D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?

[5ekyu]

Perhaps that is not the role she wants to play. Now if she did want to play this role, and lack of ability to articulate to the DM that desire, than yes it does become a player skill thing.

There certainly no rule that states that just because the druid had the better modify that she should be stating approaches that call for Survival checks more often than anybody else.

Edit: We do have player that asks "can I make a perception check?" at least once per session and the DM always responds "What are you looking for?" but he has yet to realize that stating what he is looking for first would save us all some time.

That certainly does indicate a lack of player skill in communicating with the DM to me, but could be easily remedied.

Exactly. Any character can choose to not use this ability or that ability but hinging whether or not the character's ability applies or works or even gets a chance to work is based off how well they communicate approach ti the gm is a different animal perhaps with very different threshold.

A wizard casting detect magic when encountering runes on a wall likely does not get asked "how are you casting it" with there being a chance the casting fails or the results suffer if they dont communicate it well enough.

But that same wizard with an arcana skill but not investigate skill might well be given an investigate check if that player did not describe adequately enough to get the GM to read this as arcana and not investigate.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Exactly. Any character can choose to not use this ability or that ability but hinging whether or not the character's ability applies or works or even gets a chance to work is based off how well they communicate approach ti the gm is a different animal perhaps with very different threshold.

A wizard casting detect magic when encountering runes on a wall likely does not get asked "how are you casting it" with there being a chance the casting fails or the results suffer if they dont communicate it well enough.

But that same wizard with an arcana skill but not investigate skill might well be given an investigate check if that player did not describe adequately enough to get the GM to read this as arcana and not investigate.

Oh no a system that rewards developing more clear communication with the DM? That sounds so terrible!

I haven't done this, but I know one poster that only calls for ability checks, never choosing which Proficiency would apply, and leaving it entire up to the player to decide which Proficiency if any to apply. I might try it. That would take care of Arcana vs Investigate. Though not Nature vs. Survival.

 

[ZenBear]

Well, i suppose a lot depends on your idea of whether class equals character vs class is a part of character.

A "wizard" character who wants more focus on arcana skill (potentially at a loss of some spellcasting) can multiclass to get expertise with rogue or bard. Obviously Arcana and spellcasting are related fields but one does not require the other.

So i see a single class wizard as someone choosing to focus on casting, while one who dips into rogue or bard and focuses an their expertise for arcana and such to be the one aiming for more scholarly.

Just like how choosing the right race-feat to get expertise arcana is specializing there instead of say taking war caster or magic initiate. Same as taking divination to let you read the signs to get the best research results (portent on arcana checks when favorable).

Lots of examples.

The issue with this is all the baggage that comes with multiclassing. If my Wizard wants to gain Expertise in Arcana, they are forced to give up the possibility of ever mastering their Signature Spells, delay spellcasting progression by a level, learn how to effectively fight in light armor, learn how to use thieves' tools, learn an additional unrelated skill, and learn how to Sneak Attack. That's a whole lot of excess nonsense just to be an Expert in your own profession, none of which screams "scholarly mage." As I said, the skill feats are a much more elegant way to solve this issue, but it's still just a band-aid on a silly glitch in the system.

 

[FrogReaver]

The issue with this is all the baggage that comes with multiclassing. If my Wizard wants to gain Expertise in Arcana, they are forced to give up the possibility of ever mastering their Signature Spells, delay spellcasting progression by a level, learn how to effectively fight in light armor, learn how to use thieves' tools, learn an additional unrelated skill, and learn how to Sneak Attack. That's a whole lot of excess nonsense just to be an Expert in your own profession, none of which screams "scholarly mage." As I said, the skill feats are a much more elegant way to solve this issue, but it's still just a band-aid on a silly glitch in the system.

When you have a skills class they are going to have the opportunity to be better at skills than non-skills classes. Just the way that works out. What I think you are looking for is a game where the class mostly defines the skills you are good at and that isn't really 5e's approach.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The issue with this is all the baggage that comes with multiclassing. If my Wizard wants to gain Expertise in Arcana, they are forced to give up the possibility of ever mastering their Signature Spells, delay spellcasting progression by a level, learn how to effectively fight in light armor, learn how to use thieves' tools, learn an additional unrelated skill, and learn how to Sneak Attack. That's a whole lot of excess nonsense just to be an Expert in your own profession, none of which screams "scholarly mage." As I said, the skill feats are a much more elegant way to solve this issue, but it's still just a band-aid on a silly glitch in the system.

Minor Tangent:

One thing I've been intrigued with about this whole issue keeps popping into my head. See, the Prodigy feat allows expertise, but it only works for Humans, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (So... humanity thing). This obviously doesn't fix the problem because lots of *insert class here* aren't playing humans.

But I almost feel like it could be a lore bit. Humans get expertise in things, because they don't naturally use the take 10 or take 20 options. Elves dwarves and gnomes all live a long time, so "taking 20" on their skills is perfectly reasonable because spending a full day on something isn't a big deal when you live to 500 years old. While humans learn how to do it good and fast, shown in expertise.

Of course this is ruined by Rogues and Bards being classes anyone can take, but it had such potential for a cool "mechanics reflect lore" thing for a while there.

 

[GreyLord]

Minor Tangent:

One thing I've been intrigued with about this whole issue keeps popping into my head. See, the Prodigy feat allows expertise, but it only works for Humans, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (So... humanity thing). This obviously doesn't fix the problem because lots of *insert class here* aren't playing humans.

But I almost feel like it could be a lore bit. Humans get expertise in things, because they don't naturally use the take 10 or take 20 options. Elves dwarves and gnomes all live a long time, so "taking 20" on their skills is perfectly reasonable because spending a full day on something isn't a big deal when you live to 500 years old. While humans learn how to do it good and fast, shown in expertise.

Of course this is ruined by Rogues and Bards being classes anyone can take, but it had such potential for a cool "mechanics reflect lore" thing for a while there.

This is my ignorance here, where do you find the prodigy feat?

 

[Grognerd]

This is my ignorance here, where do you find the prodigy feat?

Xanathar's Guide.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Minor Tangent:

One thing I've been intrigued with about this whole issue keeps popping into my head. See, the Prodigy feat allows expertise, but it only works for Humans, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (So... humanity thing). This obviously doesn't fix the problem because lots of *insert class here* aren't playing humans.

But I almost feel like it could be a lore bit. Humans get expertise in things, because they don't naturally use the take 10 or take 20 options. Elves dwarves and gnomes all live a long time, so "taking 20" on their skills is perfectly reasonable because spending a full day on something isn't a big deal when you live to 500 years old. While humans learn how to do it good and fast, shown in expertise.

Of course this is ruined by Rogues and Bards being classes anyone can take, but it had such potential for a cool "mechanics reflect lore" thing for a while there.

I've never liked that Prodigy was only available to Human and Half-Human races.

You've changed my mind.

 

[5ekyu]

Oh no a system that rewards developing more clear communication with the DM? That sounds so terrible!

I haven't done this, but I know one poster that only calls for ability checks, never choosing which Proficiency would apply, and leaving it entire up to the player to decide which Proficiency if any to apply. I might try it. That would take care of Arcana vs Investigate. Though not Nature vs. Survival.

Actually, a system that rewards those with better communication skills as opposed to the characters abilities does sound terrible to me. But then, I am used to dealing with a diverse set of players who each bring their own chalkenges.

 

[5ekyu]

The issue with this is all the baggage that comes with multiclassing. If my Wizard wants to gain Expertise in Arcana, they are forced to give up the possibility of ever mastering their Signature Spells, delay spellcasting progression by a level, learn how to effectively fight in light armor, learn how to use thieves' tools, learn an additional unrelated skill, and learn how to Sneak Attack. That's a whole lot of excess nonsense just to be an Expert in your own profession, none of which screams "scholarly mage." As I said, the skill feats are a much more elegant way to solve this issue, but it's still just a band-aid on a silly glitch in the system.

challenges. Do not disagree with fears being a smaller scope solution, but you can ignore sneak attacking ignore light armor, etc if your character does not want to do so - much the same as any cleric can ignore dpells on their known spell list.

As for losing signature spell - sure - trade off - just like spending a feat costs you the ASI or doms other feat.

Imo choose whichever way to show the focus seems better.