Lack of expertise for Wizards, Clerics etc. in their fields is boggling to me

[Alucard89]

It always rubs me a wrong way when Wizard who spent his whole life studying Arcane knowledge, whos whole life is sitting with books, scrolls, gaining more understanding about magic- does not have access to expertise in Arcana... Or Cleric that doesn't have access to expertise in Religion, even though it's his whole life. Or Druid who can't expertise in Nature, or Ranger who can't expertise in survival...

Why Rogue can be expert in Arcana or Religion and Wizard or Cleric can't. How Bard can be bigger expert than Druid when it comes to Nature?

It doesn't make sense to me. Each time I DM and I have Rogue from city who suddenly has bigger knowledge about Nature or Arcana than party Druid or Wizard I am thinking "who the hell designed that?". 14 STR Bard having expertise in Athletics while 20 CON, 20 STR Fighter does not?

Am I the only one? For me it doesn't make any sense.

[LudicSavant]

It always rubs me a wrong way when Wizard who spent his whole life studying Arcane knowledge, whos whole life is sitting with books, scrolls, gaining more understanding about magic- does not have access to expertise in Arcana... Or Cleric that doesn't have access to expertise in Religion, even though it's his whole life. Or Druid who can't expertise in Nature, or Ranger who can't expertise in survival...

Why Rogue can be expert in Arcana or Religion and Wizard or Cleric can't. How Bard can be bigger expert than Druid when it comes to Nature?

It doesn't make sense to me. Each time I DM and I have Rogue from city who suddenly has bigger knowledge about Nature or Arcana than party Druid or Wizard I am thinking "who the hell designed that?". 14 STR Bard having expertise in Athletics while 20 CON, 20 STR Fighter does not?

Am I the only one? For me it doesn't make any sense.

It is a little odd, isn't it? I mean, the Wizard hardly notices since they at least have the right stat to go with Arcana, but that's no answer for the likes of a Cleric.

What is a possible houserule we could use to address this? Perhaps something like...

Wizards get Expertise in Arcana
Clerics get Expertise in Religion
Druids get Expertise in Nature
Bards get Expertise in Performance
Non full-casters get Expertise in anything they want, as long as it's not Stealth, Perception, or Athletics (so that they don't always pick one of those three). This helps give the Fighters and Barbarians and such something more to do out of combat.

Or perhaps if you don't want to give away Expertise so easily, what about something like "Clerics may use Wisdom for Religion, and Druids may use Wisdom for Nature." I mean, the Samurai just gets to straight up add their Wisdom to Persuasion, so why not? I'd just probably also throw in some non-combat goodies for the poor martials.

Another possibility could be to have something DM-side, like providing Advantage if something's relevant to their field, or just a lower DC for the situation, or the like.

Edit: Added two extra suggestions

[Alucard89]

It is a little odd, isn't it?

What is a possible houserule we could use to address this? Perhaps something like...

Wizards get Expertise in Arcana
Clerics get Expertise in Religion
Druids get Expertise in Nature
Bards get Expertise in Performance
Non full-casters get Expertise in anything they want, as long as it's not Stealth, Perception, or Athletics (so that they don't always pick one of those three). This helps give the Fighters and Barbarians and such something more to do out of combat.

...?

That's simple solution and easy one. I am just wondering who the hell was playtesting that and didn't find it wierd. Imo all classes should get one expertise. I can't believe that level 20 Wizard who is pretty much a MASTER of arcanas - has same knowledge as 8 INT 20 level Half-Orc Rogue who expertise in arcana....

The more I think about it the more I think the expertise idea came after most of the classes were already designed. Or WoTC simply thought that Rogues and Bards needed something more and added it to them later without going back to other classes.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Expertise is supposed to be relatively rare, I don't see the need to hand it out to extra classes. Skills are the bard and the rogue's thing. If you really want to have expertise on your cleric, play a Knowledge cleric.

Also, don't underestimate attribute bonuses. A rogue with Int 12 and expertise is only going to outperform a wizard with Int 20 by 2 points at level 20 and will have a lower Knowledge bonus than the wizard for most of their adventuring career.

[LudicSavant]

That's simple solution and easy one. I am just wondering who the hell was playtesting that and didn't find it wierd. Imo all classes should get one expertise. I can't believe that level 20 Wizard who is pretty much a MASTER of arcanas - has same knowledge as 8 INT 20 level Half-Orc Rogue who expertise in arcana....

Their playtesting standards probably just aren't that rigorous. I mean, Witch Bolt made the quality assurance cut, so... yeah.

Oh, also, I added a couple extra ideas to my original post.

[Alucard89]

Expertise is supposed to be relatively rare, I don't see the need to hand it out to extra classes. Skills are the bard and the rogue's thing. If you really want to have expertise on your cleric, play a Knowledge cleric.

Also, don't underestimate attribute bonuses. A rogue with Int 12 and expertise is only going to outperform a wizard with Int 20 by 2 points at level 20 and will have a lower Knowledge bonus than the wizard for most of their adventuring career.

It should be rare but if anyone should get access to expertise to Arcana is Wizard. Wizards at least SHOW the effort you would need to be expert in field- studying, gathering knowledge, experimenting with it, USING it. Same with Druid and Nature - they live with nature, they study nature, they understand nature, hell the nature itself is giving them divine powers.

How Rogue who is never actively studying or using magic can become expert in Arcana and Wizard can't?

It's like: If I will read all medical books - will that make me expert in medicine? Without experience and practice? Or will active surgeon who operates every day, gaining experience, living with trial and error of his profession be bigger expert in medicine than me with just theory knowledge?

It's same with Rogue and Wizard. Even worst as have you ever seen Rogue with expertise actually showed studying subjects that are associated with their expertise? It's flat mechanical quirk that has nothing behind it.

Hell, I can see Arcane Trickster picking expertise in Arcane. At least they can use magic...

[MoiMagnus]

1) I don't like at all D&D cleric (not just 5e). I mean, I like them, but for me they are a subclass of Paladin with slightly more magic. D&D cleric are far too martial and not "wizard" enough. The fact that they are allowed to use medium armor (and half of the time heavy ones), but have no use of Int, just goes against my vision of cleric. So yes, I agree that "in theory", a Cleric should be good at Religion checks, but the D&D's Clerics are written as divine warriors with armours and weapons, not scholars with robes and books.

2) 5e wizard are usually combat-focussed. They are artisans of spells, which does not mean they have the full background of knowledge associated. In fact, since they can't change prepared spells without their spell-book, it kinds of point toward them using spells as tools without having the knowledge to understand and recreate them... So it doesn't shock me at all that 5e wizard do not get expertise in Arcana unless it actually takes the time to become an expert in this field (by taking the Expert feat). A similar argument can be made for most classes.

3) Features gained at level are often .... weird. When the rules allow you to chose a skill / spell / feat / subclasses / ... it never claims that this choice always make sense, it claims that this choice might make sense for you character. A rogue that passed his whole life living as a "robin hood" in the forest can reasonably have an expertise in nature. A rogue that live in a city with a major university and used to sneak up in the forbidden library, and faking to be a student to attend courses, can reasonably obtain an expertise in arcana. That's your role as a player to go change your background to give back some coherence to your character whenever you level up, its the role of a DM to find a way to have level not break the flow of the game, or it's the role of the table to accept that level up instantaneously gives features that would require a lifetime of mastery. I find personally quite weird that wizards learns far more spells during their adventure than during their years at the university of magic (Seriously, what do they even teach? I know students forget everything they learn at university, but to this point? And why don't they just give/sell full spell-books to everyone?).

EDIT: if you just follows the rules and "take a feature because the rules say you can", then almost anybody can take few level in Wizard without ever having put a feet in an university of magic / having a master / having read a book about magic. Sure taking an expertise somewhere is not as game changing as multiclassing, but it leads to similar problems of consistency. If you multiclass into a class "just because", then you obtain an inconsistent character.

[Contrast]

I feel like the heart of the problem here is that you're assuming expertise is the baseline.

No prof is the baseline. Proficiency is the baseline for a trained individual. Proficiency + good stat is someone naturally talented who has also received training. Expertise is for really exceptional people.

Bemoaning the Int8 rogue being as good at arcana as the wizard misses the point that the Int8 rogue obviously did a lot of studying (more than the wizard) in the arcana skill. One of the main things I learned at university was that all being naturally smart had done for me at school was make me lazy - people who aren't as smart but are willing to put in the effort and time are always going to win out in the end.

Being a wizard doesn't make you a master of the arcana skill. There is a difference between studying Arcana and studying to be a wizard (in much the same way that you can be a good engineer without knowing anything about high level mathematics).

Re giving classes expertise based on their class. What if I want to play a wizard who studied by rote copying of his dead masters spellbook but hasn't received proper former magical training? What if I want to play a druid who grew up in the city and thinks of the city like an ants nest? What if I want to play a cleric who grew up with two smothering religious parents who isolated them outside influences so they know nothing of other religions or rites outside of those own personalised ones? Forcing characters to take expertises based on their class is a bad idea in my opinion.

Personally I like that they introduced the Prodigy feat and wouldn't have restricted it to being a racial feat (talk to your DM about lifting that restriction perhaps) but I would strongly argue against just giving all classes expertise for free. A feat seems a reasonable price point for becoming an expert and still leaves bards and rogues with a niche in my opinion.

[Mikal]

I don’t see a problem with it.
The wizard and clerics expertise comes from actually being able to cast spells.

Plus... arcana isn’t just about casting spells. It represents magical traditions (that the wizard might not know), magic items and everything involved with them (that the wizard might not care about), and the planes and their inhabitants (that the wizard might not have even heard of).

Similarly, religion is about knowing lore of rituals, rites, hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults. I don’t expect a priest of tempus to have expertise and know rare lore about the secret cult of orcus and how they like to sacrifice goats at the equinox.

What *I* find annoying is how many people want to allow something that’s pretty rare and meant to make certain classes/racial feats feel special and useful to be diluted by giving it to everyone and their brother.

Expertise isn’t something to hand out like candy. You just have a solution that’s looking for a problem, like most 5E “fixes”.

[da newt]

Handing out expertise to more PC's will nerf the bard and rogue class feature, and for that reason it's tough for me to support. Proficiency and a high stat = you really know your stuff - which is just fine for everyone except the special classes w/ expertise as a class feature (or a feat). Otherwise you increase power creep.

On the other hand, the fact that religion and nature are INT skills but rangers, druids and clerics are WIS based seems incongruous to me. Something like "Clerics may use Wisdom for Religion, and Druids (and Rangers) may use Wisdom for Nature," makes more sense to me. (or delete Nature all together, and add it's skill set to Survival.)

Then again a simple house rule that all PCs get one skill expertise in a skill they are already proficient at level X could suit your desires (I think lvl 6/7 might be a good fit - it represents a truly vested / experienced PC)...

* as always my ideas / opinions are off the top of my head - half baked vice thoroughly analyzed and rigorously play tested

[Tes]

Expertise is cool.

The Prodigy Feat is a really nice one for that matter.
What doesn't make sense is where else they put it. Rogues and Bards just automatically being a multi Prodigy is meh.

Worst offender is probably the Scout Rogue. Mechanically very sound, Expertise in 4 Skills at level 3.
Makes you look at Druids and Rangers and scratch your head though.

I guess sometime during designing 5E they figured out they need an incentive to play a Rogue over a Fighter and a Bard over a Wizard.
Skills from Backgrounds and Expertise baked into classes always looked like 5E's makeshift replacement for a more natural separate system to me.
This isn't exactly a complaint, I'd simply have preferred free reign on Proficiencies.
Sure we'll go with what matches our highest Attribute most of the time either way, but it's a bit sad you have to invest a Feat and a Background to get your Fighter Expertise in Arcana. Rather than investing a separate pool of character building resources unrelated to combat activities.

[stoutstien]

It always rubs me a wrong way when Wizard who spent his whole life studying Arcane knowledge, whos whole life is sitting with books, scrolls, gaining more understanding about magic- does not have access to expertise in Arcana... Or Cleric that doesn't have access to expertise in Religion, even though it's his whole life. Or Druid who can't expertise in Nature, or Ranger who can't expertise in survival...

Why Rogue can be expert in Arcana or Religion and Wizard or Cleric can't. How Bard can be bigger expert than Druid when it comes to Nature?

It doesn't make sense to me. Each time I DM and I have Rogue from city who suddenly has bigger knowledge about Nature or Arcana than party Druid or Wizard I am thinking "who the hell designed that?". 14 STR Bard having expertise in Athletics while 20 CON, 20 STR Fighter does not?

Am I the only one? For me it doesn't make any sense.

I've gone back and forth with this in my head so many times now it almost a default puzzle for me to ponder on.

My current stand in solution is to use two DC values to showcase the difference between someone who invested in the ablity, expertise/skill proficiency, or both. So something might require a minimum ablity score to attempt and the actual DC for the check is moderate or easy while a mirrored check might be the opposite. Juggling cannonballs versus juggling flaming knives or solving an obscure ancient riddle versus solving a brand-new one.

[Grey Watcher]

I like the option of not necessarily having Expertise in Arcana as a Wizard. I like that there's room for a character who has developed great skill at the practice of magic without really having developed a great understanding of the underlying theory. Not quite a Sorcerer: they do have to develop their ability with study, practice, and note-taking. But they're self-taught and haven't necessarily learned (or re-derived for themselves) the various formulae and such underlying everything.

But I do think it should be more readily attainable than it is, since it's weird that you can't do the opposite: the true, consummate master of the field in both theory and practice.

Whatever solution you come up with to allow other classes to get Expertise, I'd definitely make it also available to the Rogue and the Bard. That way they keep their status as the skill monkeys because they get the usual access to Expertise that everybody gets plus extra Expertises as class features.

(My personal choice for more-widely-available expertise is o allow a person to take a Proficiency twice to gain Expertise. So it's a choice between depth and breadth of skill. But that's my personal houserule patch.)

[Joe the Rat]

It should be rare but if anyone should get access to expertise to Arcana is Wizard. Wizards at least SHOW the effort you would need to be expert in field- studying, gathering knowledge, experimenting with it, USING it. Same with Druid and Nature - they live with nature, they study nature, they understand nature, hell the nature itself is giving them divine powers.

How Rogue who is never actively studying or using magic can become expert in Arcana and Wizard can't?

It's like: If I will read all medical books - will that make me expert in medicine? Without experience and practice? Or will active surgeon who operates every day, gaining experience, living with trial and error of his profession be bigger expert in medicine than me with just theory knowledge?


You kind of hit the nail on the head for why it's not an issue - Arcana IS Knowledge. Expertise in Arcana means you studied the hell out of it, and have all the books, and are likely still gathering and expanding your knowledge base. Applied Arcana is Spellcasting, and yes a spellcaster will always be better at that. That doesn't mean the know all the LORE, but they know how to apply what they do know. Your Arcana Expert Rogue made particular effort to learn about magic, magical creatures, and whatever else it covers by your DM. That doesn't mean you know how to do magic - that's a different skill set. Knowing all the physics doesn't make you an engineer. Being an engineer doesn't mean you know all the physics.

As a Rogue, one of your tricks is being the skills guy. You are super-competent at a set of abilities - encyclopedic knowledge is an option ...if you have access to those skills.

As a Bard, knowing lots of things about lots of things is what you do - and you get to become Jack of All Trades, Master of Some. Master of Lore is in their wheelhouse. They collect stories, knowledge, information. Or at least they can, if you aren't playing an Elan-esque Father-of-Sorcerers.

If that is not enough, there is Prodigy.

[Morty]

This is an unfortunate side-effect of rogues and bards being the designated "skill classes". If you want to be good at non-magical, non-combat skills, you probably want one of those two classes. Don't want to be an implied sneak/criminal or a magical musician? Too bad.

That being said, it's one of their class features, at the end of the day. Rogues, in particular. To give expertise to other classes dilutes it. Particularly if those other classes already have a pile of spells more impressive than anything the rogue will ever do. Bards are better off here, since they also have spells.

Besides, if a rogue or bard have expertise in Arcana, it clearly means they do know a lot about magic. It doesn't seem odd to me that they might turn out to know things wizards don't, even if they can cast fewer or no spells themselves. And if you have a rogue with expertise with Nature who has never left the city, I would ask the player to explain how their character acquired such knowledge.

[KorvinStarmast]

Expertise is supposed to be relatively rare, I don't see the need to hand it out to extra classes. This. OP seems to be overlooking that adventureres start out being good at stuff and get better over time. If you start with +3 to INT and have proficiency, you are +5 to Arcana. At level 18 with a 20 in INT, you are +11. That's pretty good.

Their playtesting standards probably just aren't that rigorous. I mean, Witch Bolt made the quality assurance cut, *snort* :smallbiggrin:


I feel like the heart of the problem here is that you're assuming expertise is the baseline. No proficiency is the baseline. This too.

I don’t see a problem with it. The wizard and clerics expertise comes from actually being able to cast spells. Plus... arcana isn’t just about casting spells. It represents magical traditions (that the wizard might not know), magic items and everything involved with them (that the wizard might not care about), and the planes and their inhabitants (that the wizard might not have even heard of). A RL parallel: I have a bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering. But I don't have a PhD. There are different levels of detail and knowledge for Arcana. (We'll consider Engineering to be similar to Magic in for the purpose of an analogy)

What *I* find annoying is how many people want to allow something that’s pretty rare and meant to make certain classes/racial feats feel special and useful to be diluted by giving it to everyone and their brother. Expertise isn’t something to hand out like candy. You just have a solution that’s looking for a problem, like most 5E “fixes”. This too.


I like the option of not necessarily having Expertise in Arcana as a Wizard. I like that there's room for a character who has developed great skill at the practice of magic without really having developed a great understanding of the underlying theory. I served with a lot of pilots like that: not big on aerospace engineering or aerodynamic theory but they could fly the heck out of their aircraft.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is the corollary to:
Why is my socially awkward Sorceror automatically really good at persuasion, intimidation, deception, performance without being trained in them at all.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm not sure Clerics and Wizards need a buff. I'd let Rogues and Bards have their thing.

I've also never seen a rogue use one of their 4 expertise slots on Arcana or Religion so it's kind of a moot point for me. I can imagine an Arcane Trickster or Lore bard taking Arcana, I've just never seen it done. Rogues usually want to sneak and bards want to face, so they use their expertise in skills that help those areas.

So for me, I only see proficiency and a 20 INT for the wizard vs. proficiency and a 12-14 INT for the rogue or bard.

[patchyman]

Expertise is supposed to be relatively rare, I don't see the need to hand it out to extra classes. Skills are the bard and the rogue's thing. If you really want to have expertise on your cleric, play a Knowledge cleric.

Or a human, half-elf or half-orc with Prodigy.

Honestly, I don’t see the problem, because I have never seen an Int 12 Rogue who decided to use one of his few Expertise in Arcana. If one did, I would ask him why, because the character presumably has a good reason to do so. And I would incorporate that reason into the story.

As for Expertise in Religion, while I think many of us know spiritual people with a passion for theology outside their faith, I think we probably also know spiritual people who know very little about faiths outside their own.
😃

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly, I don’t see the problem, because I have never seen an Int 12 Rogue who decided to use one of his few Expertise in Arcana. If one did, I would ask him why, because the character presumably has a good reason to do so. And I would incorporate that reason into the story.
😃 An Arcane Trickseter or a Thief (looking ahead to his 13th level abiilty) might well do that.

[Sigreid]

Or a human, half-elf or half-orc with Prodigy.

Honestly, I don’t see the problem, because I have never seen an Int 12 Rogue who decided to use one of his few Expertise in Arcana. If one did, I would ask him why, because the character presumably has a good reason to do so. And I would incorporate that reason into the story.

As for Expertise in Religion, while I think many of us know spiritual people with a passion for theology outside their faith, I think we probably also know spiritual people who know very little about faiths outside their own.
😃

Identifying and dealing with magical traps. Having a shot at knowing what that magical knickknack you stole is worth. There's a few more reasons.

[Lupine]

Another possibility could be to have something DM-side, like providing Advantage if something's relevant to their field, or just a lower DC for the situation, or the like.

This is what I do. At my table, the Warlock has advantage of arcana checks revolving around summoning things. (This came in help in a recent encounter when the party was trying to find who was the diabolical cultist at a dinner party, and the warlock was able to list off the things which would be needed.)

I haven't thought about it, but I might give the monk advantage on medicine checks, due to his intimate knowledge of how the body works.

[ZRN]

I feel like the heart of the problem here is that you're assuming expertise is the baseline.

No prof is the baseline. Proficiency is the baseline for a trained individual. Proficiency + good stat is someone naturally talented who has also received training. Expertise is for really exceptional people.


Exactly. Let's bear in mind that both mechanically and narratively, being really (non-magically) skilled is rogues' Big Thing. Also bear in mind that rogues and bards only get expertise on a limited number of skills, so if your 5th-level rogue is an Expert in Arcana, his character really, really studied the heck out of arcana - and that player chose NOT to be an expert in some other really important skills, like stealth or thieves' tools or perception, because knowing arcane stuff was a significant part of the character.

[Jamesps]

Exactly. Let's bear in mind that both mechanically and narratively, being really (non-magically) skilled is rogues' Big Thing. Also bear in mind that rogues and bards only get expertise on a limited number of skills, so if your 5th-level rogue is an Expert in Arcana, his character really, really studied the heck out of arcana - and that player chose NOT to be an expert in some other really important skills, like stealth or thieves' tools or perception, because knowing arcane stuff was a significant part of the character.

I agree. Rogues are supposed to be the best at the skills they pursue. That's their thing.

That said, most wizards are going to be better than a rogue at arcana because rogues don't actually take arcana as their expertise unless it's a unique aspect of their character design... And if it is a unique aspect of their character design, then let it be.

If the wizard really wants to be the best at arcana there's ways to do it. They can take prodigy, they can learn the spell that gives them expertise (and use a 5th level slot for it), they can read a tome of clear thought. All of these require sacrifices in the same way that the rogue sacrificed all or almost all practical knowledge of magic in order to be a master of theoretical magic.

[Mr Adventurer]

Everyone IS aware that a Wizard may not even be proficient in Arcana, right? It's fully half of their class skill selection; with an Int focus to do some of the heavy lifting, I can easily see a player choosing not to take it.

[JNAProductions]

Also, Clerics don't have to be pious followers of a god. They could easily be someone gifted with powers for being a champion of good, despite not even paying lip service to the pantheon.

Or, even if they ARE pious followers, they could lack book smarts when it comes to religion. They know their own ceremonies, but are in the dark about other religions.

[Chaos Jackal]

From a mechanical standpoint, and since playtesting was mentioned somewhere, it's most likely simply a matter of "rogues and bards are the skill monkeys, so give them something to boost their skills". Given that cross-class skill ranks are no longer a thing, and proficiency in a skill is very easy to acquire through backgrounds, preconstructed or custom, just having more skill choices and from a larger list probably didn't feel enough.

The unfortunate issue here is that they chose to represent that through expertise in a skill, rather than, say "Superb Intuition". This leads to a problem with numbers, flavor and options, related to each other. The numbers problem isn't that big, but it exaggerates the flavor and options issues.

The numerical part is, of course, that someone with +0 and expertise will always beat someone with proficiency only, unless said someone is a barbarian or has magic items. So average brawn or average brain has a bigger boost than the hired muscle or the MENSA member. Which is likely by design, but it often feels counterintuitive.

Which leads to the flavor part. This isn't average brain or brawn competing with someone using just their natural wit or physique. This is average brain or brawn competing with someone who is very smart and has actually invested a decent amount of time on the subject, or someone who has actually trained in climbing rough cliffs, since they are proficient in it. Yes, great effort will beat natural talent if you rely only on talent, but natural talent plus good effort?

But let's call it an edge case. It is, after all, just an extra +1. And you can say you have someone who has studied out of their mind, or trained out of their body. Surely, they could claim to have a shot.

Except it then clashes with the fact that it's extremely hard to get expertise, while flavor would often suggest otherwise. This is arising from the whole thing flavored as expertise in the first place, rather than just having a knack for it or something. Wizards, for example, are supposed have spent years, if not decades, poring over tomes upon tomes upon tomes. Part of their expertise is, of course, "applied arcana", as someone said, the ability to cast spells. But given the amount of time they're supposed to be investing, why are they unable to become experts in magic theory? Why can't a ranger become an expert in tracking footprints, recognizing plants and building a trap using branches and bamboo?

So not only do you have the average brain or brawn beating the extremely gifted, you also have the average brain or brawn doing so through extreme effort while making the extremely gifted nearly unable to put the same effort in it, because, after creating a character, expertise can only be gained by multiclassing, or the Prodigy feat.

Multiclassing has its own restrictions as well as not necessarily working with flavor. "I, the wizard Spell Caster, devoted a lot of time into the studying of magic texts, in order to gain an even deeper understanding of all things magic rather than just focusing on gestures and incantations. In doing so, I also learnt how to stab people in the kidneys better, and I also picked up some street slang." has a few... problems.

As for Prodigy, it's restricted to three races. And because there's more to this game than variant humans and Charisma multiclasses with Hexblade dips, despite appearances, this is a pretty rough restriction.

Again, if the problem was just numerical and instead of expertise bards and rogues were considered very intuitive or naturally gifted in a field, it wouldn't be as bad. But as it stands, not only do you have them possibly beating someone with twice the base stat, but you also say that this is through them being experts while denying everyone else the opportunity to be experts, an opportunity that oftentimes feels like it should come naturally.

Would it break the game if every class had the opportunity to gain expertise in one out of a set of skills? Most probably not. You could give rogues and bards an extra skill proficiency or some other boost in skills if you believe that would be stepping on their toes too much.

Or you could make Expertise a feat, slightly weaker than the existing Prodigy, but available to anyone. I believe a number of skill-focused feats were released in a UA article a few years ago. You can already poach abilities like basic magic, ritual spells or battle master maneuvers through feats. I'm sure granting one or two expertises would be far from the most powerful option.

[JNAProductions]

Two Expertises feels a little much for a feat.

I'd prefer to tweak Skilled, where you gain two skill proficiencies and then your choice of a third skill proficiency, or Expertise in a skill you're already proficient in. (Which could be one of the skills you just picked, too.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, even if they ARE pious followers, they could lack book smarts when it comes to religion. They know their own ceremonies, but are in the dark about other religions. +1


Two Expertises feels a little much for a feat. I'd prefer to tweak Skilled, where you gain two skill proficiencies and then your choice of a third skill proficiency, or Expertise in a skill you're already proficient in. (Which could be one of the skills you just picked, too.) +1

I find your take on both of these useful, DM side. Thanks. :smallsmile:

[JNAProductions]

+1

+1

I find your take on both of these useful, DM side. Thanks. :smallsmile:

No problem! Glad I could offer some advice. :)

[ZRN]

The numerical part is, of course, that someone with +0 and expertise will always beat someone with proficiency only, unless said someone is a barbarian or has magic items. So average brawn or average brain has a bigger boost than the hired muscle or the MENSA member. Which is likely by design, but it often feels counterintuitive.

This is only true at very high levels. A level 1 character with expertise has an extra +2.


Except it then clashes with the fact that it's extremely hard to get expertise, while flavor would often suggest otherwise. This is arising from the whole thing flavored as expertise in the first place, rather than just having a knack for it or something. Wizards, for example, are supposed have spent years, if not decades, poring over tomes upon tomes upon tomes. Part of their expertise is, of course, "applied arcana", as someone said, the ability to cast spells.

This is why proficiency scales; a level 20 wizard with 20 Int and proficiency in Arcana has +11, which is very good!


But given the amount of time they're supposed to be investing, why are they unable to become experts in magic theory? Why can't a ranger become an expert in tracking footprints, recognizing plants and building a trap using branches and bamboo?

They can - just take a level of rogue! Just like a swashbuckler rogue, whose whole concept is being good at, um, swashbuckling and dueling, needs to take a level in fighter if he wants the "dueling" fighting style, and FIVE levels of another class if he wants Extra Attack!

Expertise isn't just a ribbon - it's a powerful ability that's tied to a couple skill-focused classes. There's going to be a tradeoff if you want that ability added to your repertoire.


Multiclassing has its own restrictions as well as not necessarily working with flavor. "I, the wizard Spell Caster, devoted a lot of time into the studying of magic texts, in order to gain an even deeper understanding of all things magic rather than just focusing on gestures and incantations. In doing so, I also learnt how to stab people in the kidneys better, and I also picked up some street slang." has a few... problems.

Now obviously your character can call himself an "expert" in-game without the Expertise class ability. If your concern is mechanical - that your level 20 wizard will have a +11 to Arcana and a level 20 rogue with expertise and 12 Int will have a +13 - then that's a pretty flimsy complaint. This rogue is one of the foremost experts in the universe in non-applied arcana and spent 20 levels getting there. Remember, even at level 20 he only has expertise in 4 skills! Arcana must be a pretty central part of his character! You get to fly around and cast Meteor Swarm while he's still creeping around trying to shoot ancient dragons and demigods with a hand crossbow; you really begrudge him that extra +2?

[Monster Manuel]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the game does allow for some tasks to not require a roll at all. If the issue is that Expertise can make an Expert character better than a specialist at recalling information about their specialty, I get around it by letting the specialist have a freebie in certain circumstances.

You are a cleric of Pelor, and you need to know some detail about the Pelorian religion? You just know it, you don't need to roll. Arcana check for a spell that you know, have prepared and just cast a minute ago? No check for the Wizard, they just know the information. The Expert rogue who wants info on Pelor or on Charm Person has to make the roll.

I find it's fair to not force a character to roll for information they should be assumed to have, and mechanically, an auto-success beats out a doubled proficiency bonus any day.

[patchyman]

Identifying and dealing with magical traps. Having a shot at knowing what that magical knickknack you stole is worth. There's a few more reasons.
Those are good reasons, and I would have no problem with any of them.

[Contrast]

I agree with your general premise that the priest of Pelor shouldn't be rolling religion to remember basic things about Pelor worship. That said...


If the issue is that Expertise can make an Expert character better than a specialist at recalling information about their specialty

I think this is part of the problem. Someone who has invested an expertise in religion isn't 'better than a specialist' - they are a specialist in their own right.

If we need to know where we can get hold of the specific details of an ancient legend handed down from a specific cult of Pelor worshippers, I'm totally going to ask the Indiana Jones-themed rogue who took Expertise in History and Religion over the local priest of Pelor.

[Segev]

I get where people are coming from, but the whole idea behind proficiency in the first place is that you spend a lot of time on the skill. You're already highly trained in it.

Expertise is going beyond that. You're not just an acrobat; you're an olympic contender. You're not just a historian; you're an expert on every theory about the subject and possibly the writer of at least one. You're not just a thief or a spy, you're Micheal Weston.

If a rogue or (more likely) a Bard has Expertise in Arcana, it's because they've studied it more obsessively than a wizard. Why did they do that? Who knows? But they know minutia that are not at all useful in spellcasting (and that might be why they can't prepare spells from a spellbook: they didn't waste time on practical matters like that when there was more arcane lore to discover!).

The Rogue with Expertise in Athletics is the scrawny tomboy who can take the brawny Gaston-wannabe and twist him into a pretzel when he makes fun of her for being a girl. (This might read as a reason why Monks should have expertise...but it really is more about how hyperfocused the rogue is on the subject.)

The blind guy on Penn and Teller's Fool Us who called himself a "Card Mechanic" has Expertise in Sleight of Hand. Penn and Teller are "merely" proficient. (To be fair, they probably actually do have expertise, as well, being Bards or Rogues with the Entertainer background, but 5e doesn't differentiate between as many levels of skill as I needed to make this analogy both well and accurately.)

[Monster Manuel]

I agree with your general premise that the priest of Pelor shouldn't be rolling religion to remember basic things about Pelor worship. That said...



I think this is part of the problem. Someone who has invested an expertise in religion isn't 'better than a specialist' - they are a specialist in their own right.

If we need to know where we can get hold of the specific details of an ancient legend handed down from a specific cult of Pelor worshippers, I'm totally going to ask the Indiana Jones-themed rogue who took Expertise in History and Religion over the local priest of Pelor.

That's fair. The Expert rogue who optimized for that knowledge has absolutely earned his +16 to Religion, and should be rewarded for making use of it. And that mastery of Religion will come in handy much more often that the super-specialized mastery of a Cleric who knows about the specific religion they are a part of.

Also, this is strictly for players. The compromise here is that the player of the Cleric still gets to feel like they are good at their thing, while the player of the rogue gets to feel good about the fact that they are good at everything else, as well as that thing. The NPC cleric of Pelor in Townsville can be sad that his Religion skill sucks, and that won't bother me at all...

[jmartkdr]

snip

If a rogue or (more likely) a Bard has Expertise in Arcana, it's because they've studied it more obsessively than a wizard.

Snip


Not just more than a wizard - more than every wizard in the world, and more than any wizard ever could. No matter haw focused on book learning you are, you need to learn how to stab and/or inspire people in order to reach the highest levels of academic understanding.

It's not that people have a problem with expertise as a mechanic, nor even that people have a problem with lots of expertise for rogues and bards - but the idea that a rogue can learn more than a wizard *ever could* about the history of magic seems off. Where the cap is matters even if it's rarely reached in play.

Put it another way: in every other version of DnD, rogues know more skills than every other class, but they can't get higher training bonuses than every other class. No one seemed to think they weren't the skill monkeys, though.

(Tangentially, the Indiana Jones example falls apart because knowledge clerics are a thing, but that's arguing the example.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Expertise is going beyond that. You're not just an acrobat; you're an olympic contender. At level 20, maybe. not at level 1, and not at level 5. See proficiency bonus going up with level. It's hard coded in the game.

[JNAProductions]

Which is why I do think Prodigy should be open to more than just humans and human-halves, or the Skilled feat should be changed to allow for Expertise.

Edit: Really, part of the issue is that every class is good at combat.

Which, to be fair, I don't consider an issue for what D&D is designed for-everyone SHOULD be good at combat.

But, realistically, the person rocking +17 to Arcana ISN'T an awesome combatant. They're a researcher, a scientist, a person who spends more time learning than fighting. It's just that D&D is, largely, about fighting, so every PC should be good at it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It used to bother me, however barring exceptional cases most of the problems actually don't arise in practice. I'm probably going to be treading a lot of the same ground but better to share my thoughts while they're fresh than risk losing them making sure I'm not parroting previous posts:
-A Rogue or Bard is generally not as Intelligent as the Wizard, their expertise covers that specific field while the Wizards proficiency and high ability score cover the broad range of Intelligence skills*
*We're already hitting the snag here in that some Rogues will be comparable to the Wizard, however those are Rogues talented with Arcane spellcasting so I see little issue here, they're clearly supposed to be intelligent.
-I don't actually expect Cleric's or Paladin's to have an all encompassing knowledge of Religion. By nature of their class, they have an understanding of their own (assuming they have one) and shouldn't be making checks to recall these pieces of lore unless they truly have no reason of knowing it, whether its an obscure near heretical old manuscript or the Paladin was more a "jock of Bahamut" than a devotee.
-You ask the know it all Bard who studies old tomes about X God when obscure trivia comes up that could potentially tear the roots out of X God's worshipping circle, asking a random cleric will at best result in incredulity and at worst result in a crusade against you for asking such heinous things. Point being, there's good reason for characters outside of these circles to potentially have the knowledge (skills) to share on these topics.
-Theory doesn't equate to practice and vice versa. A Wizard can be skilled in spellcraft but spend little time focusing on the intricacies, instead being a master of simple but effective magic. A Rogue can have savant like knowledge of the theories behind arcane practice and sigil configuration but no talent for actually performing such things. You can know things and not be able to do them, just like it's possible to do things that you don't fully understand.


But, realistically, the person rocking +17 to Arcana ISN'T an awesome combatant. They're a researcher, a scientist, a person who spends more time learning than fighting. It's just that D&D is, largely, about fighting, so every PC should be good at it.
Personal experience says that this is true, I went the extra mile to make my Rogue a handy skill monkey (proficiency in 12 skills, expertise in 6 of those) but when the campaign became incredibly combat intensive I had to retire him in favor of a more combat oriented character. He made traversing the dungeon incredibly easy but the danger was more in the combat, where he was the weakest link by a wide margin. He works a lot better as an NPC now, with the time and resources to do our parties research/acquisition while the field team does the dangerous grunt work. I still miss having a 35 passive perception.

That said, if you don't push it to the extreme you're usually able to leverage an above average modifier with more than capable combat ability, I just didn't know when to stop.

[clash]

Not just more than a wizard - more than every wizard in the world, and more than any wizard ever could. No matter haw focused on book learning you are, you need to learn how to stab and/or inspire people in order to reach the highest levels of academic understanding.

It's not that people have a problem with expertise as a mechanic, nor even that people have a problem with lots of expertise for rogues and bards - but the idea that a rogue can learn more than a wizard *ever could* about the history of magic seems off. Where the cap is matters even if it's rarely reached in play.

Put it another way: in every other version of DnD, rogues know more skills than every other class, but they can't get higher training bonuses than every other class. No one seemed to think they weren't the skill monkeys, though.

(Tangentially, the Indiana Jones example falls apart because knowledge clerics are a thing, but that's arguing the example.)

I mean they could attend a college, perhaps of lore, and spend time learning obsessively about arcana picking up a few other arcane spells along the way and in general learning a bit about everything in the process. They dont have to learn how to stab people. It just so happens the fastest way to learn obscure details and pick up on rare knowledge is to descend into the underbelly of society and get a hold of rare and forbidden tomes. And once you have spent some time in the darker parts of society you pick up a few other tricks as well.

I think people focus too much on the class and not enough on the character. If the character is a super obsessed with the theory of arcana then there are ways to reflect that, but that kind of specialization means your not spending time on the practical side of things learning how to cast more powerful spells.

[Mr Adventurer]

Not just more than a wizard - more than every wizard in the world, and more than any wizard ever could. No matter haw focused on book learning you are, you need to learn how to stab and/or inspire people in order to reach the highest levels of academic understanding.

I think this is overstating the case. What Intelligence can a Rogue reasonably expect to get? 14? What Intelligence can a Wizard reasonably expect to get? 20? The equivalent as people level up isn't what you're describing...

[Segev]

I think this is overstating the case. What Intelligence can a Rogue reasonably expect to get? 14? What Intelligence can a Wizard reasonably expect to get? 20? The equivalent as people level up isn't what you're describing...

"Reasonably" is relative. I'm actually with you on your point - it is not likely the rogue will favor Int over Dex - but don't say it's impossible. Not only are rolled stats the default (so a lucky roll could land him with 2 18s from the get-go), but somebody actually dedicated to the know-it-all rogue could find a way to make an Int > Dex build work.

Int 20 Dex 14 isn't impossible to work with for a rogue. Not in 5e.

But if you're going there, you're doing it on purpose, and at that point you deserve the smartypants you built.

[TaiLiu]

Not just more than a wizard - more than every wizard in the world, and more than any wizard ever could. No matter haw focused on book learning you are, you need to learn how to stab and/or inspire people in order to reach the highest levels of academic understanding.

It's not that people have a problem with expertise as a mechanic, nor even that people have a problem with lots of expertise for rogues and bards - but the idea that a rogue can learn more than a wizard *ever could* about the history of magic seems off. Where the cap is matters even if it's rarely reached in play.

Put it another way: in every other version of DnD, rogues know more skills than every other class, but they can't get higher training bonuses than every other class. No one seemed to think they weren't the skill monkeys, though.

(Tangentially, the Indiana Jones example falls apart because knowledge clerics are a thing, but that's arguing the example.)
It strikes me that part of your argument relies on understanding 5e mechanics as, like, constructing the metaphysics of the world. I'm not sure they should be understood that way. For example, if you want a wizard who's the greatest expert in arcane lore of all time, just write up Wizard McWizard, give them a gigantic bonus to Intelligence (Arcana), slap on an appropriate history, and call it a day.

It is true, in terms of player characters specifically, that there are very narrow cases in which a Rogue or a Bard can have a higher Intelligence (Arcana) modifier than a Wizard. It is also true that if you want a Wizard NPC to hit that same ceiling, you have to dip Rogue or Bard—and that dipping those classes gives you a buncha mechanics that might not fit certain character concepts. I think that comes with the class/multiclass territory, though. You can't pick and choose cuz 5e just isn't modular enough. Like, that's not a fundamental issue ("this doesn't make sense!") insomuch as it's a limit in D&D 5e's ability to represent certain character concepts ("5e doesn't support this archetype!").

[jmartkdr]

I think this is overstating the case. What Intelligence can a Rogue reasonably expect to get? 14? What Intelligence can a Wizard reasonably expect to get? 20? The equivalent as people level up isn't what you're describing...

I'll accept that this isn't likely to come up in practice, but that's not the point. The point is that there's no reason it should be able to come up when looked at in isolation. A wizard should not have a lower maximum understanding of magic than a rogue, bard, or cleric.

The fact that I need to list three classes to make the point is even more damning, IMO.

FWIW, I'm also not arguing that every wizard should have expertise (or even proficiency) in Arcana - but it should be an option for them. Making expertise available via feat seems like a good solution, though.

[jmartkdr]

It strikes me that part of your argument relies on understanding 5e mechanics as, like, constructing the metaphysics of the world. I'm not sure they should be understood that way. For example, if you want a wizard who's the greatest expert in arcane lore of all time, just write up Wizard McWizard, give them a gigantic bonus to Intelligence (Arcana), slap on an appropriate history, and call it a day.

It is true, in terms of player characters specifically, that there are very narrow cases in which a Rogue or a Bard can have a higher Intelligence (Arcana) modifier than a Wizard. It is also true that if you want a Wizard NPC to hit that same ceiling, you have to dip Rogue or Bard—and that dipping those classes gives you a buncha mechanics that might not fit certain character concepts. I think that comes with the class/multiclass territory, though. You can't pick and choose cuz 5e just isn't modular enough. Like, that's not a fundamental issue ("this doesn't make sense!") insomuch as it's a limit in D&D 5e's ability to represent certain character concepts ("5e doesn't support this archetype!").

Eh. It's more a silly edge case created by the rules, and not even a major case of that. But it is pretty silly.

[Chaos Jackal]

This is only true at very high levels. A level 1 character with expertise has an extra +2.



This is why proficiency scales; a level 20 wizard with 20 Int and proficiency in Arcana has +11, which is very good!



They can - just take a level of rogue! Just like a swashbuckler rogue, whose whole concept is being good at, um, swashbuckling and dueling, needs to take a level in fighter if he wants the "dueling" fighting style, and FIVE levels of another class if he wants Extra Attack!

Expertise isn't just a ribbon - it's a powerful ability that's tied to a couple skill-focused classes. There's going to be a tradeoff if you want that ability added to your repertoire.



Now obviously your character can call himself an "expert" in-game without the Expertise class ability. If your concern is mechanical - that your level 20 wizard will have a +11 to Arcana and a level 20 rogue with expertise and 12 Int will have a +13 - then that's a pretty flimsy complaint. This rogue is one of the foremost experts in the universe in non-applied arcana and spent 20 levels getting there. Remember, even at level 20 he only has expertise in 4 skills! Arcana must be a pretty central part of his character! You get to fly around and cast Meteor Swarm while he's still creeping around trying to shoot ancient dragons and demigods with a hand crossbow; you really begrudge him that extra +2?

I'm not saying that it's some sort of overwhelming advantage. Numerically, it's not a big deal. It's just a slight edge. I've already noted that.

The issue I, and others, have with this, is the lack of any straightforward way for a character to become truly the best in a field where one would naturally expect them to be the best. Which, combined with the above, makes that edge, however small it might be, seem a tad out of place.

It's not a big deal. And there are more important things to solve in 5e than that. But it's still something that can easily bug you a little.

Again, you can grab a couple basic spells or some advanced fighting techniques via a feat. And you already have Prodigy as a feat. A feat similar to Prodigy but for all races, like JNAProductions' suggestion of tweaking the Skilled feat into giving one or two skills plus one expertise, isn't something overpowered or weird. You still have a tradeoff like you want to, and a more proper one too. A feat showcases how you are different than the average representative of your class. It's much more reasonable for a wizard to become a true arcana expert via Prodigy than to do so via delving into the ways of song or skulking.

A less restrictive version of Prodigy would go a long way to address what to some seems like the inability to express a character's investment in a field.

[Floogal]

Instead of handling out Expertise to more classes, why don't we change the rules of Expertise?

Instead of doubling your proficiency bonus, Expertise instead lets you replace your ability modifier with a +5 when rolling with that proficiency.

So now the 8 Str Rogue is as good as the 20 Str Barbarian at grappling, but never better. The 8 Int Bard is as good as the 20 Int Wizard at Arcana, but never better. Also, bounded-accuracy is respected a bit more, no longer getting +10 to ability checks before high levels.

This changes Expertise's purpose: instead of making you better at what you're already best at, it instead makes you good at something you're mediocre at. Might need to add the ability to change your Expertise selections at level-up, for cases such as the Bard with Expertise in Stealth eventually increasing their Dex to 20.

[TaiLiu]

Eh. It's more a silly edge case created by the rules, and not even a major case of that. But it is pretty silly.
That's fair! I guess I see it as such an exceedingly narrow edge case that I've never been troubled by it, since it only really (potentially!) exists in the scenario where there's both a Wizard and a Rogue or Bard in the party—and the latter characters have higher bonuses. In all other cases, your Wizard is either the foremost expert on arcana, or they're not.

[Segev]

I find it humorous that we've actually got a complaint about a way wizards are shortchanged compared to a non-caster class (with a nod to the one caster class that also can do it), but I think we could benefit from remembering what the wizard's solution to these things is: spells.

Not only does he already have access to legend lore and contact other plane, so for any particular piece of information he wants that he doesn't happen to have at the tip of his pointy hat he can probably find out, but he's got the ability to research new spells. While I would frown at a wizard who asked for a spell that gave him arbitrary Expertise, I could be negotiated into a reasonably low-level one that gives Expertise in a specific list, maybe pick one at base level and upcast for more.

Of course, we're forgetting something else: these super-high numbers in what amount to Knowledge checks mostly just tell us what they know off the top of their heads. Stuff they remember and can spout right then and there. While that's great and all, it isn't the be-all and end-all of knowing things. Even the humbe Sage Background can enable a character who doesn't have a particularly successful Intelligence check to say, "I don't know, but I do now who to ask!" Or where to find out, or what-have-you. Expertise, despite being the name of a power that just makes you have bigger numbers, isn't always just about what you know right now; it's about how well you can figure something out.

I think a magical scholar or even just a Sage will do better than a Bard or Rogue with Expertise in History or Arcana; he'll be able to find information on any subject, even if it's not something he's seen before (as represented by not making a DC).

[Chaos Jackal]

I find it humorous that we've actually got a complaint about a way wizards are shortchanged compared to a non-caster class (with a nod to the one caster class that also can do it), but I think we could benefit from remembering what the wizard's solution to these things is: spells.

Not only does he already have access to legend lore and contact other plane, so for any particular piece of information he wants that he doesn't happen to have at the tip of his pointy hat he can probably find out, but he's got the ability to research new spells. While I would frown at a wizard who asked for a spell that gave him arbitrary Expertise, I could be negotiated into a reasonably low-level one that gives Expertise in a specific list, maybe pick one at base level and upcast for more.

Of course, we're forgetting something else: these super-high numbers in what amount to Knowledge checks mostly just tell us what they know off the top of their heads. Stuff they remember and can spout right then and there. While that's great and all, it isn't the be-all and end-all of knowing things. Even the humbe Sage Background can enable a character who doesn't have a particularly successful Intelligence check to say, "I don't know, but I do now who to ask!" Or where to find out, or what-have-you. Expertise, despite being the name of a power that just makes you have bigger numbers, isn't always just about what you know right now; it's about how well you can figure something out.

I think a magical scholar or even just a Sage will do better than a Bard or Rogue with Expertise in History or Arcana; he'll be able to find information on any subject, even if it's not something he's seen before (as represented by not making a DC).

No disagreement there. I doubt it's actually about a wizard's deficiency. I certainly don't see it that way; I'm quite fond of a wizard's ability to tackle problems.

It's just an easy example, due to a wizard's obvious association with arcana. You could say it's ranger and survival, or fighter and athletics.

[JackPhoenix]

While I would frown at a wizard who asked for a spell that gave him arbitrary Expertise, I could be negotiated into a reasonably low-level one that gives Expertise in a specific list, maybe pick one at base level and upcast for more.

It's called Skill Empowerment, and you can find it in XGtE. It's level 5 spell with 1-hour duration.

[Keltest]

No disagreement there. I doubt it's actually about a wizard's deficiency. I certainly don't see it that way; I'm quite fond of a wizard's ability to tackle problems.

It's just an easy example, due to a wizard's obvious association with arcana. You could say it's ranger and survival, or fighter and athletics.

Even if you look at the ranger and survival, or whatever else, they still either have some other source of bonus to the relevant ability, or don't really have anything to justify calling them "experts" where somebody else proficient in it would not be. Rangers can track and forage better than any non-ranger of equivalent skill level, at least within their favored spheres (which is an issue with the ranger's class feature, not their skill proficiencies). Meanwhile, theres no specific reason that a fighter would be any better at jumping a ledge than, say, a cleric who practiced to a similar level (ie had a feat or something to give them proficiency).

[Segev]

No disagreement there. I doubt it's actually about a wizard's deficiency. I certainly don't see it that way; I'm quite fond of a wizard's ability to tackle problems.

It's just an easy example, due to a wizard's obvious association with arcana. You could say it's ranger and survival, or fighter and athletics.Fair enough. I think these could and should be solved more by class features, just like the wizard's is. Ranger has...threads devoted to this. In fact, my own fix on it gives expertise in Survival, IIRC. I'll have to check again; I've revised it a few times.

Fighter is the big one, here. Though don't Champions get something spiffy with Athletics? Other than that, I now grapple-builds want a level of rogue at some point for that expertise to Athletics.


It's called Skill Empowerment, and you can find it in XGtE. It's level 5 spell with 1-hour duration.

Well, I'll be. I think that solves the Wizard's problem, anyway. :smallwink:

[JNAProductions]

Fair enough. I think these could and should be solved more by class features, just like the wizard's is. Ranger has...threads devoted to this. In fact, my own fix on it gives expertise in Survival, IIRC. I'll have to check again; I've revised it a few times.

Fighter is the big one, here. Though don't Champions get something spiffy with Athletics? Other than that, I now grapple-builds want a level of rogue at some point for that expertise to Athletics.

Well, I'll be. I think that solves the Wizard's problem, anyway. :smallwink:

Remarkable Athlete, unfortunately, only applies to NON-PROFICIENT checks. I wish it stacked to 1.5 Proficiency if you already had Proficiency (though I do think if it stacked to 2.5 with Expertise, that'd be a little much!).

[Chaos Jackal]

Fighter is the big one, here. Though don't Champions get something spiffy with Athletics? Other than that, I now grapple-builds want a level of rogue at some point for that expertise to Athletics.

Champions get half proficiency on nonproficient physical ability checks.

Edit: ninja'd

[GorogIrongut]

While I don't consider this to be a significant problem, I also enjoy the thought of expanding the ability for players to get expertise (usually through a slew of the later feats that were created). That said, if I were asked to fix this problem, it would be very simple.

I would have a player be able to sacrifice one of their skill slots (to demonstrate that spent a larger portion of their time focused on the new expertise-level skill to the detriment of another skill) in exchange for expertise in one of the skills that they get access to from their starting class proficiencies.

Barbarians(2) could choose from: Animal Handling, Athletics, Intimidation, Nature, Perception, and Survival
Clerics(2) could potentially have expertise in: History, Insight, Medicine, Persuasion, and Religion
Rangers(3) would get a wider array with: Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival
Wizards(2) would be left with: Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, and Religion

Heck, if Rogues wanted to double down a little harder into skills they could sacrifice one of their 4 starting skill slots to get a 3rd skill with expertise in it.

[Segev]

Remarkable Athlete, unfortunately, only applies to NON-PROFICIENT checks. I wish it stacked to 1.5 Proficiency if you already had Proficiency (though I do think if it stacked to 2.5 with Expertise, that'd be a little much!).

Huh. I wonder if it would be too much to just give full proficiency in those Abilities, and Expertise in any skill they're proficient in that they use with those abilities.

Something like:

"Starting at 7th level, you can add your proficiency bonus to any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check you make. This stacks with any proficiency bonus from skills, but not with the doubled proficieny bonus granted by Expertise. In addition, when you make a running long jump, the distance you can cover increases by a number of feet equal to your Strength modifier."

[Anymage]

I would have a player be able to sacrifice one of their skill slots (to demonstrate that spent a larger portion of their time focused on the new expertise-level skill to the detriment of another skill) in exchange for expertise in one of the skills that they get access to from their starting class proficiencies.

Half elves laugh and wonder why not.

More generally, even ignoring the fact that certain skills are much more useful and consequently more likely to be chosen (similar to how Stealth and Perception are popular picks nowadays and people look for ways to be proficient), being a preeminent expert in your field should take more than just sacrificing one of your starting 4-6 skill picks. Otherwise expertise becomes the default for any character who's really good at something. IMO it should require more effort than that, and require investing a resource that could be more optimally used. A feat would be my go-to thought.


"Starting at 7th level, you can add your proficiency bonus to any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check you make. This stacks with any proficiency bonus from skills, but not with the doubled proficieny bonus granted by Expertise. In addition, when you make a running long jump, the distance you can cover increases by a number of feet equal to your Strength modifier."

Immediate thought is that it makes the champion much more likely to go first in combat. Whether you think that's too much or if you think that the champion could use more buffs is a personal call.

Expect immediate pushback about Dex champions having the potential to out-rogue rogues, too. Since as we're seeing here, people get upset when a high level character who invests in certain talents is able to do well in what's seen as another character's niche.

[ZRN]

The issue I, and others, have with this, is the lack of any straightforward way for a character to become truly the best in a field where one would naturally expect them to be the best.

I mean, why SHOULD you be able to be the best in a particular skill associated with a particular field?

I can make a swashbuckler whose whole deal is fighting duels, and I don't get access to the Duelist fighting style.

I can make a red dragonblood sorcerer whose whole deal is fire magic, and I still don't get access to flame strike, even though a cleric of a water god does.

I can make a transmuter wizard and I never get to wildshape, even though every idiot druid can.

I can make a bar-brawler barbarian and never do as much unarmed damage as a puny shadow-monk ninja who never even punches people.

In a class-based system, characters have abilities, strengths, and weaknesses tied to their classes. Skills are a rogue thing. Fighting styles are a fighter(/paladin/ranger) thing. Wildshape is a druid thing. You overlook the minor disparities and consider the character's strengths as a whole. A rogue with expertise in religion might remember the names of the saints better, but a priest can talk to his god - it's pretty clear who's "best in the field" of religion.

[JNAProductions]

Half elves laugh and wonder why not.

More generally, even ignoring the fact that certain skills are much more useful and consequently more likely to be chosen (similar to how Stealth and Perception are popular picks nowadays and people look for ways to be proficient), being a preeminent expert in your field should take more than just sacrificing one of your starting 4-6 skill picks. Otherwise expertise becomes the default for any character who's really good at something. IMO it should require more effort than that, and require investing a resource that could be more optimally used. A feat would be my go-to thought.

Immediate thought is that it makes the champion much more likely to go first in combat. Whether you think that's too much or if you think that the champion could use more buffs is a personal call.

Expect immediate pushback about Dex champions having the potential to out-rogue rogues, too. Since as we're seeing here, people get upset when a high level character who invests in certain talents is able to do well in what's seen as another character's niche.

When I think "5th Edition Rogue" I think "Great at skills, singular powerful attack, very mobile, and basically no resources to manage."

Giving the Fighter Expertise at 7th level in physical skills they already have proficiency in doesn't feel like that obsoletes a Rogue. Now, maybe I'm weird, but I virtually ALWAYS go for Expertise in Charisma skills, as a Rogue, which a Champion doesn't get. Plus the Champion is not nearly as mobile as a Rogue.

[Tanarii]

Proficiency is not training. Ability scores are natural talent AND training. Proficiency is just a focus in a sub set of everything an ability score encompasses.

Wizards and Clerics that study in universities and temples are not PC adventurers. They are NPCs without a class, and maybe some subset of the PC class powers.

Rogues and Bards have a knack for stuff. It's slightly possibly that they might be better than an adventuring Wizard at Lore, although unlikely given wizards have good Int. They will probably be better than your average Cleric. But that's okay because being better at doing non-magic and non-hitting stuff things than other classes is what they do, and it's what they've always done.

If a Rogue chooses to spend expertise on Arcana or Religion or Nature give them their day in the sun.

[Alucard89]

It's slightly possibly that they might be better than an adventuring Wizard at Lore,

But they are also adventuring Rogues and Bards. You mind tell me when Bard or Rogue had time and resources to be experts in knowlegde skills while Wizards or Clerics who had to spend their early years on studying their profession hadn't?

You are in middle on adventuring. Suddenly Expertise level comes in and Bard and Rogue are experts in X and Y fields. I guess they had a lot of time to study during their adventures while part wizard is studying every night his magic craft so I guess he didn't have time to become expert in his own craft...

[JNAProductions]

But they are also adventuring Rogues and Bards. You mind tell me when Bard or Rogue had time and resources to be experts in knowlegde skills while Wizards or Clerics who had to spend their early years on studying their profession hadn't?

You are in middle on adventuring. Suddenly Expertise level comes in and Bard and Rogue are experts in X and Y fields. I guess they had a lot of time to study during their adventures while part wizard is studying every night his magic craft so I guess he didn't have time to become expert in his own craft...

That can be said of basically every ability. You are in the middle of an adventure-suddenly, you can cast Fireball when the day before you couldn't. You can attack twice with one action. You can suddenly heal grievous injuries with an action.

Why is it THIS ability needs a special explanation, but no other abilities do? And if you think they ALL need an explanation, just impose a training time between levels.

Edit: There's also a difference between APPLIED [Field of knowledge] and THEORETICAL [Field of knowledge].

A Wizard is a far greater master of applied Arcana than any equal level Rogue. An Arcane Trickster, even one three times the level of a Wizard, only has access to two schools for most of their spells, and a vastly more limited selection of spells from those lists, instead of a spellbook full.

[Daithi]

I had never thought about it, but I think the OP is right. This really doesn't make much sense. I liked LudicSavant's solution--


snip
Wizards get Expertise in Arcana
Clerics get Expertise in Religion
Druids get Expertise in Nature
Bards get Expertise in Performance
Non full-casters get Expertise in anything they want, as long as it's not Stealth, Perception, or Athletics...snip

However, I probably wouldn't start them out with expertise, but give it to them after some number of levels. Maybe around level 8? I also like the idea of using a feat to gain a skill/expertise. I know they have an Unearthed Arcana that provides for this.

[Anymage]

I had never thought about it, but I think the OP is right. This really doesn't make much sense. I liked LudicSavant's solution--
...
However, I probably wouldn't start them out with expertise, but give it to them after some number of levels. Maybe around level 8? I also like the idea of using a feat to gain a skill/expertise. I know they have an Unearthed Arcana that provides for this.

To put this in 3.5 terms (and I'm very aware how the scaling was very off in that version) there's a difference between just having max ranks in a skill and willing to sink in feats like Skill Focus.

In current 4e, proficiency is max ranks and expertise is willing to sink in Skill Focus and similar traits. You lack the ability to dip skills by spreading points around, but how often did that really happen in practice?

If expertise is seen as the equivalent of maxing a skill and normal proficiency is just dipping, something that's likely to happen if everybody and their mother gets expertise, how will you draw attention to the characters who want to be super specialists?


But they are also adventuring Rogues and Bards. You mind tell me when Bard or Rogue had time and resources to be experts in knowlegde skills while Wizards or Clerics who had to spend their early years on studying their profession hadn't?

You are in middle on adventuring. Suddenly Expertise level comes in and Bard and Rogue are experts in X and Y fields. I guess they had a lot of time to study during their adventures while part wizard is studying every night his magic craft so I guess he didn't have time to become expert in his own craft...

Why do so many of these examples either focus on artifacts of the system that could be found anywhere, and/or posit characters who would never be seen outside of silly hypotheticals. (E.G: the 20th level rogue with expertise in nature, who has somehow never set foot outside their home city nor has any interest in doing so.)

Yes you can get odd interactions if you look too closely at the rules, which in the name of playability have to make abstractions. Why can any character wake up the day after leveling with full mastery of an ability that they showed no potential for yesterday? Either fill in the story yourself, or handwave it.

Why is the rogue suddenly an expert scholar of arcana? Ignoring the part where gains have to be quantized in a level based system (and thus you get a big jump at an expertise level), the rogue who picked arcana for their expertise is most likely playing a studious character who hits the books during downtime at least as hard as the wizard. If not that's a fault in RP more than the system.

[Tanarii]

But they are also adventuring Rogues and Bards. You mind tell me when Bard or Rogue had time and resources to be experts in knowlegde skills while Wizards or Clerics who had to spend their early years on studying their profession hadn't?

Because thats what Rogues and Bards are good at. Skills. Wizards and Clerics are better at casting spells.

[Jerrykhor]

Because thats what Rogues and Bards are good at. Skills. Wizards and Clerics are better at casting spells.

Sure, mechanically they are good at skills. Skills™. But skills is such a general term in the English language.

A: What are you good at?
B: I'm good at... stuff
A: What stuff?
B: All stuff. Any stuff.

A: What skills are you good at?
Rogue/Bard: Yes

5e being a loose system, people can come up with anything at all to justify why their Rogue is good at Arcana or Religion. And people will defend it, because flexibility is good. Being good at many stuff is good, and being doubly good at certain stuff is doubly good. But that's not the point of this.

The point is that, giving Wizards expertise in Arcana does not take away anything from the Rogue/Bard. They still don't have the flexibility of the Expertise feature Rogues get. Just like Bards getting Magical Secrets does not devalue the Wizard's spellcasting.

[Keltest]

Sure, mechanically they are good at skills. Skills™. But skills is such a general term in the English language.

A: What are you good at?
B: I'm good at... stuff
A: What stuff?
B: All stuff. Any stuff.

A: What skills are you good at?
Rogue/Bard: Yes

5e being a loose system, people can come up with anything at all to justify why their Rogue is good at Arcana or Religion. And people will defend it, because flexibility is good. Being good at many stuff is good, and being doubly good at certain stuff is doubly good. But that's not the point of this.

The point is that, giving Wizards expertise in Arcana does not take away anything from the Rogue/Bard. They still don't have the flexibility of the Expertise feature Rogues get. Just like Bards getting Magical Secrets does not devalue the Wizard's spellcasting.

I disagree. That means that a rogue or bard will just straight up never be able to match a wizard in arcana, or a fighter in athletics or whatever else they pick. Good stat distributions already create a benefit equal to or greater than expertise on a character who otherwise doesn't have anything in that stat but is proficient, and adding expertise on top of that just means there isn't even any point in having the bard also be an arcanist, or an athlete, or a survivalist. Just have the wizard/fighter/ranger do it, because theyre going to be better even than the character who specifically made the choice to be good at that skill, and who gets a class feature to be good at skills.

[Anymage]

The point is that, giving Wizards expertise in Arcana does not take away anything from the Rogue/Bard. They still don't have the flexibility of the Expertise feature Rogues get. Just like Bards getting Magical Secrets does not devalue the Wizard's spellcasting.

Giving all wizards everywhere expertise in Arcana as part of their default kit does two things. It cements the trope that all wizards everywhere are massive bookworms and lore nerds, and makes it impossible to make a scholarly wizard who is more focused on theory than his peers because you cannot have better than the universal expertise that all wizards now have.

[Jerrykhor]

Giving all wizards everywhere expertise in Arcana as part of their default kit does two things. It cements the trope that all wizards everywhere are massive bookworms and lore nerds, and makes it impossible to make a scholarly wizard who is more focused on theory than his peers because you cannot have better than the universal expertise that all wizards now have.

The only one cementing any trope is you. Its like saying every wizard must be a scholar from a wizard school based on the fact that they have a mechanic which allows them to learn new spells. If you don't have the Sage background, you dont have to be a scholarly wizard.

When the fluff describes them as masters of the arcane arts, they mean it when compared to other classes not named Wizard. Among wizards themselves, of course there are better or worse wizards, which is separated by class levels.

Every class in 5e is built on some form of general trope, wizard is no different. Nobody is cementing any trope for you when creating your own character though.

[Ashrym]

Arcana is not spell casting or magic at all. That's why there's no check to cast a spell and a character doesn't learn to cast spells in having proficiency in arcana. Extra proficiency is also not a wizard (or cleric) field. Casting spells are their fields.

The skills have nothing to do with spells or spell casting at all to the point arcana, religion, nature, etc are even required to be taken by those respective classes. If a bard wants to take expertise in arcana the only thing it does is better equips him to recall more rare lore.

Since variations of bardic knowledge have existed in every single edition that shouldn't be surprising at all. Rare knowledge is definitely a bard thing stemming from it's celtic inspiration in the fili.

Rogues don't have arcana, history, nature, or religion on the class list at all. They are not taking expertise in the rogue class abilities for arcana. They are taking expertise in the background. An sage with expertise in arcana should not be surprising either.

Each of the recalling lore skills is the ability to recall the lore, not the actual technical training in having learned the lore in the first place and the role is only relevant to recalling higher degrees of rarity. In the arcana example a wizard does not need to know the mating rituals of creatures that live in the Abyss, which is what an extremely high arcana check (for creatures in the outer planes) might give, in order to cast magic fireball.

The wizard focusing on INT is what gives the wizard that fluff as booksmarteducated. The baseline in 5e is the d20 with ability score modifications. People look at the highest totals as the goal for some reason when it's overkill. Most DC's are 10 or 15, and most of the time rolls are not necessary.

A character is good at a check with either proficiency or a high ability score and capable of moderate difficulty under time and duress constraints. A character is great with both a high ability score and proficiency. This is readily available in the manuals, which define 10, 15, and 20 DC as the only DC's a DM would regularly assign to represent easy, moderate, or hard challenges. The expectation is a difficult challenge under combat conditions or other threats will be successful more often than not by such a character.

A wizard with a +5 INT and +4 proficiency bonus will succeed on DC 20 checks 50% of the time assuming the check even needs to be made. That's the actual benchmark for extremely educated on the subject based on how 5e handles ability checks. It's not "a higher number possible for a bard so it should be for me too", which is rather inaccurate anyway since the bard (or rogue with a suitable background) would also need that INT investment. The end result is not that different and wizards are moderately knowledgeable on everything.

Clerics and druids do not demonstrate any advanced knowledge to do their jobs. They need to know the spells and typical (ie DC 10 checks) lore. Proficiency represents additional focus and training according to the DMG on when to apply it. They can add that additional focus beyond the typical information by taking proficiency. That's above the baseline standard and neither class studies advanced lore just because of an association with that lore.

However, if a person really wants their "educated" casters to be experts in an associated skill I would use this house rule for expertise:

Bard = history
Cleric = religion
Druid = nature
Wizard = arcana

Balance that out by making it optional for the PC and removing both class skill choices for clerics, druids, and wizards (one is used for the proficiency and one is used for the expertise in this optional house rule), and give the bard performance proficiency in addition to expertise history (same reasoning but bards start with an extra skill proficiency). Allow the bard or rogue to select a skill proficiency instead of expertise when the option is available. And/or make the prodigy feat non-race restricted.

Sorry for the long post.

[Kalashak]

I'm not really sure why clerics or wizards need more things than they already get.

[patchyman]

I'm not really sure why clerics or wizards need more things than they already get.

No, no, you don’t get it. The people arguing in favour of spellcasters getting expertise in addition to casting spells are all willing to permanently give up one of their 4-level slots for the privilege. 😅

[ZRN]

The point is that, giving Wizards expertise in Arcana does not take away anything from the Rogue/Bard. They still don't have the flexibility of the Expertise feature Rogues get.

And sorcerers getting Flame Strike wouldn't take anything away from clerics, and swashbuckler getting the Dueling fighting style wouldn't take anything away from fighters, and transmuters getting some kind of limited wild shape wouldn't take anything away from druids. Except that it kind of does, because in a class-based system, protecting the niches of the various classes is quite important. It's a bit of a slippery slope: there's often a lot of good reason to think that a particular class ability should be available more generally, particularly for non-magical abilities, and if you accept that reasoning every time, pretty soon you have classes with no real distinguishing features.


Just like Bards getting Magical Secrets does not devalue the Wizard's spellcasting.

I mean, it kind of does! The only reason Magical Secrets isn't a bigger issue is that bards are "jacks of all trades" and steal stuff from a bunch of different classes, but wizards have SO many more spells they can access with SO much more flexibility that realistically there's still a big difference between the two. (Obviously you can make the same point with bards getting Expertise and sword bards getting extra attacks and fighting styles - bards get a lot of other classes' key stuff, but they're spread out enough that it's generally not seen as a huge problem.)

[elyktsorb]

Mm.. What would I do with expertise in Arcana tho? It's not like it does anything?

Like, if I needed to know what magic something was and I wanted to be sure, detect magic/identify would do that right?

Expertise in Stealth? Yes, this is something that gets used about every single session for a Rogue, how often does a Wizard actually use the Arcana Skill? Or a Cleric use the Religion Skill? Or a fighter use Athletics (unless their grappling)

[OldTrees1]

Mm.. What would I do with expertise in Arcana tho? It's not like it does anything?

Like, if I needed to know what magic something was and I wanted to be sure, detect magic/identify would do that right?

Expertise in Stealth? Yes, this is something that gets used about every single session for a Rogue, how often does a Wizard actually use the Arcana Skill? Or a Cleric use the Religion Skill? Or a fighter use Athletics (unless their grappling)

Expertise in Arcana can be used to disarm high level magical traps.

You know, standard wizard stuff.

Disarming traps was nerfed in 5E based on the scattered RAW. Now the Rogue needs both Spot/Perception & Search/Investigation to search for traps and they need both Disable Device/Thieves Tools and Arcana to be able to disable traps. But since Spot was useful for detecting ambushes (different kind of trap) and Arcana was useful for understanding traps, it is not that different.


But to be fair a Wizard would use Expertise in Arcana the same way they use Int or Int + Proficiency in Arcana.
Does the engineer have Precalc, Multivariable Calculus, or Advanced PHD Calculus. Depends on the engineer but most fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean.

[elyktsorb]

Expertise in Arcana can be used to disarm high level magical traps.

okay but, by the time you get to that lvl you probably have a 9+ arcana score if your proficient in it.

Wizards don't need a 9+ in arcana at low levels, but rogues do need a 9+ in stealth if they wanna use it effectively at low levels.

[OldTrees1]

okay but, by the time you get to that lvl you probably have a 9+ arcana score if your proficient in it.

Wizards don't need a 9+ in arcana at low levels, but rogues do need a 9+ in stealth if they wanna use it effectively at low levels.

Agreed, and I was pointing out that that high DC use was atypical for wizards.

And rogues that want to disarm the fireball trap might need the 9+ in thieves tools OR arcana depending on which check is called for.

[stoutstien]

Mm.. What would I do with expertise in Arcana tho? It's not like it does anything?

Like, if I needed to know what magic something was and I wanted to be sure, detect magic/identify would do that right?

Expertise in Stealth? Yes, this is something that gets used about every single session for a Rogue, how often does a Wizard actually use the Arcana Skill? Or a Cleric use the Religion Skill? Or a fighter use Athletics (unless their grappling)

Up to the DM. I try my damnedest to make sure each ability/skill maintain a rough level of equal relevance.

[jjordan]

It always rubs me a wrong way when Wizard who spent his whole life studying Arcane knowledge, whos whole life is sitting with books, scrolls, gaining more understanding about magic- does not have access to expertise in Arcana... Or Cleric that doesn't have access to expertise in Religion, even though it's his whole life. Or Druid who can't expertise in Nature, or Ranger who can't expertise in survival...

Why Rogue can be expert in Arcana or Religion and Wizard or Cleric can't. How Bard can be bigger expert than Druid when it comes to Nature?

It doesn't make sense to me. Each time I DM and I have Rogue from city who suddenly has bigger knowledge about Nature or Arcana than party Druid or Wizard I am thinking "who the hell designed that?". 14 STR Bard having expertise in Athletics while 20 CON, 20 STR Fighter does not?

Am I the only one? For me it doesn't make any sense.
You're not the only one. It's a stupid limitation. I allow wizards to develop expertise in arcana and it's useful to them in crafting spells, learning new spells, and applying variations of counterspell, identify, and detect magic.

[Sigreid]

Just a thought here. While I realize lots of people use expertise to be unbelievably good at skills they have the attributes to back up; I would bet the devs were thinking that characters, whether rolled or standard array or whatever are very likely to have some low stats to deal with and they were thinking that experties' real job was to allow a rogue to still be good when their controlling attribute sucked. IF that is the logic they were following then wizards don't need it because their controlling attribute is almost certainly going to be one of their strongest.

I have no idea if this was their thinking, but it's a logical way to think about it if you're not thinking about how gamers are gamers and always looking for ways to break the system.

[OldTrees1]

Just a thought here. While I realize lots of people use expertise to be unbelievably good at skills they have the attributes to back up; I would bet the devs were thinking that characters, whether rolled or standard array or whatever are very likely to have some low stats to deal with and they were thinking that experties' real job was to allow a rogue to still be good when their controlling attribute sucked. IF that is the logic they were following then wizards don't need it because their controlling attribute is almost certainly going to be one of their strongest.

I have no idea if this was their thinking, but it's a logical way to think about it if you're not thinking about how gamers are gamers and always looking for ways to break the system.

I think you can read their minds.

However they either anchored the DCs too high or did not know how to have level appropriate skill use after level 5/10. So people use expertise to get to those higher DCs to enable level appropriate skill use.

When balancing and anchoring the skill system I usually take Rogue and see if they can do level appropriate things if they specialize in a skill. And I can compare to the casters using magic to specialize in that same area without using skills.

[Demonslayer666]

This could be handled by the DM, the wizard/cleric doesn't roll (automatically knows), or rolls with advantage and everyone else rolls normally.

[JellyPooga]

I'm going to say two things, both of which have already been said in this thread, but I like to weigh in;

1) A PhD in Electrical Engineering does not make you an Electrician and vice-versa. Wizards are not even required to take proficiency in Arcana, let alone mandatory Expertise. Same goes for any other class. Making proficiencies or expertise mandatory for Classes limits the possibilities of characters of those classes. Hell, I find it irritating that Rogues are forced to know Thieves Cant as opposed to having a bonus language (which could include Thieves Cant) and must have proficiency in Thieves Tools as opposed to getting a bonus Tool Proficiency (which could include Thieves Tools). Rogue =/= Thief, so why are all Rogues proficient in Thieves accoutrements? That's a far more valid question than the OP, in my opinion.

2) Expertise is a Player Character ability. Expertise is an ability for adventurers. An NPC can have any skill modifier or feature the GM desires, regardless of proficiency, ability score or PHB class levels (if any). Just because a Wizard PC can't have as high an Arcana skill modifier as a Rogue PC, does not mean that no Wizard can ever match the Arcana potential of a Rogue.

I also agree with the notion that skill modifiers don't necessarily equate to being the best at something. A Monk without Athletics proficiency can spend a single Ki point to be far superior at jumping than a Rogue with Athletics Expertise (assuming equal Str scores).

[Ashrym]

Just a thought here. While I realize lots of people use expertise to be unbelievably good at skills they have the attributes to back up; I would bet the devs were thinking that characters, whether rolled or standard array or whatever are very likely to have some low stats to deal with and they were thinking that experties' real job was to allow a rogue to still be good when their controlling attribute sucked. IF that is the logic they were following then wizards don't need it because their controlling attribute is almost certainly going to be one of their strongest.

I have no idea if this was their thinking, but it's a logical way to think about it if you're not thinking about how gamers are gamers and always looking for ways to break the system.

That's how I build rogues. Gaining higher bonuses has diminishing returns because bounded accuracy prevents the DC's from increasing to match, making the higher result an excess. A 15 DC doesn't change what just happened just because the character beat that DC by 7 instead of 4 on the check.

Getting a wider variety of solid bonuses is better than a smaller number of pointlessly high bonuses, and reliable talent is fantastic because it protects from low rolls.

It generally means that if I take expertise in arcana on a rogue I'm looking at a bonus of 12 or 13 at 17th level compared the +11 bonus the wizard has.

I often do not have arcana on a rogue at all because it's not an option from the class so picking it up isn't a given by any stretch, and I never take expertise in it because I need that for other proficiencies. I do often invest in 14 CHA, however, and expertise in persuasion because that guarantees my DC 20 checks for NPC favors as soon as reliable talent becomes available.

Expertise in any recall lore skill is just a knack for remembering things. That knack being a bard or rogue thing is only an issue for people trying to rationalize an issue into it.

[Sigreid]

I'm going to say two things, both of which have already been said in this thread, but I like to weigh in;

1) A PhD in Electrical Engineering does not make you an Electrician and vice-versa. Wizards are not even required to take proficiency in Arcana, let alone mandatory Expertise. Same goes for any other class. Making proficiencies or expertise mandatory for Classes limits the possibilities of characters of those classes. Hell, I find it irritating that Rogues are forced to know Thieves Cant as opposed to having a bonus language (which could include Thieves Cant) and must have proficiency in Thieves Tools as opposed to getting a bonus Tool Proficiency (which could include Thieves Tools). Rogue =/= Thief, so why are all Rogues proficient in Thieves accoutrements? That's a far more valid question than the OP, in my opinion.


One of my favorite concepts I've had was a cleric with no proficiency in religion what so ever and preached loudly at every opportunity, basically pulling his sermon out of his hind quarters while believing 100% in the truth of his words. Told the DM it was up to him whether he had any connection to the god my cleric followed or if the power was granted by some other god who was basically trolling the god my character worshiped.

[OldTrees1]

I'm going to say two things, both of which have already been said in this thread, but I like to weigh in;

1) A PhD in Electrical Engineering does not make you an Electrician and vice-versa. Wizards are not even required to take proficiency in Arcana, let alone mandatory Expertise. Same goes for any other class. Making proficiencies or expertise mandatory for Classes limits the possibilities of characters of those classes. Hell, I find it irritating that Rogues are forced to know Thieves Cant as opposed to having a bonus language (which could include Thieves Cant) and must have proficiency in Thieves Tools as opposed to getting a bonus Tool Proficiency (which could include Thieves Tools). Rogue =/= Thief, so why are all Rogues proficient in Thieves accoutrements? That's a far more valid question than the OP, in my opinion.

Yup, your Suave Politician should not have mandatory proficiency with my Dungeoneer's tools and neither of them should have mandatory proficiency with the secret Thieves Cant lingo. Given more Dev time, even Sneak Attack would not need to be mandatory.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Getting a wider variety of solid bonuses is better than a smaller number of pointlessly high bonuses, and reliable talent is fantastic because it protects from low rolls.

I tend to think similarly, but with a bit of a difference: I don't think there is a pointlessly high bonus. I think of my Rogue's modifier of +15 as a guarantee that I will succeed on anything but the most difficult checks. It's not really all that reliable if I haven't near eliminated the chance of failure :smallamused:.

Besides, Bard's get that wide variety of bonuses naturally, they're the generalists. Rogues are the specialists.

[Keltest]

Yup, your Suave Politician should not have mandatory proficiency with my Dungeoneer's tools and neither of them should have mandatory proficiency with the secret Thieves Cant lingo. Given more Dev time, even Sneak Attack would not need to be mandatory.

Counterpoint: Why is your suave politician adventuring, and what is he actually doing on his adventures? Is he a spymaster? Is he a non-inheriting son getting into more trouble than he bargained for while trying to make his fortune? If you don't actually intend to use any of the rogue class features for your character concept, why is he a rogue? Maybe a bard fits him better if he's just a regular fast talker? Or if he's a noble knight of some kind, perhaps a fighter or paladin.

[Ashrym]

I tend to think similarly, but with a bit of a difference: I don't think there is a pointlessly high bonus. I think of my Rogue's modifier of +15 as a guarantee that I will succeed on anything but the most difficult checks. It's not really all that reliable if I haven't near eliminated the chance of failure :smallamused:.

Besides, Bard's get that wide variety of bonuses naturally, they're the generalists. Rogues are the specialists.

Look at what that +15 bonus gives with reliable talent. It's a guaranteed 25 DC, which is nice, but the most common DC is still 15 so there would need to be more high DC checks just to justify it, which would be deliberately locking out other classes using skill. That's the opposite of the 5e premise of opening skills up to all classes by avoiding those extreme DC's.

As for jack of all trades, that's knowing a bit about everything but rogues know more skills by default to demonstrate a bit more breadth. I find rogues are better off mechanically to have proficiency in as many skills as possible to leverage reliable talent, and from that point a person is looking at the bonus to guarantee DC 15 or 20 checks when DC 25 checks are a lot more rare. A bard doesn't actually compete with reliable talent when looking at success/failure rates.

That's getting off topic, however. I was pointing out that I tend to invest in what I will be using the most frequently in the campaign with a rogue. That's not arcana. ;)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Look at what that +15 bonus gives with reliable talent. It's a guaranteed 25 DC, which is nice, but the most common DC is still 15 so there would need to be more high DC checks just to justify it, which would be deliberately locking out other classes using skill. That's the opposite of the 5e premise of opening skills up to all classes by avoiding those extreme DC's.

As for jack of all trades, that's knowing a bit about everything but rogues know more skills by default to demonstrate a bit more breadth. I find rogues are better off mechanically to have proficiency in as many skills as possible to leverage reliable talent, and from that point a person is looking at the bonus to guarantee DC 15 or 20 checks when DC 25 checks are a lot more rare. A bard doesn't actually compete with reliable talent when looking at success/failure rates.

That's getting off topic, however. I was pointing out that I tend to invest in what I will be using the most frequently in the campaign with a rogue. That's not arcana. ;)

If the most common DC is 15, then most classes can meet that a lot of the time. I'm not most classes, I'm the Rogue, and I want to reliably meet a DC 25 check for when being average isn't good enough.

I'd argue the opposite on your Rogue/Bard skills known example. It makes Jack of All Trades better in breadth when you only specialize in a few things and use your Jack of All Trades to cover the rest. Rogues actively invest more in skills they don't plan on maximizing where Bard's passively become decent at all of those skills. It wasn't about comparing success rates necessarily, but the Bard is usually going to invest less into passing a wider variety of skill checks, where the Rogue invests more into passing some variety of checks but usually a specific set of skills of a higher skill requirement.

[stoutstien]

Look at what that +15 bonus gives with reliable talent. It's a guaranteed 25 DC, which is nice, but the most common DC is still 15 so there would need to be more high DC checks just to justify it, which would be deliberately locking out other classes using skill. That's the opposite of the 5e premise of opening skills up to all classes by avoiding those extreme DC's.

As for jack of all trades, that's knowing a bit about everything but rogues know more skills by default to demonstrate a bit more breadth. I find rogues are better off mechanically to have proficiency in as many skills as possible to leverage reliable talent, and from that point a person is looking at the bonus to guarantee DC 15 or 20 checks when DC 25 checks are a lot more rare. A bard doesn't actually compete with reliable talent when looking at success/failure rates.

That's getting off topic, however. I was pointing out that I tend to invest in what I will be using the most frequently in the campaign with a rogue. That's not arcana. ;)

I tend to view expertise in the same light. I'm more worried about my lowest possible roll not my highest.
the only time the expertise is better off stack on top of a already high ability score is something that can be used with ability challenges often.

[Ashrym]

If the most common DC is 15, then most classes can meet that a lot of the time. I'm not most classes, I'm the Rogue, and I want to reliably meet a DC 25 check for when being average isn't good enough.

I'd argue the opposite on your Rogue/Bard skills known example. It makes Jack of All Trades better in breadth when you only specialize in a few things and use your Jack of All Trades to cover the rest. Rogues actively invest more in skills they don't plan on maximizing where Bard's passively become decent at all of those skills. It wasn't about comparing success rates necessarily, but the Bard is usually going to invest less into passing a wider variety of skill checks, where the Rogue invests more into passing some variety of checks but usually a specific set of skills of a higher skill requirement.

Fair enough.

Bards do become passively decent in a lot of checks and wanting to be that go to guy for extreme DC's can be gratifying too, for sure. But I have to ask, to which skills do you actually apply that +15 bonus? 16 INT rogues are not exactly common IME. Rogues excel at using skills regardless. It's just that those DC's you are looking at tend to be the exception instead of the rule (although they can and do exist).

The 15 DC being typical and achievable by all classes was part of the point in developing a system that opened up using skills for all classes.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Fair enough.

Bards do become passively decent in a lot of checks and wanting to be that go to guy for extreme DC's can be gratifying too, for sure. But I have to ask, to which skills do you actually apply that +15 bonus? 16 INT rogues are not exactly common IME. Rogues excel at using skills regardless. It's just that those DC's you are looking at tend to be the exception instead of the rule (although they can and do exist).

The 15 DC being typical and achievable by all classes was part of the point in developing a system that opened up using skills for all classes.

I see a lot of people often citing Charisma as the Rogue's preferred mental stat, and while this is true for Swashbuckler, I tend to prioritize Intelligence first on mine. I certainly don't expect that to happen very often, but most of the Roguish types I play tend to be highly intelligent with proficiency in Arcana, History or Religion and no social skills to speak of.

I'm not claiming my experience is the norm either, I'd wager that yours is closer in line with what is typical. My DM tends to use relatively high DC's for things and isn't all that shy about leaving an obstacle that we're not currently skilled enough to overcome.

Just last session in our Mad Mage campaign, our now 17th level Adventurers were stumped by a door. No amount of brute forcing it was getting it open (Lockpicking and Athletics checks at near 30) and the magical seal on it was incredibly difficult to decipher or dispel. We had to opt to invest a ridiculous amount of time and/or resources into it or just leave it, and we opted to leave it. If the one picking the lock was my Rogue, it would probably have been open, and if the one dispelling it was our Bard (both the Rogue and Bard are currently retired) it would have probably been trivial. We're still a group of highly skilled adventurers but this door asked for something we weren't exactly the top of the field in.

[OldTrees1]

Counterpoint: Why is your suave politician adventuring, and what is he actually doing on his adventures? Is he a spymaster? Is he a non-inheriting son getting into more trouble than he bargained for while trying to make his fortune? If you don't actually intend to use any of the rogue class features for your character concept, why is he a rogue? Maybe a bard fits him better if he's just a regular fast talker? Or if he's a noble knight of some kind, perhaps a fighter or paladin.

Answer: Different adventures.
The suave politician is involved in political intrigue adventures while also maintaining rapport with their loyal comrades. Their role in the party is that of the Face. And they do it especially well considering their talent and clout.

On the other hand my Dungeoneer would rather be buried 6ft underground in a tomb with interesting architecture. They would be working as a dungeoneer for the party / customers. Letting them see new sights, while also traveling in the safety of numbers.

And then there is the Thief that assembles an Ocean's Eleven cast to go steal some prestigious item.

All 3 of these characters use Signature Rogue features. Be it roguish charms that come from skill mastery of the social skills, or the trap expertise of the dungeoneer, or the stealth of the thief.


Rogues are not all members of the assassin's guild. But the assassin's guild features are also not the core of the class features. In 5E Skill Proficiencies, Expertise, and Reliable Talent give the Rogue its signature reliable excellence at a handful of skills. Which skills a Rogue chooses helps inform you as to which roguish archetype they are. JellyPooga's suave Rogue, my roguish dungeoneer, and your roguish ___ can rub elbows with the rest of the diversity of roguish individuals.

[Morty]

The rogue class straddles the fence between being the original "thief" archetype of old D&D and being the designated "skill class". So they end up being supposedly the choice for someone who wants a broadly competent non-magical (or mostly so) character, but they also come up with extraneous baggage that you're going to need to ignore. It's been a problem since at least 3E and not even 4E escapes it. And no edition of D&D ever will, because that'd require changes to the class list, and that's a big no-no.

Besides which, D&D entirely arbitrarily separates non-magical martial and non-martial skills, tracking them entirely separately. They're also both tracked entirely separately from magic skills, which are however not split this way - learning or casting a combat and non-combat spell works exactly the same way.

[DrLoveMonkey]

I think the expertise that rogues and bards get represents superhuman ability in their area, which is why wizards don't get it because their fantastical powers are in the spells right? It's like why no wizard anywhere ever, no matter how hard they train, can get a base 4 attacks per round without magic.

Expertise isn't just studying really hard, that's just proficiency, expertise is like Evasion. Your entire square, and every square out to a diameter of 40 feet just got engulfed in fire due to a fireball spell, and yet the monk/rogue is 100% unscathed by it because they impossibly dodged somehow. When a bard gets expertise in Arcana their knowledge of how magic works, arcane traditions and other planes goes beyond what most mortals can fathom, to the point where even the wizard looks at them and goes "how could you possibly know that?!"

I don't think it breaks anything necessarily to have a modified feat that non-humans can take that can give them expertise, but it shouldn't just be given as an option to wizards to get that kind of inhuman skill when it's not part of their base class. They already get the power to say "I wish ____" and then "____" happens, if they get expertise it should cost an ASI at least.


Also when I say things like inhuman/supernatural skill, I don't mean they're not human or using magic or what have you, just that they're mythical heroes who are doing things most normal people could never think of attempting. Like how a level 18 barbarian can snap iron manacles all day without even rolling.

[ZRN]

I think the expertise that rogues and bards get represents superhuman ability in their area, which is why wizards don't get it because their fantastical powers are in the spells right? It's like why no wizard anywhere ever, no matter how hard they train, can get a base 4 attacks per round without magic.

Expertise isn't just studying really hard, that's just proficiency, expertise is like Evasion. Your entire square, and every square out to a diameter of 40 feet just got engulfed in fire due to a fireball spell, and yet the monk/rogue is 100% unscathed by it because they impossibly dodged somehow. When a bard gets expertise in Arcana their knowledge of how magic works, arcane traditions and other planes goes beyond what most mortals can fathom, to the point where even the wizard looks at them and goes "how could you possibly know that?!"

I don't think it breaks anything necessarily to have a modified feat that non-humans can take that can give them expertise, but it shouldn't just be given as an option to wizards to get that kind of inhuman skill when it's not part of their base class. They already get the power to say "I wish ____" and then "____" happens, if they get expertise it should cost an ASI at least.


Also when I say things like inhuman/supernatural skill, I don't mean they're not human or using magic or what have you, just that they're mythical heroes who are doing things most normal people could never think of attempting. Like how a level 18 barbarian can snap iron manacles all day without even rolling.

Very well said. Expertise isn't just another level of proficiency; it's supposed to be at least a little extraordinary in itself.

I'm a bit ambivalent about a feat like Prodigy but it's certainly a lot more justifiable than just free thematic expertise for everyone.

[Mith]

As I think about it, I am not as grumpy about Expertise being a Bardic thing, as they are the ones pulling random lore out of their head. I think the issue from a verisimilitude perspective is that most games do not have training periods to represent where hte bard gets their knowledge from. The rogue is cut from a similar cloth, as they were the first with Rogue only skills that got specific skills such as "Hide in Shadows" that made them supernatural in their own right at high level.

I wonder if it would have been better to make your rogue bard distinction better to have them specialise more or less in physical and mental agility (Dexterity and Intelligence), with the blending of skills outside that. Perhaps that's too much pigeon-holing of character archetypes, but it does make the bard the "arcane rogue" of a sort.

[Sigreid]

As I think about it, I am not as grumpy about Expertise being a Bardic thing, as they are the ones pulling random lore out of their head. I think the issue from a verisimilitude perspective is that most games do not have training periods to represent where hte bard gets their knowledge from. The rogue is cut from a similar cloth, as they were the first with Rogue only skills that got specific skills such as "Hide in Shadows" that made them supernatural in their own right at high level.

I wonder if it would have been better to make your rogue bard distinction better to have them specialise more or less in physical and mental agility (Dexterity and Intelligence), with the blending of skills outside that. Perhaps that's too much pigeon-holing of character archetypes, but it does make the bard the "arcane rogue" of a sort.

Definitely off topic, but I tend to be a little grumpy about bards all around. In my opinion, they gave them too many other class's toys to play with, diminishing the other classes. But I also kind of think that the bard was designed to be the No Multi-class game multi-class, if that makes any sense.

[OldTrees1]

But I also kind of think that the bard was designed to be the No Multi-class game multi-class, if that makes any sense.

That makes a lot of sense since Bard used to be a multiclass between 3 classes:
(Half Elf or Human Fighter 5-7 / Rogue 5-8 / Druid X)

[Necroanswer]

Why not allow expertise for anyone who gets a skill from their background and chooses it as one of their class picks? They sacrifice the option to be proficient in a different skill to double down. This would also apply to tool proficiencies, so Bards choosing entertainer would actually have expertise in an instrument, when but the rules as they are they never could (Bard's expertise only applies to skills). A Rogue with criminal background would have expertise with thieves tools and still be able to choose two other skills to apply expertise to. What is wrong with making it possible for a Wizard to be an expert in Arcana or a Warlock in Deception if that is what is in the character concept? Bards and Rogues will still be better with skills overall.

[ArtIzon]

From a narrative standpoint, I agree that it's silly.

From a mechanical standpoint (which I would argue is immeasurably more important, as it defines what the game IS), do casters really need more options?

[Grey Watcher]

From a narrative standpoint, I agree that it's silly.

From a mechanical standpoint (which I would argue is immeasurably more important, as it defines what the game IS), do casters really need more options?

Given that you can have Proficiency anyway, it's not like you're adding a whole new capability. Plus Rogues still have things like Reliable Talent to further cement their skill monkey status. And if non-Rogue Expertise has an opportunity cost, then the Rogue still enjoys their Expertise as a freebie.

To me, personally, the difference made by that extra +2 to +6 is minor enough in the grand scheme of things is so minor and the house rule patches so simple that I just shrug and say "Why not?"

[Tanarii]

Why not allow expertise for anyone who gets a skill from their background and chooses it as one of their class picks? They sacrifice the option to be proficient in a different skill to double down. This would also apply to tool proficiencies, so Bards choosing entertainer would actually have expertise in an instrument, when but the rules as they are they never could (Bard's expertise only applies to skills). A Rogue with criminal background would have expertise with thieves tools and still be able to choose two other skills to apply expertise to. What is wrong with making it possible for a Wizard to be an expert in Arcana or a Warlock in Deception if that is what is in the character concept? Bards and Rogues will still be better with skills overall.
First glance that seems like a solid house rule

[ArtIzon]

Given that you can have Proficiency anyway, it's not like you're adding a whole new capability. Plus Rogues still have things like Reliable Talent to further cement their skill monkey status. And if non-Rogue Expertise has an opportunity cost, then the Rogue still enjoys their Expertise as a freebie.

To me, personally, the difference made by that extra +2 to +6 is minor enough in the grand scheme of things is so minor and the house rule patches so simple that I just shrug and say "Why not?"

Because casters should not have anything added to their kits, period, no matter how small, until martials are brought up to the same level of power and versatility casters have? Because that would make for a more balanced and therefore superior game? :smallconfused:

[clash]

Why not allow expertise for anyone who gets a skill from their background and chooses it as one of their class picks? They sacrifice the option to be proficient in a different skill to double down. This would also apply to tool proficiencies, so Bards choosing entertainer would actually have expertise in an instrument, when but the rules as they are they never could (Bard's expertise only applies to skills). A Rogue with criminal background would have expertise with thieves tools and still be able to choose two other skills to apply expertise to. What is wrong with making it possible for a Wizard to be an expert in Arcana or a Warlock in Deception if that is what is in the character concept? Bards and Rogues will still be better with skills overall.

I really like this idea and it makes a lot of sense to me. If you are a Sage background and also a wizard it seems fitting to have expertise in arcana. If you are a Acolyte and a cleric, it seems like you should know a lot about religion. If your a fighter who used to be a soilder you might have a leg up on athletics, and like stated, if your a rogue who was a criminal guess what you could potentially start the game with expertise in thieves tools, deception, stealth and your 2 other skills that you wanted to be good at. It seems like a solid trade to me.

[Tanarii]

I really like this idea and it makes a lot of sense to me. If you are a Sage background and also a wizard it seems fitting to have expertise in arcana. If you are a Acolyte and a cleric, it seems like you should know a lot about religion. If your a fighter who used to be a soilder you might have a leg up on athletics, and like stated, if your a rogue who was a criminal guess what you could potentially start the game with expertise in thieves tools, deception, stealth and your 2 other skills that you wanted to be good at. It seems like a solid trade to me.
Definitely beats: I'm a half orc soldier barbarian so I am the the as any other half orc or soldier at intimidation, but also I'm good at Stealth!

[stoutstien]

Aye trading one background skill for expertise in the other is a solid idea.

[D.U.P.A.]

Skills are more a theoretical knowledge, what was written etc, historical evidence. Being a believer is different than having degree in theology. Clerics are more believers, they surely know most things about their deity and their teachings, but not much about others, unless they studied some (having a proficiency in Religion skill). And since clerics are not smart (intelligence not the primary stat) like wizards, it makes sense they may know less. Same with druids, they interact well with nature, but more in practical way, they usually have no written notes and scientific language and are less likely to know life outside of their habitat. And a ranger can as well be more urban or just walk at the border, always returning to his suburban home in the evening when he has everything he needs and has no need for survival skill in nearby locations.

[Tanarii]

And (typically) a Wizard already studies all aspects of lore and trains their memory and mental acuity. As reflected by having a high Intelligence modifier.

[Segev]

Allowing you to "double up" on skill proficiencies that both Background and Class grant you to get Expertise is interesting, but I fear will have two unintended consequences:

It will encourage more, not less, optimization of background/class synergy, so now ALL wizards are Sages in order to get that Expertise, and ALL rogues are criminals, charletans, or urchins to get more Expertise in Rogue skills.
It makes the class feature far less attractive. The rogue and bard now are just getting bonus skill proficiencies, effectivley, at those levels, rather than getting a genuinely interesting perk that you have to be them (or take a specific feat) to get.

It would generally be better to make the focused Expertise to specific skills specific to particular classes. And remember, again, that Expertise isn't the only way to represent being very good at something, especially if you're results-oriented. Again: the wizard who wants to be good at knowing stuff can use contact other plane and various other things his class gives him access to to find information that is rare or otherwise hard to find. Anybody with the Sage background can tell you where to go to get information they don't have the Intelligence(Proficiency) check to know off the top of their heads. The rogue scholar who took Expertise in Arcana or History may know more off the top of his head, but his fellow Sage is still only slightly behind him in that the Sage without Expertisae might fail check and have to rely on his Feature.

Features are not chump change. They can and should be powerful parts of the social and exploration pillars of the game.

[Keltest]

Allowing you to "double up" on skill proficiencies that both Background and Class grant you to get Expertise is interesting, but I fear will have two unintended consequences:

It will encourage more, not less, optimization of background/class synergy, so now ALL wizards are Sages in order to get that Expertise, and ALL rogues are criminals, charletans, or urchins to get more Expertise in Rogue skills.
It makes the class feature far less attractive. The rogue and bard now are just getting bonus skill proficiencies, effectivley, at those levels, rather than getting a genuinely interesting perk that you have to be them (or take a specific feat) to get.

It would generally be better to make the focused Expertise to specific skills specific to particular classes. And remember, again, that Expertise isn't the only way to represent being very good at something, especially if you're results-oriented. Again: the wizard who wants to be good at knowing stuff can use contact other plane and various other things his class gives him access to to find information that is rare or otherwise hard to find. Anybody with the Sage background can tell you where to go to get information they don't have the Intelligence(Proficiency) check to know off the top of their heads. The rogue scholar who took Expertise in Arcana or History may know more off the top of his head, but his fellow Sage is still only slightly behind him in that the Sage without Expertisae might fail check and have to rely on his Feature.

Features are not chump change. They can and should be powerful parts of the social and exploration pillars of the game.

I would also suggest that giving out expertise like candy would have the consequence of dramatically devaluing any skill that isn't expertised in, which harkens back to the days of 3.5 where if you weren't specifically keeping your skill maxed, it wasn't even worth attempting in the first place. Either everybody can trivially succeed even supposed-to-be impossible tasks if theyre adjacent to their field of skill, or DC 30 becomes the new norm and anybody who isn't expertised in a skill wont ever be able to succeed at it.

[stoutstien]

I would also suggest that giving out expertise like candy would have the consequence of dramatically devaluing any skill that isn't expertised in, which harkens back to the days of 3.5 where if you weren't specifically keeping your skill maxed, it wasn't even worth attempting in the first place. Either everybody can trivially succeed even supposed-to-be impossible tasks if theyre adjacent to their field of skill, or DC 30 becomes the new norm and anybody who isn't expertised in a skill wont ever be able to succeed at it.

That is an issue with expertise as a whole. DMs who inflate DCs in response to players having a better chance at passing them is a problem that exists already. I think a more important part of it is expertise keeps the wizard from blowing lower DCs. The dice roll is too random in relation to the DC system.

* Treadmilling players is a bad strategy all around.*

[Tanarii]

Allowing you to "double up" on skill proficiencies that both Background and Class grant you to get Expertise is interesting, but I fear will have two unintended consequences:

[list=1]It will encourage more, not less, optimization of background/class synergy, so now ALL wizards are Sages in order to get that Expertise, and ALL rogues are criminals, charletans, or urchins to get more Expertise in Rogue skills.
Good. Strong archetypes are a good thing.

Especially important under the interpretation that you don't get to pick any skill just because your background has t and it's on your class list, but instead that the skill has to be explicit. e.g. Half orc and solider gets you a free pick due to intimidate, but soldier and fighter doesn't get you two free picks due to athletics and intimidate merely being fighter class skills.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Allowing you to "double up" on skill proficiencies that both Background and Class grant you to get Expertise is interesting, but I fear will have two unintended consequences:

It will encourage more, not less, optimization of background/class synergy, so now ALL wizards are Sages in order to get that Expertise, and ALL rogues are criminals, charletans, or urchins to get more Expertise in Rogue skills.
It makes the class feature far less attractive. The rogue and bard now are just getting bonus skill proficiencies, effectivley, at those levels, rather than getting a genuinely interesting perk that you have to be them (or take a specific feat) to get.

It would generally be better to make the focused Expertise to specific skills specific to particular classes. And remember, again, that Expertise isn't the only way to represent being very good at something, especially if you're results-oriented. Again: the wizard who wants to be good at knowing stuff can use contact other plane and various other things his class gives him access to to find information that is rare or otherwise hard to find. Anybody with the Sage background can tell you where to go to get information they don't have the Intelligence(Proficiency) check to know off the top of their heads. The rogue scholar who took Expertise in Arcana or History may know more off the top of his head, but his fellow Sage is still only slightly behind him in that the Sage without Expertisae might fail check and have to rely on his Feature.

Features are not chump change. They can and should be powerful parts of the social and exploration pillars of the game.

I feel that a lot of this comes from DM's and Players not liking to hear or say "no you can't make that check", or to bounce off that, that a DC may be different for a character who doesn't have a great chance of success compared to one who would under the circumstances.

A Wizard probably won't have to even make an Arcana check to recognize something fundamental about spellcasting. Some in world examples might include recognizing low level spells (probably out of combat) or explaining the basics of why this particular somatic gesture makes this particular thread of the weave create something. The Expert Rogue can also do these things, but unless they're an Arcane Trickster with practical experience they'll probably make a check.

On the same note, a Wizard is more likely to already know some high level theory behind magic, after all, when they level up they end up learning higher and higher level spells with only their own research at hand, it's not unreasonable to assume that they could make a check beyond the scope of their abilities. The Expert Rogue would make such a check at either disadvantage and/or a much higher DC, if the DM even rules that such a thing is something they'd have even come across in their comparatively limited experience.

The fact that a Wizard can put these theories into practice should weight significantly into whether the DM actually makes them roll an Arcana check, the fact that the Rogue probably can't should weigh into whether they're even allowed to make the check in the first place. Bard's are the real snag, since they can do both right out of the box.


I think a more important part of it is expertise keeps the wizard from blowing lower DCs. The dice roll is too random in relation to the DC system.
Or perhaps the Wizard should have an even lower DC, or automatically pass. Maybe if it doesn't make sense to you that the Wizard has a chance of failing this low DC check, don't make them roll for success, make them roll for more information.

[Keltest]

That is an issue with expertise as a whole. DMs who inflate DCs in response to players having a better chance at passing them is a problem that exists already. I think a more important part of it is expertise keeps the wizard from blowing lower DCs. The dice roll is too random in relation to the DC system.

* Treadmilling players is a bad strategy all around.*

Theoretically, 5e gives guidelines on what the DCs are supposed to represent to a regular adventurer. An expertised character can start hitting the "almost possible" levels of ~30 with some regularity by the time it comes online, if they have it in something they also have a good stat for.

Im not a fan of wizards being able to do "almost impossible" arcana tasks as standard issue, or rogues being able to disarm "almost impossible" traps. If you play it straight, it devalues the meaning of difficulty. If you treadmill it, then everybody else gets left behind. Theres no winning situation there.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mm.. What would I do with expertise in Arcana tho? It's not like it does anything? Yes, it does.
1. To make a magical item you need proficiency in Arcana skill. (I forget if this is in the DMG or in Xanathar's)

2. Identify certain aspects of lore or magic. There is a DC 30 Arcana check in the Waterdeep Dragonheist adventure during Tier 1 play.

3. Other things, such as what is written in the book:

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..

[JNAProductions]

I feel that a lot of this comes from DM's and Players not liking to hear or say "no you can't make that check", or to bounce off that, that a DC may be different for a character who doesn't have a great chance of success compared to one who would under the circumstances.

A Wizard probably won't have to even make an Arcana check to recognize something fundamental about spellcasting. Some in world examples might include recognizing low level spells (probably out of combat) or explaining the basics of why this particular somatic gesture makes this particular thread of the weave create something. The Expert Rogue can also do these things, but unless they're an Arcane Trickster with practical experience they'll probably make a check.

On the same note, a Wizard is more likely to already know some high level theory behind magic, after all, when they level up they end up learning higher and higher level spells with only their own research at hand, it's not unreasonable to assume that they could make a check beyond the scope of their abilities. The Expert Rogue would make such a check at either disadvantage and/or a much higher DC, if the DM even rules that such a thing is something they'd have even come across in their comparatively limited experience.

The fact that a Wizard can put these theories into practice should weight significantly into whether the DM actually makes them roll an Arcana check, the fact that the Rogue probably can't should weigh into whether they're even allowed to make the check in the first place. Bard's are the real snag, since they can do both right out of the box.

Or perhaps the Wizard should have an even lower DC, or automatically pass. Maybe if it doesn't make sense to you that the Wizard has a chance of failing this low DC check, don't make them roll for success, make them roll for more information.

Hold up a moment-why would a Rogue with Expertise in Arcana have a higher DC or disadvantage? They've studied at least as much, if not MORE theoretical arcana than the Wizard! That's what Expertise represents.

[Segev]

Good. Strong archetypes are a good thing.

Especially important under the interpretation that you don't get to pick any skill just because your background has t and it's on your class list, but instead that the skill has to be explicit. e.g. Half orc and solider gets you a free pick due to intimidate, but soldier and fighter doesn't get you two free picks due to athletics and intimidate merely being fighter class skills.

I'm not sure I follow your last paragraph, here. Could you please clarify? I see a couple ways I could interpret it, and my own attempt to separate them keeps muddying it, so I'd rather just ask for clarification than rely on my best guess and respond to something you didn't say or mean.

As to the first paragraph: Yes and no. Strong archetypes are good, yes, but no, forcing background to align with class is not a good way to achieve this. If this were a desired goal of the system, Backgrounds would be tied explicitly to classes, rather than being things that are in their own separate section. The goal of Backgrounds is to be applicable to any class, and to explicitly enabe bredth of character experience. In fact, the very fact that one of the few ways to get a totally-free pick (without actually custom-building backgrounds) for skill or tool proficiencies is to have one you already picked from a class proficiency is indicative that Backgrounds are intended to broaden, not sharpen, your expertise (lower-case-e, no pun intended).

That is to say, making taking an archetype that "matches" your class in order to get Expertise an optimization choice is actively defeating the design goal behind Backgrounds.

[stoutstien]

Theoretically, 5e gives guidelines on what the DCs are supposed to represent to a regular adventurer. An expertised character can start hitting the "almost possible" levels of ~30 with some regularity by the time it comes online, if they have it in something they also have a good stat for.

Im not a fan of wizards being able to do "almost impossible" arcana tasks as standard issue, or rogues being able to disarm "almost impossible" traps. If you play it straight, it devalues the meaning of difficulty. If you treadmill it, then everybody else gets left behind. Theres no winning situation there.

Aye. Not really a silver bullet either way. I know 5e tried to keep it's very simplistic as far as dice-rolling is concerned but ablity ckecks and attack rolls just don't line up.

I've been trying to find away to almost flip flop expertise and reliable talents. Have expertise act like a way of increasing the minimum roll with maybe any roll under your proficiency Bonus is treated as equal to it And reliable talent doubles your proficiency bonus for X skills.

It's not completely figured out but it does keep low DCs relevant and high DCs stay nearly impossible until late game. The sticking point is stealth but those rules need a refresher either way.

[Ashrym]

I find it funny there are posters who want to give rogue and bard class abilities to other classes and justifying it as niche protection because wizards, clerics, and druids are supposed to be better at skills. That's actually the opposite of niche protection because it's being taken away from skill classes. ;-)



It makes the class feature far less attractive. The rogue and bard now are just getting bonus skill proficiencies, effectivley, at those levels, rather than getting a genuinely interesting perk that you have to be them (or take a specific feat) to get. [/list]


TBF, extra skills is a decent benefit plus jack of all trades and reliable talent are nice abilities. If this really were a significant issue it would have presented itself more fully with the prodigy feat.


That is an issue with expertise as a whole. DMs who inflate DCs in response to players having a better chance at passing them is a problem that exists already. I think a more important part of it is expertise keeps the wizard from blowing lower DCs. The dice roll is too random in relation to the DC system.

* Treadmilling players is a bad strategy all around.*

DM's who do that might prefer the 3e or 4e skills and it's within their scope to run a game that way. 5e isn't designed with that in mind so let them work out the kinks if they want. It's not 5e philsophy but DM empowerment is. ;-)

Unnecessary rolling also contributes to players wanting to up the bonuses.

5e can handle giving expertise to these classes. What's really needed to keep it in check is suitable opportunity cost in making that choice. No freebies. ;-)

[Doug Lampert]

Aye. Not really a silver bullet either way. I know 5e tried to keep it's very simplistic as far as dice-rolling is concerned but ablity ckecks and attack rolls just don't line up.

I've been trying to find away to almost flip flop expertise and reliable talents. Have expertise act like a way of increasing the minimum roll with maybe any roll under your proficiency Bonus is treated as equal to it And reliable talent doubles your proficiency bonus for X skills.

It's not completely figured out but it does keep low DCs relevant and high DCs stay nearly impossible until late game. The sticking point is stealth but those rules need a refresher either way.

Expertise grants advantage is simple and preserves the maximum while drastically reducing the chance of a minimum. If you use Expertise grants advantage, then simply change reliable talent to give a minimum of 15 when rolling a skill with advantage and a 10 if you don't have advantage or advantage is cancelled.

[stoutstien]

Expertise grants advantage is simple and preserves the maximum while drastically reducing the chance of a minimum. If you use Expertise grants advantage, then simply change reliable talent to give a minimum of 15 when rolling a skill with advantage and a 10 if you don't have advantage or advantage is cancelled.

Thought about just using advantage. Then I realize just how many class features and spells grant advantage on checks. I don't have my notes on hand but I think there was over 30 cases of it. Its doable but is alot more pen work.

[Keltest]

Honestly, I think the "take 10" rule from 3.5 was probably the best solution here. If youre not in a rush or under any especial external pressure or time constraints, instead of rolling the die you can just treat it as a 10. If you need to disarm a relatively simple but important trap, or make a dangerous yet straightforward jump, just take a little more time, be a bit more careful, and you wont get any wild runaway successes, but you aren't going to do anything dumb to botch an otherwise sure job either. Since players don't know the DCs (theoretically) they have to actually consider the situation to see if they want to do this.

[Anymage]

TBF, extra skills is a decent benefit plus jack of all trades and reliable talent are nice abilities. If this really were a significant issue it would have presented itself more fully with the prodigy feat.

...

5e can handle giving expertise to these classes. What's really needed to keep it in check is suitable opportunity cost in making that choice. No freebies. ;-)

Prodigy, being a feat, has a hefty opportunity cost. Very few people are upset with expertise via a feat because the player had to give up something meaningful in exchange. Expertise at the cost of a skill pick strikes a lot of people as too low a cost that most people will wind up going for. Other people have already pointed out their beefs with easy expertise, I agree with them.

[Ashrym]

Honestly, I think the "take 10" rule from 3.5 was probably the best solution here. If youre not in a rush or under any especial external pressure or time constraints, instead of rolling the die you can just treat it as a 10. If you need to disarm a relatively simple but important trap, or make a dangerous yet straightforward jump, just take a little more time, be a bit more careful, and you wont get any wild runaway successes, but you aren't going to do anything dumb to botch an otherwise sure job either. Since players don't know the DCs (theoretically) they have to actually consider the situation to see if they want to do this.

That's basically included in the guidelines on when to roll. A roll is only needed if there's inherent danger in a failure, the outcome is in doubt, or the task is being performed under pressure such as while in combat.

The DMG adds that multiple rolling means eventual success so it can be assumed that investing 10 times the normal amount of time is successful if the task is possible for that character to perform. That's one of the reasons the knock spell is so situational. Most 1st level characters proficient in thieves' tools can automatically hit a 25 DC lock. 13th level characters with proficiency and a matching ability score (like wizards with arcana) automatically hits 30 DC for almost impossible. That gets back to my earlier comments that 5e skills are top in their fields with +9 and +10 bonuses.

Expertise is more accurately described as a knack for remembering or performing under pressure instead of being better at the tasks because of bounded accuracy.


Prodigy, being a feat, has a hefty opportunity cost. Very few people are upset with expertise via a feat because the player had to give up something meaningful in exchange. Expertise at the cost of a skill pick strikes a lot of people as too low a cost that most people will wind up going for. Other people have already pointed out their beefs with easy expertise, I agree with them.

Yes, which is why I also mentioned a suitable opportunity cost and no freebies in the same post from which you quoted.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention something I was thinking of earlier. Some posters are saying arcana does nothing. That's incorrect. That means either the DM isn't using it or the player isn't using it, or both. The check recalls arcane lore (obviously), is used for magical traps (but the DC's are normally <20) as mentioned, but also is a used for crafting magic items in the XGtE rules.

5e uses recipes for magic items. Any class can learn to craft items and needs the recipe and either the appropriate artisan tools or arcana proficiency (working with an artisan of some sort) to craft the items. Spells scrolls for eldritch knights or arcane tricksters stocking up specifically requires arcana proficiency and the process normally involves a materials quest in which one should expect arcana checks. If crafting is something to expect in the campaign then arcana is worthwhile. I can make a champion fighter and craft magic rings under 5e and XGtE rules as long as I can get my hands on or research the recipe for it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Hold up a moment-why would a Rogue with Expertise in Arcana have a higher DC or disadvantage? They've studied at least as much, if not MORE theoretical arcana than the Wizard! That's what Expertise represents.

Maybe I phrased it poorly. What I'm suggesting assumes that the DC system isn't linear, but circumstantial. Something might be "hard" for the Rogue to recall in theory despite their extensive book learning (that they may or may not keep up on) but not all that difficult for a Wizard who is studying and applying that theory on a day to day basis. I'm not suggesting a substantial change in the DC, if its something trivial to remember, neither should roll. If its something simple but somewhat obscure, the Wizard might know it immediately from their daily notetaking but the Rogue would have a small chance at failing to recall such information off the top of their head. I wouldn't suggest the DC be any more than 5 different, perhaps even 3, only enough to open a window for the Wizard to not be worse at what you would expect them to be talented at to be a Wizard at all.

Would you have as much of an issue with it if I suggested that instead the Wizard may have a lower DC or advantage on their check? I just don't think that a higher arcana bonus has to automatically mean that the Rogue knows more than the Wizard does about magic, I'm trying to find a mechanical way to represent that instead of just slapping expertise on the Wizard because, in my opinion, that's not a good fix.

[Contrast]

Maybe I phrased it poorly. What I'm suggesting assumes that the DC system isn't linear, but circumstantial. Something might be "hard" for the Rogue to recall in theory despite their extensive book learning (that they may or may not keep up on) but not all that difficult for a Wizard who is studying and applying that theory on a day to day basis. I'm not suggesting a substantial change in the DC, if its something trivial to remember, neither should roll. If its something simple but somewhat obscure, the Wizard might know it immediately from their daily notetaking but the Rogue would have a small chance at failing to recall such information off the top of their head. I wouldn't suggest the DC be any more than 5 different, perhaps even 3, only enough to open a window for the Wizard to not be worse at what you would expect them to be talented at to be a Wizard at all.

Would you have as much of an issue with it if I suggested that instead the Wizard may have a lower DC or advantage on their check? I just don't think that a higher arcana bonus has to automatically mean that the Rogue knows more than the Wizard does about magic, I'm trying to find a mechanical way to represent that instead of just slapping expertise on the Wizard because, in my opinion, that's not a good fix.

I guess the difficulty here comes from the fact that those are roleplay things which you're imposing on all rogues/wizards. You may have a rogue who takes obsessive notes and a wizard whose spellbook is full of doodles due to his scatterbrained nature.

That said, some of the new UAs have introduced a number of mechanics which recharge on spending a spell slot and in the Class Features UA the sorc had an option to spend 2 sorc points for advantage on an ability check which I quite liked. We could steal those to create some sort of alternate class feature for the wizard when they expend a spell slot to gain advantage on an Intelligence ability check or something. Alternatively something a little more powerful and offer it as an alternative to Arcane Recovery - you either study increasing your raw magical power and get Arcane Recovery or study the theory of magic and get...whatever you want to achieve with this.
Personally I'd still be reluctant to do this on the basis that the sorceror desparately needs more things it can do that don't just make it feel like a subpar wizard and immeditely yoinking cool new features they might be getting and giving them to the wizard feels like a step back to me. But its something you could trial if you think wizards need it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I guess the difficulty here comes from the fact that those are roleplay things which you're imposing on all rogues/wizards. You may have a rogue who takes obsessive notes and a wizard whose spellbook is full of doodles due to his scatterbrained nature.

On the first point, yes at a glance, but the complicated bit is that I'd run it circumstantial to the character, not necessarily the class. Probably a lot more convoluted than its worth to be honest. I was generalizing it for the sake of brevity. I thought it was an idea worth sharing, but it might not be all that reasonable.

[ZRN]

Theoretically, 5e gives guidelines on what the DCs are supposed to represent to a regular adventurer. An expertised character can start hitting the "almost possible" levels of ~30 with some regularity by the time it comes online, if they have it in something they also have a good stat for.

Im not a fan of wizards being able to do "almost impossible" arcana tasks as standard issue, or rogues being able to disarm "almost impossible" traps. If you play it straight, it devalues the meaning of difficulty. If you treadmill it, then everybody else gets left behind. Theres no winning situation there.

What do you mean by "devalues the meaning of difficulty"? I think especially with rogues, expertise and Reliable Talent are explicitly designed to let them consistently do really cool and difficult stuff. Like, sneaking around and picking locks are the core things your class does; if a wizard doesn't have to roll a die to successfully cast Fly or Knock or Invisibility or Wish, why should a rogue have a significant risk of failure when sneaking past low-level guards or whatever?

[Tanarii]

On the first point, yes at a glance, but the complicated bit is that I'd run it circumstantial to the character, not necessarily the class. Probably a lot more convoluted than its worth to be honest. I was generalizing it for the sake of brevity. I thought it was an idea worth sharing, but it might not be all that reasonable.
I hear what you're going for. I've long been a proponent that if a (specific) character doesn't know how to do something, they shouldn't be making a check. The problem comes in when the DM arbitrarily decides that Barbarian adventurers shouldn't know anything about Arcana. Not when the DM and player of a (non-AT) Rogue PC both decide that his years of study / expert knack for random arcane lore / whatever it is that gives the expert bonus doesn't cover applied spell casting lore in this specific case. Or a DM saying "arcane spellcasters get advantage on this check because of their experience with applied spell casting."

XTGE rule for identifying spells works that way: if it's cast as a class spell and you're a member of that class, you get advantage on the check.

[Keltest]

What do you mean by "devalues the meaning of difficulty"? I think especially with rogues, expertise and Reliable Talent are explicitly designed to let them consistently do really cool and difficult stuff. Like, sneaking around and picking locks are the core things your class does; if a wizard doesn't have to roll a die to successfully cast Fly or Knock or Invisibility or Wish, why should a rogue have a significant risk of failure when sneaking past low-level guards or whatever?

I mean that 30 being "nearly impossible" means that every high wizard is regularly pushing the bounds of what is possible in arcana, to the point where it becomes meaningless as both a descriptor and a useful level of difficulty.

[stoutstien]

I mean that 30 being "nearly impossible" means that every high wizard is regularly pushing the bounds of what is possible in arcana, to the point where it becomes meaningless as both a descriptor and a useful level of difficulty.

Even with expertise and maxed stat a role has a good chance of failure vs DC30.
The DC descriptors aren't based on the PCs abilities and definitely not a level 20 one. Nearly impossible is pretty accurate.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I mean that 30 being "nearly impossible" means that every high wizard is regularly pushing the bounds of what is possible in arcana, to the point where it becomes meaningless as both a descriptor and a useful level of difficulty.

I should hope they're pushing the boundaries of possibility by the time they're high level, they have access to Wish at that point.

And as Stoutstein says, even for this reality warping Wizard with mastery over a handful of spells, some of which he can cast at will beyond the normal scopes of spellcasting, he will still be stumped by a DC 30 Arcana check somewhere around 40% of the time (if we assume he has a modifer of +17 thanks to 20 Int and Expertise).

You can, of course, stack additional modifiers on to reduce that chance to 0, but at that point the process isn't "I've trivialized this impossible task" it's "Look at the effort I went through to succeed here." You've specialized for this task over the course of your adventure and yet you can't trivialize this without something beyond your natural talents. Heck, it may drive some Wizards to madness knowing their natural best isn't good enough for the highest understandings of magic.

[OldTrees1]

I should hope they're pushing the boundaries of possibility by the time they're high level, they have access to Wish at that point.

It is fair to ask whether Wizard should be pushing the boundaries of possibility in the Rogue's area of expertise and if that means vice versa would be fair play. Should high level Rogues get something comparable to Wish if Wizards now get access to Rogue's DC 30 ability checks?

Personally I would address that concern by giving Rogues more level appropriate features and letting Wizards have their DC 30 Arcana checks. But in absence of equal consideration, Wizards do not need to get a free upgrade.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It is fair to ask whether Wizard should be pushing the boundaries of possibility in the Rogue's area of expertise and if that means vice versa would be fair play. Should high level Rogues get something comparable to Wish if Wizards now get access to Rogue's DC 30 ability checks?

Personally I would address that concern by giving Rogues more level appropriate features and letting Wizards have their DC 30 Arcana checks. But in absence of equal consideration, Wizards do not need to get a free upgrade.

Keep in mind that the example assumes that the Wizard took Expertise either through Multiclassing or Prodigy, I never suggested they should have it automatically.

Is it a serious question when you ask whether Rogues should have something equivalent to Wish? What exactly can you even give a non spellcasting class that is equivalent to the ability rewrite reality?

[Tanarii]

Is it a serious question when you ask whether Rogues should have something equivalent to Wish? What exactly can you even give a non spellcasting class that is equivalent to the ability rewrite reality?
The ability to cast any spell of 8th level or lower.

I can't imagine many PCs use the rewrite reality portion of Wish unless it's the end of the campaign.

[Ashrym]

Even with expertise and maxed stat a role has a good chance of failure vs DC30.
The DC descriptors aren't based on the PCs abilities and definitely not a level 20 one. Nearly impossible is pretty accurate.

That's only true if the DM determines the roll is required, such as because the PC is attempting a nearly impossible task in the middle of a fight during a fraction of a 6 second period of time. Out of combat with the ten times normal amount of time guideline a 30 DC is guaranteed with a +10 bonus and PC's can do that consistently when not under pressure.

That gets back to unnecessary rolling creating a false perspective on what the numbers represent. Expertise makes it easier to do the task under pressure. Take away the pressure and time constraint then those bonuses still do the same tasks.

That's all on the DM, not the rules.

[OldTrees1]

Keep in mind that the example assumes that the Wizard took Expertise either through Multiclassing or Prodigy, I never suggested they should have it automatically.

Ah, sorry I got the subthreads crossed. I thought this was on one of the "give the wizard class expertise" subthreads.


Is it a serious question when you ask whether Rogues should have something equivalent to Wish? What exactly can you even give a non spellcasting class that is equivalent to the ability rewrite reality?

(Remember that question was asked when I had the subthreads crossed)
It was a serious question whether a Tier 4 Rogue should get another Tier 4 feature if their Tier 4 feature (Being able to do the nigh impossible* via ability checks) was made common across classes.
*Whether this is actually a level appropriate ability depends on the DM definition of nigh impossible.

[Tanarii]

That's only true if the DM determines the roll is required, such as because the PC is attempting a nearly impossible task in the middle of a fight during a fraction of a 6 second period of time. Out of combat with the ten times normal amount of time guideline a 30 DC is guaranteed with a +10 bonus and PC's can do that consistently when not under pressure.
Open to interpretation. It's possible to rule a DC 30 is possible with a -1 bonus with ten times as long as no failure state other than more time.

The DMG guidelines isn't Take 20. It iS "no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one."

Interpretation 1) A nearly impossible task is not an impossible task.
Interpretation 2) if you can't roll it, its impossible for your character

[stoutstien]

That's only true if the DM determines the roll is required, such as because the PC is attempting a nearly impossible task in the middle of a fight during a fraction of a 6 second period of time. Out of combat with the ten times normal amount of time guideline a 30 DC is guaranteed with a +10 bonus and PC's can do that consistently when not under pressure.

That gets back to unnecessary rolling creating a false perspective on what the numbers represent. Expertise makes it easier to do the task under pressure. Take away the pressure and time constraint then those bonuses still do the same tasks.

That's all on the DM, not the rules.

This is where I think reliable talent is exponentially more important then expertise. it allows a rogue to be as consistent in a skill check as an action as someone else does by taking 10. Even without expertise and just a +1 modifier they are guaranteed to pass a DC 15 or lower. Toss on expertise and a +2 modifier then it's 20. Reliable talent also completely disregards disadvantage. A blind drunk rogue will consistently pass 50% more checks than the wizard.

Expertise is not a key portion of the rogue/bard power IMO. I consider it about on par with a fighting style. they're both about the same difficulty to acquire and by themselves or not huge game changers you have to take other features to really make it shine.