Underdark to go exploring all over Faerûn whilst most priestesses stay home I can see how she would have gained more awareness of religious things than would be typical—and on top of that her ambition to become a top-dog in House Baenre led her to focus more heavily upon it (just as one might expect a prospective Pope to have a higher skill than your typical clergy).


Curious, why didn't your backstory and mechanical choices line up?
I suppose because I was more focused on playing a "classic" AD&D antipaladin/3e blackguard just for the fun/sake of it, with her goal for adventuring (Storm King's Thunder) to basically replicate what House Eilserves did in Against the Giants. So, for Expertise, I went with thieve's tools (I can't recall us having another rogue at the time), Stealth (seemed natural for a drow), Religion (seemed natural for a religious drow drawing unholy power from Lolth), and Perception (just good all around). The fluff explanation was that her mother was Zal'therra, former commander of the Army of the Black Spider (and distant cousin to Matron Quenthel), so she divided her time between Arach-Tinilith (the religious order) and training with the warriors of Melee-Magthere; while she may have lacked the spellcasting of the priestesses I feel like she had a particularly strong connection to her dark deity, as if she were Lolth's own divine hand… claw… spidery appendage.


Here you go: http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf
Ah, thank you! I'm really hoping they make some sort of grand collection some day ala the DRAGON Compendium. :smalltongue:

[imanidiot]

. I agree that Rogues and Bards shouldn't be better grapplers than Fighters and Barbarians.

A Rogue or Bard specifically trained to grapple vs a Fighter/Barbarian who isn't should be way better. Strength isn't anywhere near at important as technique.

[90sMusic]

I think the skill system is fine.

If a druid doesn't pick proficiency in nature, that is their own fault for doing so. Likewise if a rogue spends one of it's 4 precious few Expertise skills on Nature, he should absolutely get an advantage for it.

Also those new feats that give you double proficiency as well as other perks is great.

I think your main problem with the skill system is playing with min/maxers who want the most "useful" skills and completely ignores the ones a character of their type should actually have. Rogues and Bards are intended to be the best at skills, that is one of their purposes.

[Quoxis]

First, I personally have absolutely no problem with the Expertise mechanic. A rogue with expertise Nature has definitely seen a vine before and has likely studied nature intently. Not every Druid is a master of nature, the guy could just be a tribal shaman who doesn't actually understand how the natural world works.

That being said, I think people would be a lot happier if they had limited it to a certain set of choices instead of letting you take anything, like the Purple Dragon Knight and Persuasion.

If I were to "fix it" I'd allow rogues to take any STR, DEX or WIS skill and Bards any INT, CHA or WIS skill. The rogues stick to scouting, fighting and awareness stuff and the bards stick to academic, personality and awareness stuff. That way you avoid the somewhat weird situations of a rogue with Arcana expertise with a ham-fisted explanation.

The arcana expertise rogue has to get that proficiency from their background, for example from the sage or inheritor background. That means that guy was forced to remember things in incredible detail because of strict teachers, or they have a knack for the topic and researched on their own (other than a wizard who focuses more on the practical side of magic), or the character wanted to become a wizard but just hasn't got the intrinsic talent to cast magic, so they studied everything they could about hoping that with better understanding there would eventually come the ability to use that knowledge...

You need to check on the explanation why your rogue has such skills in that field, which is a failure of your roleplaying, not of the core rules.

[Beelzebubba]

This thread reminds me of how amusing I find it that my averagely Intelligent drow antipaladin/assassin, who's spent the majority of her (relatively short) life focusing on her martial abilities, is still more knowledgable in Religion (+10) than drow priestesses who have literally spent centuries dedicated to religious rites… save for, probably, Matron Mother Quenthel, herself. :smallamused: (Though for the games played at my group's table it did make sense in the long-run due to the circumstances that arose.)

I can make that work!

Elves in noble houses or authoritative positions are lazy and complacent due to always 'having time', and arrogant enough to think the little piddling around they do in their slow-paced little bubble is *amazing*.

Meanwhile, due to the phenomenon of 'if you want something done, give it to the person who's really busy', since they are actually productive, your character has pushed themselves into more situations and been exposed to so much more breadth - whether it be through real life, meeting others outside the church, looking through heretical texts that the Priestesses look down upon, etcetera - that you run circles around that insulated fool.

:smallcool: