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

[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 .

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.