Do Fighters Have a Higher Skill Ceiling than Rogues?

[TaiLiu]

Arguments:

Tasha's Cauldron of Everything released a trio of skill-increasing Battle Master (BM) maneuvers that allow the Battle Master to add the results of a superiority die to a skill check. They are:

* Ambush, for Stealth (and initiative rolls);
* Commanding Presence, for Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion rolls; and
* Tactical Assessment, for Investigation, History, and Insight rolls.

A superiority die is a d8. At higher levels, a d10 or d12. Those aren't bad bonuses! In fact, on average, the bonuses from one of these maneuvers is greater than the bonus from Expertise. Expertise ranges from a +2 to a +5. The average results from the d8 is a 4.5, which is better than the bonus from Expertise in most tiers of play.

With these new maneuvers, I argue that Fighters are more skilled than Rogues in some limited regards. A Fighter can be more skilled than a Rogue in a certain skill if: (a) the Fighter and Rogue are between levels 3 and 10, inclusive; (b) the Fighter is a BM, has superiority dice to expend, and has access to one of the skill-boosting maneuvers; (c) the skill is one of the skills covered by one of the three skill-increasing maneuvers; and (d) all else is equal between the Fighter and the Rogue.

For example, let's say you want to make a character focused on Stealth. Rogue is the classic choice, or a character with access to pass without trace. Tasha's Cauldron lets us add a Fighter to the mix. A Fighter 5 with a +4 Dexterity and the BM Ambush maneuver averages a 22 on Stealth checks and has a possible range of 9–35. With a +3 Dexterity and Expertise (Stealth), the Fighter averages a 24 on Stealth checks, and has a possible range of 11–37. A Rogue 5 with a +4 Dexterity and Expertise (Stealth) averages a 20 and has a range of 11–30. A Ranger or Druid 5 with Expertise (Stealth) and pass without trace admittedly blow both Rogue and Fighter out of the water. But that tactic is less sustainable. [Here's an Anydice link: https://anydice.com/program/22c8f]

In fact, with these maneuvers, the BM Fighter can make a halfway decent skillmonkey in general. It can add a superiority die to the ever-necessary Stealth check, it gets bonuses to most Charisma skill checks, and it can even augment its powers of observation. Skill Expert, Prodigy, or a dip in Rogue lets the Fighter get even better at a skill like Stealth, or grab double-proficiency in an unaugmented skill like Perception to cover its bases. Furthermore, there's an asymmetry: the Rogue needs to take 3 Fighter to get the same d8 superiority die and skill-boosting maneuvers. The BM Fighter is not strictly more skilled than a Rogue in general, but it can make an attempt at it during the 2 most-played tiers. This was certainly not the case before Tasha's!

Anyway, the thought of a skillmonkey Fighter has been bouncing in my head for a little while. Such a Fighter is probably less optimal than a Rogue, since you're dedicating many resources to be skillfully better than just the Rogue base class. But a Fighter very specifically focused on a skill or maybe a small set of skills can probably do pretty well, and these maneuvers give the Fighter more access to the Exploration pillar. Indeed, with these maneuvers, the Fighter can be better at certain aspects of Exploration than the Rogue. Which I think is exciting. Thoughts?

Appendix:

Spoiler

Show

What follows is a skeletal comparison between the BM Fighter and the Rogue through 3 of the 4 tiers of play. It ignores race, ability scores, feats, the Rogue's subclass, and abstracts away background. It looks at the Fighter and Rogue at levels 3, 7, and 15—when the Fighter gains access to its subclass, and when the Fighter gains more proficiency dice. [I got the numbers here: https://anydice.com/program/22c8a]

At Level 3.

If either roll for a skill with proficiency, the modifier is +2, the range of possible results is 3–22, and the average is 12.5.

The Rogue has 6 skill proficiencies: 4 from its class, and 2 more from its background. Also, up to 2 of those skills have double-proficiency from Expertise. Those skills have a +4 modifier, a range of 5–24, and an average of 14.5.

The Fighter has only 4: 2 from its class and 2 from its background. But if it chooses all three skill-boosting maneuvers, it can add its superiority die to 7 specific skills. Without proficiency, the range is 2–28 and the average is 15. With proficiency, the range is 4–30 and the average is 17.

This isn't looking bad for the Fighter at all! Lower floor, higher ceiling. And on average, the Fighter does better. The Fighter also gets a kind of bell curve effect which is arguably favorable to it and reduces the odds of hitting the floor.

At Level 7.

If either roll for a skill with proficiency, the modifier is +3, the range of possible results is 4–23, and the average is 13.5.

The Rogue now has 2 other skills with double-proficiency. All skills with Expertise have a range of 7–26 and an average of 16.5.

The Fighter is mostly stagnant. Its skills without proficiency don't change. With proficiency, the range and average are respectively 5–31 and 18.

The Rogue still has a lower average, but it's closer to the Fighter's than it used to be.

At Level 15.

If the Fighter rolls for a skill with proficiency, the modifier is +5, the range of possible results is 6–25, and the average is 15.5.

The Rogue is doing well for itself. With Reliable Talent, 2 of its skills have a range of 15–25 and an average of 17.75, and 4 of its skills have a range of 20–30 and an average of 22.75.

At this point, the Fighter has fallen behind. Its superiority dice have become a d10, but it's not enough to overcome the Expertise bonus now. Even with proficiency, the average is lower (21). And while the range technically has a larger ceiling (7–35), the bell curve is unkind, and the odds of moving past the Rogue's ceiling of 30 is unlikely.

Conclusion.

The Rogue is strictly superior to the Fighter in Tier 3, but it's actually a lot more complicated in Tiers 1 and 2. Out of the 7 skills that the Fighter can add their superiority dice to, only Performance and History are relatively useless. (And arguably Persuasion and Intimidation are somewhat redundant.) It does cost the Fighter a lot to do this, compared to the Rogue, but it seems like for most of a character's career, the superiority die bonus beats Expertise. It's unfortunately that Reliable Talent comes in so late for the Rogue, which safeguards its niche as one of the best skillmonkeys.

[SharkForce]

unless you're doing something unusual*, skill ceiling generally matters far less than consistency anyways, which an added die is not as good at as a flat bonus.

but sure, you can make a skilled fighter, and that's kinda cool. with all the ways to gain extra maneuvers known, I don't think it's even that big of a sacrifice to spend a few on utility. not like you needed 6 different ways of adding a minor effect to hitting things anyways.

* note: sometimes people who design adventures do something weird, like forgetting about the game being designed for bounded accuracy. sometimes those people are the people who are supposed to know better. that doesn't mean they should be doing it, though.

[LudicSavant]

Personally, I think the old-fashioned notion that "non-combat skills are for Rogues, not Fighters" is harmful for the game. After all, casters are just generally expected to be good at all 3 pillars of the game, and the same should be true for martials -- no good reason to leave them out.

So any step away from that mentality is a win in my book. D&D has been making painfully gradual steps in that direction for a long time. At least people generally won't say something like "letting the fighter Climb is stealing the Rogue's job!" anymore. But I think we still have a ways to go.

[Frogreaver]

Yes because fighter can take expertise via feat. That said rogues have a much higher floor and can also take a maneuver via a feat.

Would maybe be interesting to see what kind of skill build a multiclass fighter/rogue could produce.

[stoutstien]

unless you're doing something unusual*, skill ceiling generally matters far less than consistency anyways, which an added die is not as good at as a flat bonus.

but sure, you can make a skilled fighter, and that's kinda cool. with all the ways to gain extra maneuvers known, I don't think it's even that big of a sacrifice to spend a few on utility. not like you needed 6 different ways of adding a minor effect to hitting things anyways.

* note: sometimes people who design adventures do something weird, like forgetting about the game being designed for bounded accuracy. sometimes those people are the people who are supposed to know better. that doesn't mean they should be doing it, though.

To be fair the DC scaling didn't line up with PCs modifier scaling from the get go and they have always had some weird obsession with certain DC
values.

As far as fighters having a higher ceiling than rogues goes I don't think it matters. The only thing that counts is how likely are you to succeed at a check. The PK rogue getting a 2nd shot, knowing if they passed or failed, makes that second modifier die value much harder to value.
The freedom to apply some values after seeing the D20 are the real winners in the skill monkey race. FoG, BA, and saving face(hobgoblin) spring to mind.

[Mastikator]

If a Rogue multiclasses into Fighter it would have 4d8 superiority dice. With a feat it would be a single d6. Meanwhile a fighter will have d12. A fighter with skill expert (stealth), ambush and 20 dex could potentially roll 20 + 12 + 5 + 12 = 49 stealth. With average of 10.5 + 12 + 5 + 6.5 = 34. It breaks bounded accuracy by a lot.

With alert feat and ambush and max dex you can roll max 20 + 10 + 12 = 42, average 10.5 + 10 + 6.5 = 27. Basically a dex fighter with ambush will most likely go first or second. Going before the enemy is often better.

[OldTrees1]

1)
Wait, why are we asking Rogue about skill ceilings? That is Bard's specialty. Rogue gets Reliable Talent instead.

Bard gets Cha modifiers of d12 inspiration every short rest. Use it on an ally with Expertise (even if you have to cast Skill Empowerment).

That is 1d20+12+5+1d12 = Min 19, Ave 34, Max 49


2)
Battlemaster 15 has 6 superiority dice per short rest. When they run out they can recharge 1 by having a fight. This is a limited resource. I am glad we are talking about ceiling rather than expected value. The trio of maneuvers selected skills that get used frequently. I expect the skill focused Battlemaster can run out of superiority dice.


3)
PS: Does Mark of Shadow Elf given Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster access to Pass without Trace in addition to an extra 1d4 on Stealth?

[LudicSavant]

3)
PS: Does Mark of Shadow Elf given Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster access to Pass without Trace in addition to an extra 1d4 on Stealth?

Yes, it does.

[quindraco]

A Fighter 5 with a +4 Dexterity and the BM Ambush maneuver averages a 22 on Stealth checks and has a possible range of 9–35. With a +3 Dexterity and Expertise (Stealth), the Fighter averages a 24 on Stealth checks, and has a possible range of 11–37.

Ambush is an incredibly GM-specific maneuver in terms of how it behaves on your table, because you get a very finite number of dice per short rest, and there is no widespread agreement among GMs on how often to ask for a Stealth check. Checking the average die result of Stealth while using a consumed resource requires assumptions. It's not like we think a caster is super stealthy all the time because they can cast Invisibility, Silence, and Fly - those get used up, and they get used up on a far more predictable clock than Ambush dice.

I'd like Ambush a lot more if it had a 1 minute duration.

[Gurgeh]

Plus these numbers require an 18th level character. I don't see why getting a stupidly good result on a highly situational skill check is a problem at a point in the game when your wizard is casting Wish.

[KorvinStarmast]

At least people generally won't say something like "letting the fighter Climb is stealing the Rogue's job!" anymore. But I think we still have a ways to go.

Make every climbing attempt an Athletics check. The rogue can still invest in Athletics.

[Yakk]

Your fighter spent a feat on expertise.

Why didn't your rogue spend a feat on martial adept and get a 1d6 ambush die?

[SharkForce]

If a Rogue multiclasses into Fighter it would have 4d8 superiority dice. With a feat it would be a single d6. Meanwhile a fighter will have d12. A fighter with skill expert (stealth), ambush and 20 dex could potentially roll 20 + 12 + 5 + 12 = 49 stealth. With average of 10.5 + 12 + 5 + 6.5 = 34. It breaks bounded accuracy by a lot.

With alert feat and ambush and max dex you can roll max 20 + 10 + 12 = 42, average 10.5 + 10 + 6.5 = 27. Basically a dex fighter with ambush will most likely go first or second. Going before the enemy is often better.

typical passive perception tends to be 15 or less. active perception involves spending your round looking instead of fighting, and since there are usually several non-hidden party members, it's pretty unlikely to come up.

it largely doesn't matter if your average is 34. just the 12 from proficiency and 5 from dexterity is enough to cover your needs the vast majority of the time even if you roll a *1* on the d20. if we're talking about a rogue, that's guaranteed to not be less than 27 by the time you have those bonuses, which is basically enough that it doesn't matter how much more you add to that.

the 34 does arguably break bounded accuracy, but only against active perception. bounded accuracy does not care in the slightest about having a high modifier to your roll, it only cares about target numbers. a target number of 30 means that most people don't get to even try. a bonus of +20 to your roll generally just means you're going to succeed. if you have a +30 to hit it would be quite powerful, but it would not break bounded accuracy because the other guy can still hit you back. meanwhile, having a 40 AC *would* break bounded accuracy because in order to be a meaningful threat an enemy needs to have a decent chance of hitting 40 AC.

bounded accuracy isn't about keeping the bonus small, it is about keeping the DC within reach.

(keeping the bonus small is still good game design in the sense that it keeps bonuses from becoming irrelevant - as I mentioned, it largely doesn't matter whether you can consistently hit 25 or 35 or for that matter 105 on stealth, all of those will basically be equally effective, but the +105 bonus is only breaking bounded accuracy when it becomes the difficulty number to do something)

[LordShade]

I don't have an opinion on Fighter vs. Rogue, but I will say that I love these new maneuvers. Getting +6.5 on-demand on a pile of roleplaying skills is just awesome, in my book. I'd probably pick up the feat on a Battlemaster for two extra maneuvers, just so I could have Commanding Presence and Tactical Insight. Way better than the Samurai's Elegant Courtier, which I also think is overall a good ability.

Now, how to pick up Persuasion, Intimidation, Insight, History and Investigation on a Fighter in addition to the usual stuff you want...

[Cybren]

If a Rogue multiclasses into Fighter it would have 4d8 superiority dice. With a feat it would be a single d6. Meanwhile a fighter will have d12. A fighter with skill expert (stealth), ambush and 20 dex could potentially roll 20 + 12 + 5 + 12 = 49 stealth. With average of 10.5 + 12 + 5 + 6.5 = 34. It breaks bounded accuracy by a lot.

With alert feat and ambush and max dex you can roll max 20 + 10 + 12 = 42, average 10.5 + 10 + 6.5 = 27. Basically a dex fighter with ambush will most likely go first or second. Going before the enemy is often better.

Bounded Accuracy doesn't really matter with ability checks. It's about relative attack and defense values

[Dork_Forge]

1)
Wait, why are we asking Rogue about skill ceilings? That is Bard's specialty. Rogue gets Reliable Talent instead.

Bard gets Cha modifiers of d12 inspiration every short rest. Use it on an ally with Expertise (even if you have to cast Skill Empowerment).

That is 1d20+12+5+1d12 = Min 19, Ave 34, Max 49

Gotta disagree here, the Bard's thing is being competent at everything (Jack of All Trades), which is directly at odds with their Expertise. Rogues on the other hand specialise in consistency and high number in a subset of skills (Expertise+Reliable Talent). Bardic Inspiration is helping other people out, so it's not really 'ask the Bard about ceilings' since the Bard is relying on that person already having a higher than average ceiling.

Raising the ceiling is actually a pretty good niche for the Fighter in a narrow subset of skills, for example:

A Samurai with Skill Expert in Persuasion, taking the Superior Technique style can afford to push their Persuasion rolls extremely high (Double prof+Cha+Wis+d6). A Fighter has the most ASIs in the game (and most importantly imo, an additional ASI at 6th, which is far more accessible than the Rogue's bonus ASI) so they can afford to still be good at combat whilst being very good/amazing at a skill the want to be.

[Yakk]

Lore bards can add inspiration, action free, to any ability check.

[LordShade]

In the racial abilities thread active right now, LudicSavant mentioned the new Reborn race from Van Richten's. It gets +d6 to a skill check, # uses=prof bonus per day, I believe.

Battlemaster superiority plus the Reborn's ability gives d12+d6 (average +10) several times per day. Reborn also give proficiency in two skills. You could start with Athletics, Perception, Stealth, and 3 other skills you fancy--say Persuasion, Intimidation, and Investigation, with the latter 3 rolling at prof+mod+d8+d6 at level 3.

That seems like an awesome build to me.

[TaiLiu]

Appreciate everyone's responses!

unless you're doing something unusual*, skill ceiling generally matters far less than consistency anyways, which an added die is not as good at as a flat bonus.

As far as fighters having a higher ceiling than rogues goes I don't think it matters.

1) Wait, why are we asking Rogue about skill ceilings? That is Bard's specialty. Rogue gets Reliable Talent instead.

100% my fault for choosing the title that I did, which I think is throwing some people off. In Tiers 1 and 2, the bonus from Expertise is a +2 or a +3. The average roll from a d8 superiority die is a 4.5, which is larger. Maybe I should've named it "Can Fighters Have a Higher Skill Average than Rogues?" But that seemed inaccurate: Fighters only get their 1d8 bonus if they expend a die, but Rogues (and Bards) apply Expertise to every applicable roll. So I focused on a minor point, which was the skill ceiling. Which is a cool thing that can happen post-Tasha's, but which is—as people are correctly pointing out—not super relevant.

but sure, you can make a skilled fighter, and that's kinda cool. with all the ways to gain extra maneuvers known, I don't think it's even that big of a sacrifice to spend a few on utility. not like you needed 6 different ways of adding a minor effect to hitting things anyways.

Personally, I think the old-fashioned notion that "non-combat skills are for Rogues, not Fighters" is harmful for the game. After all, casters are just generally expected to be good at all 3 pillars of the game, and the same should be true for martials -- no good reason to leave them out.

So any step away from that mentality is a win in my book. D&D has been making painfully gradual steps in that direction for a long time. At least people generally won't say something like "letting the fighter Climb is stealing the Rogue's job!" anymore. But I think we still have a ways to go.

I don't have an opinion on Fighter vs. Rogue, but I will say that I love these new maneuvers. Getting +6.5 on-demand on a pile of roleplaying skills is just awesome, in my book. I'd probably pick up the feat on a Battlemaster for two extra maneuvers, just so I could have Commanding Presence and Tactical Insight. Way better than the Samurai's Elegant Courtier, which I also think is overall a good ability.

Now, how to pick up Persuasion, Intimidation, Insight, History and Investigation on a Fighter in addition to the usual stuff you want...

Yeah, I'm really into the options that this opens up. Even the stereotypical ones! Threatening someone with your muscles, for example, becomes much easier with the bonus to Intimidation from Commanding Presence. And you can roleplay that Presence in a lot of ways.

It honestly felt like the Ranger—which feels like a woodsy combo of Druid, Fighter, and Rogue—was in charge of the "skillful fighter" archetype. The manuevers introduced by Tasha's opens the archetype up. It also offers a tradeoff between a bigger bonus (average of 4.5) and the fact that you have to expend a resource. That feels really good to me: the Fighter isn't just getting some kind of off-brand Expertise, at least in the first two tiers.

Also, Expertise applies only to proficient skills. But the skill-increasing maneuvers can be applied whether or not you have proficiency. That's really nice, especially for the skill-starved Fighter. You don't need proficiency. Have to talk to the guard to release your Bard friend? With Commanding Presence, you have decent odds (approximately 50%) of obtaining a roll of 15 or higher for your Persuasion check—no proficiency, +0 Charisma modifier. Not winning any contests, but you can hold your own for a bit.

Bard gets Cha modifiers of d12 inspiration every short rest. Use it on an ally with Expertise (even if you have to cast Skill Empowerment). That is 1d20+12+5+1d12 = Min 19, Ave 34, Max 49

Lore bards can add inspiration, action free, to any ability check.

No disagreement there. But Lore Bards get Peerless Skill at level 14 and the d12 die at level 15—Tier 3. The Fighter falls behind the Rogue once Tier 3 starts. That's why my argument is specifically about levels 3–10. They're the most played levels, and Fighters are ahead of the game then.

Would maybe be interesting to see what kind of skill build a multiclass fighter/rogue could produce.

Since the Fighter can get Expertise so easily, the Rogue levels don't offer anything other than skill proficiencies (certainly not to be scoffed at) and Reliable Talent (in Tier 3). It seems like it'd be a horizontal benefit. More skills with double-proficiency, more skills in general. But in the first two tiers, the Fighter/Rogue wouldn't be better at a certain skill than a Fighter, all else being equal.

Yes because fighter can take expertise via feat. That said rogues have a much higher floor and can also take a maneuver via a feat.

That much higher floor only comes in for the Rogue at level 11. But it's true that Rogues in Tiers 1 and 2 have a higher floor: the flat bonus from Expertise is larger than the 1 minimum from the d8 superiority die.

The only thing that counts is how likely are you to succeed at a check. The PK rogue getting a 2nd shot, knowing if they passed or failed, makes that second modifier die value much harder to value. The freedom to apply some values after seeing the D20 are the real winners in the skill monkey race. FoG, BA, and saving face(hobgoblin) spring to mind.

Yeah, agreed. It'd be nice to have a Precision for some limited assortment of skills.

If a Rogue multiclasses into Fighter it would have 4d8 superiority dice. With a feat it would be a single d6. Meanwhile a fighter will have d12. A fighter with skill expert (stealth), ambush and 20 dex could potentially roll 20 + 12 + 5 + 12 = 49 stealth. With average of 10.5 + 12 + 5 + 6.5 = 34. It breaks bounded accuracy by a lot.

With alert feat and ambush and max dex you can roll max 20 + 10 + 12 = 42, average 10.5 + 10 + 6.5 = 27. Basically a dex fighter with ambush will most likely go first or second. Going before the enemy is often better.

Appreciate you running the numbers! I didn't account for the d20, so I didn't realize how large the numbers could get. Everyone in my D&D group loves big numbers and freaks out when players roll numbers like a 28.

2) Battlemaster 15 has 6 superiority dice per short rest. When they run out they can recharge 1 by having a fight. This is a limited resource. I am glad we are talking about ceiling rather than expected value. The trio of maneuvers selected skills that get used frequently. I expect the skill focused Battlemaster can run out of superiority dice.

In the first 2 tiers, Fighters wouldn't even get a die back! I honestly wonder how a skillful Fighter would play. It feels incredibly campaign-dependent. But maybe Fighters would quickly run out of superiority dice in all reasonable games. That would certainly take the skilled Fighter down a notch.

Ambush is an incredibly GM-specific maneuver in terms of how it behaves on your table, because you get a very finite number of dice per short rest, and there is no widespread agreement among GMs on how often to ask for a Stealth check. Checking the average die result of Stealth while using a consumed resource requires assumptions. It's not like we think a caster is super stealthy all the time because they can cast Invisibility, Silence, and Fly - those get used up, and they get used up on a far more predictable clock than Ambush dice.

I'd like Ambush a lot more if it had a 1 minute duration.

Very true. In my experience, DMs tend to let you keep a Stealth check so long as you don't move out of Stealth. It's possible that that's not enough. I also wish they'd play around with maneuver duration more. They all have relatively short and immediate effects.

Re: casters. I think casters aren't automatically stealthy for other reasons. Invisibility doesn't automatically hide you, so you'd still need to roll Stealth. And fly doesn't quiet you, and silence is static. Honestly, if silence could move around, Divine Soul Sorcerers would get to be pretty stealthy in a lot of circumstances.

Plus these numbers require an 18th level character. I don't see why getting a stupidly good result on a highly situational skill check is a problem at a point in the game when your wizard is casting Wish.

Sorry, I sincerely can't tell if you're talking to me or someone else. If you're talking to me, I don't talk about the d12 except in passing. I'm only talking about Tiers 1 and 2, when the Fighter has the d8 die. Which is better than Expertise on average, under specific (but not rare) circumstances. Once Tier 3 comes in, Fighters fall behind. We don't even need to talk about Tier 4, and indeed I haven't, even in the Appendix.

Your fighter spent a feat on expertise.

Why didn't your rogue spend a feat on martial adept and get a 1d6 ambush die?

The Rogue can. But as I mentioned, there's asymmetries that benefit the Fighter:

* With a feat, the Fighter gets Rogue-quality Expertise, because all Expertise is the same. This is not the case for the Rogue's Martial Adept, which gives 1d6 instead of 4d8.
* The Fighter gets their first bonus ASI earlier than the Rogue does, which makes it easier for them to pick up Skill Expert or Prodigy.

Raising the ceiling is actually a pretty good niche for the Fighter in a narrow subset of skills, for example:

A Samurai with Skill Expert in Persuasion, taking the Superior Technique style can afford to push their Persuasion rolls extremely high (Double prof+Cha+Wis+d6). A Fighter has the most ASIs in the game (and most importantly imo, an additional ASI at 6th, which is far more accessible than the Rogue's bonus ASI) so they can afford to still be good at combat whilst being very good/amazing at a skill the want to be.

Oh, that's really nice. I was super focused on BM and forgot that Samurai get bonuses to Persuasion.

In the racial abilities thread active right now, LudicSavant mentioned the new Reborn race from Van Richten's. It gets +d6 to a skill check, # uses=prof bonus per day, I believe.

Battlemaster superiority plus the Reborn's ability gives d12+d6 (average +10) several times per day. Reborn also give proficiency in two skills. You could start with Athletics, Perception, Stealth, and 3 other skills you fancy--say Persuasion, Intimidation, and Investigation, with the latter 3 rolling at prof+mod+d8+d6 at level 3.

That seems like an awesome build to me.

I don't have Van Richten's, so this is cool news to me. It doesn't feel like there are easily accessible bonuses to ability checks other than guidance. I guess they're adding more! Not quite sure how I feel about that.

[OldTrees1]

Appreciate everyone's responses!

100% my fault for choosing the title that I did, which I think is throwing some people off. In Tiers 1 and 2, the bonus from Expertise is a +2 or a +3. The average roll from a d8 superiority die is a 4.5, which is larger. Maybe I should've named it "Can Fighters Have a Higher Skill Average than Rogues?" But that seemed inaccurate: Fighters only get their 1d8 bonus if they expend a die, but Rogues (and Bards) apply Expertise to every applicable roll. So I focused on a minor point, which was the skill ceiling. Which is a cool thing that can happen post-Tasha's, but which is—as people are correctly pointing out—not super relevant.

No disagreement there. But Lore Bards get Peerless Skill at level 14 and the d12 die at level 15—Tier 3. The Fighter falls behind the Rogue once Tier 3 starts. That's why my argument is specifically about levels 3–10. They're the most played levels, and Fighters are ahead of the game then.

In the first 2 tiers, Fighters wouldn't even get a die back! I honestly wonder how a skillful Fighter would play. It feels incredibly campaign-dependent. But maybe Fighters would quickly run out of superiority dice in all reasonable games. That would certainly take the skilled Fighter down a notch.

Recalibrating to new comparison parameters: Level 3-10 expected value rather than theoretical ceiling

Battlemaster 3-6 gets 4d8
Battlemaster 7-9 gets 5d8
Battlemaster 10 gets 5d10
These dice are recharged on a short rest.

Bard 5-7 gets 3-4 d8
Bard 8 gets 4-5 d8
Bard 9 gets 4-5 d8 and can give +4
Bard 10 gets 4-5 d10 and can give +4
This bonus stacks on top of the ally's investment or the Bard can fall back on their own Expertise. It sounds a bit of "best of both worlds" but they get fewer dice and fewer ASIs.
These dice are recharged on a short rest.

Rogue 1-4 gets +2
Rogue 5-8 gets +3
Rogue 9-10 gets +4

If used for skills, the longevity of these dice depends on how many checks the GM calls for. However the expected value of the dice is greater than Rogue's Expertise. Rogue has an edge in endurance and in breadth. Additionally if they select feats to borrow from each other, the Fighter gets more from Expertise than Rogue does from a 1d6 (Which means Rogue is more likely to pick Magical Initiate Guidance instead).

Yes it sounds like a Battlemaster Fighter will have "short" bursts every short rest where they will have a better expected competency than a Rogue. How long those bursts are depends on how frequent the checks are.

Assuming a Battlemaster with Expertise and a Rogue with Guidance, the Fighter is at -1d4 baseline but can swing that to +1d8-1d4 for crucial rolls or high intensity situations.

Ambush (Stealth):
If you play with Mark of Shadow Elf, then Arcane Trickster (and Bards/Eldrtich Knights) gets Pass Without Trace.
If you don't, then you still have to consider how many stealth checks will be called for. When the party is sneaking then I expect more than 4 checks per rest. However if the party is just setting up ambushes then it is likely only 1 check per fight (so generally less than 4 per rest).

Tactical Assessment (Investigation):
Nope. If you are investigating you probably have many places to investigate. This can easily exceed 8 checks per rest.

Tactical Assessment (Insight), Commanding Presence(Intimidate/Persuasion):
This will vary a lot, but I expect if you focus on either talking or listening, the battlemaster will do fine. A single social encounter might wipe them out of dice, but they will be very effective for the duration. However if you are doing both? Then you will struggle a bit.


Overall: Yes for Insight, Intimidate, or Persuasion, I think Battlemaster is a strong contender.

[Morty]

Personally, I think the old-fashioned notion that "non-combat skills are for Rogues, not Fighters" is harmful for the game. After all, casters are just generally expected to be good at all 3 pillars of the game, and the same should be true for martials -- no good reason to leave them out.

So any step away from that mentality is a win in my book. D&D has been making painfully gradual steps in that direction for a long time. At least people generally won't say something like "letting the fighter Climb is stealing the Rogue's job!" anymore. But I think we still have a ways to go.

Yes, if anything such abilities should be available to all characters with investment in skills. But that ship sailed a while ago, so now they're being awkwardly tacked onto a single subclass of a class that is normally, and by design, not great at anything that's not HP damage.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Since we are taking specifically Battlemaster into account, I'll also submit that an Eloquence bard cannot roll below a 10 for Persuasion (or Deception) checks, and has the Universal Speech to ensure that the opposing creature can actually understand them, while the Fighter has to hope that they share a language (in a class that receives no bonus languages).

[TaiLiu]

Tactical Assessment (Investigation):
Nope. If you are investigating you probably have many places to investigate. This can easily exceed 8 checks per rest.

I wonder if this is campaign or adventure dependent. This is probably the case for dungeon crawls. But in my current campaign, Investigation checks are rarer and more isolated.

Tactical Assessment (Insight), Commanding Presence (Intimidate/Persuasion):
This will vary a lot, but I expect if you focus on either talking or listening, the battlemaster will do fine. A single social encounter might wipe them out of dice, but they will be very effective for the duration. However if you are doing both? Then you will struggle a bit.

No disagreement there.

Overall: Yes for Insight, Intimidate, or Persuasion, I think Battlemaster is a strong contender.

Probably for the rare History check, too.

Yes, if anything such abilities should be available to all characters with investment in skills. But that ship sailed a while ago, so now they're being awkwardly tacked onto a single subclass of a class that is normally, and by design, not great at anything that's not HP damage.

Yeah, the skill-increasing maneuvers only give a bonus d8. It doesn't add any qualitative bonuses, which would be far more interesting.

Since we are taking specifically Battlemaster into account, I'll also submit that an Eloquence bard cannot roll below a 10 for Persuasion (or Deception) checks, and has the Universal Speech to ensure that the opposing creature can actually understand them, while the Fighter has to hope that they share a language (in a class that receives no bonus languages).

I'm comfortable with the fact that Bards can be—and usually are, just from their Charisma scores—better than BM Fighters at social skills. Arguably Eloquence Bards are too good at Persuasion and Deception. My DM has banned them. And I think that abilities like Silver Tongue should be Tier 2 abilities, not Tier 1.

[OldTrees1]

I wonder if this is campaign or adventure dependent. This is probably the case for dungeon crawls. But in my current campaign, Investigation checks are rarer and more isolated.

I was considering cases where the skill is used enough to be worth specializing in. (The Battlemaster will probably gain Expertise). For Investigation if have found its skill usage is campaign/adventure dependent but is usually very rare or is searching for hidden compartments (looting) or traps (dungeons). So I expect the maneuver to not be great for Investigation.

Probably for the rare History check, too.

Yes.

History is another one where the usage is table/campaign/adventure dependent. It is unlikely to be worthwhile to pick up the maneuver for History. But if you picked up Tactical Assessment for Insight, then you can help with History on occasion too. This is similar to Performance from Commanding Presence. It might not be used at the right frequency to make the maneuver worthwhile, but it is an extra perk if you were already taking the maneuver.

Thank you for mentioning these maneuvers. Previous I had thrown Battlemaster into the "ignore bin" (because I don't like only 5 uses). However this is interesting.

[TaiLiu]

I was considering cases where the skill is used enough to be worth specializing in. (The Battlemaster will probably gain Expertise). For Investigation if have found its skill usage is campaign/adventure dependent but is usually very rare or is searching for hidden compartments (looting) or traps (dungeons). So I expect the maneuver to not be great for Investigation.

Oh, yeah, no disagreement there. I think there's a reason why I focused on Stealth in my example—if you're building a Dexterity Fighter, you'd have a good bonus to the skill anyway. This isn't the case for many of the skills the maneuvers give you bonuses to: Fighters tend not to have great Intelligence scores, and hence their Investigation probably won't be winning any awards.

Yes.

History is another one where the usage is table/campaign/adventure dependent. It is unlikely to be worthwhile to pick up the maneuver for History. But if you picked up Tactical Assessment for Insight, then you can help with History on occasion too. This is similar to Performance from Commanding Presence. It might not be used at the right frequency to make the maneuver worthwhile, but it is an extra perk if you were already taking the maneuver.

Yeah, agreed.

Thank you for mentioning these maneuvers. Previous I had thrown Battlemaster into the "ignore bin" (because I don't like only 5 uses). However this is interesting.

Aw, thank you! I was throwing around skillmonkey Fighter ideas in my head, principally because I like being contrarian. I'm glad my idle thoughts and number-crunching was of use to you.