Expertise for Martials

[paladinn]

Looking at the Expertise feature that is currently the province of rogues. It allows the rogue to double his/her proficiency bonus with two skills or thieves' tools, with another two at 6th level.

My thought was, why not allow a rogue to choose expertise with one weapon (with which s/he is proficient) instead?

Likewise, I would fighters to also choose weapon expertise instead of the "extra" ASI's at 6th and 14th level. Maybe that should be limited to the Champion subclass.

Would this make either the rogue or fighter OP? Thoughts?

[Expired]

Looking at the Expertise feature that is currently the province of rogues. It allows the rogue to double his/her proficiency bonus with two skills or thieves' tools, with another two at 6th level.

My thought was, why not allow a rogue to choose expertise with one weapon (with which s/he is proficient) instead?

Likewise, I would fighters to also choose weapon expertise instead of the "extra" ASI's at 6th and 14th level. Maybe that should be limited to the Champion subclass.

Would this make either the rogue or fighter OP? Thoughts?
Yes, it would cause any class that takes it to break bounded accuracy because of the additional increase to the attack modifier (+4 at lv.1, +6 at lv.5, +8 at lv. 9, +10 at lv.13, and +12 at lv. 17) while not even considering the possibility of advantage and +1/+2/+3 magic weapons.

[Dienekes]

Looking at the Expertise feature that is currently the province of rogues. It allows the rogue to double his/her proficiency bonus with two skills or thieves' tools, with another two at 6th level.

My thought was, why not allow a rogue to choose expertise with one weapon (with which s/he is proficient) instead?

Likewise, I would fighters to also choose weapon expertise instead of the "extra" ASI's at 6th and 14th level. Maybe that should be limited to the Champion subclass.

Would this make either the rogue or fighter OP? Thoughts?

The only reason why the Rogue's Expertise isn't OP is because skills are so vague Expertise can mean as little as the GM wants it to mean. While double proficiency on attacks would mean a lot higher dps than the game is prepared for.

However, I could in theory see a scenario where Fighters and the like get 1.5 proficiency with weapons. But I would only do that if no magic weapons ever gave bonuses to attack.

[ArtIzon]

Would this make X Class OP? Thoughts?

If you are asking this question about a martial other than possibly the Paladin, the answer is most likely no.

[LudicSavant]

If martials need Expertise, it would be so that they get more non-combat abilities, not so that they could get a higher attack bonus.

[paladinn]

If martials need Expertise, it would be so that they get more non-combat abilities, not so that they could get a higher attack bonus.

Soo.. if we open it up to either 2 skills or 1 weapon? It could be a nice boost to either "plain" thieves or fighters. Not thinking to allow it for EKs, paladins, ATs, etc.

[Joe the Rat]

Sounds like you would definitely need to attach it to specific archetypes, and make sure you don't catch in by multiclassing.
And address how it interacts with Archery Fighting style, GWM and Sharpshooter.

Starting the game at +7 to hit, and peaking at +17 without magic... with four attacks per round on a fighter... yeah, this is the kind of number chasing they really tried to step away from.

Historically, specialization (very much a Warrior group thing) was a smaller bump. +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and in some editions a step up the attack progression. That falls closer to what 5e math expects. The Weapon feats (still hope they come back to hit sat some point) was probably a better take - adding options to your attacks, and taking advantage of (Dis)Advantage. I think they felt too many rolls were in play - making saves after attacks was a bit much, even though they do it freaking everywhere already - and for whatever reason people don't like damage on a miss (roll with disadvantage, if the high die hits, you clip them for <statmod>).