The rogue being the ultimate grappler via Expertise exclusivity is incredibly wonky from a design perspective. On that point, I wholeheartedly agree. From a practical perspective, I haven't seen it or heard of it being a game breaking problem at most tables. There are usually equally good or better options in combat, particularly at higher levels.
D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?
It is relevant in so far as the design team basically admitting that the ranger in the PHB as written needs reworked. It's failures as a class and the designers subsequent play test revisions are worth noting even if the alternatives are not yet official.
We know the class sucks. They knows the class sucks.
That may be a bit of hyperbole, but there's nothing useful to come from railing against the core class' poor design unless it's about fixing it moving forward.
A cleric is a holy warrior, not a cloistered sage. If the Rogue's player is that interested/invested in obtaining religious knowledge, I don't see the problem. Sounds like it could be the start of a cool character concept, to be honest.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
And I feel like the problem there may lie less in rogues being skill experts than in grappling being based on a skill.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
This, sort of. PCs are assumed to be professional adventurers. They're focused on doing adventuring things. I give NPCs who are professionals in other fields expertise in those fields as a matter of course. Rogues and bards are special in that they can be adventurers and skill keep their skills competitive with professionals.
But I would like to see the option for other characters, especially wizards and clerics, to put in some effort and become experts in a skill. In other words: the skill feats.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
What's the real benefit of having a rogue be the best grappler in the party anyway? I haven't seen one yet in any of my campaigns or one-shots.
Yaarel
He Mage
Grappling is only one example of things that can go wrong when making skill checks in the context of a combat encounter.
Please use the same math for combat and skills. For the sake of making standards of difficulty consistent, thus easier for the DM to adjudicate ACs/DCs for various challenges.
DMs who are heavy in theater of the mind, and improvisation, need math to be consistent.
Please use the same math for combat and skills. For the sake of making standards of difficulty consistent, thus easier for the DM to adjudicate ACs/DCs for various challenges.
DMs who are heavy in theater of the mind, and improvisation, need math to be consistent.
It's definitely a game-play preference. Let me try to explain it this way: setting the DC feels like a "false" activity. If the goal of the rule is auto-success/auto-failure, just make that the rule; don't make me discover that by doing math.
The auto-failure is actually much more troubling than auto-success, because it denies participation. If Expertise is in play, I have to worry about maybe setting DCs up to 30 because the Expertise guy might hit them. But what about the PCs with no chance of hitting that DC? Should I tell them not to bother rolling? (That always feels like inappropriate metagame info to me.) Auto-success as a special ability is fine because the game is chock full of auto-success already and players kind of expect that from special abilities. If Expertise isn't in play, I literally don't even consider DCs above 20, I just tell the players that approach won't work.
To be honest, the chance of success is boring to me and I don't want to spend any brainpower on it. I think RPG rules fixate on pass/fail odds-of-success mechanics because such rules are super easy to design, learn, and execute. I'd much rather spend time thinking about the consequences of success and failure. One of those outcomes is usually more interesting than the other, and often Expertise automatically picks the boring one.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Thanks for the response. Which rule are you referring to here just so I'm sure we're on the same page?
A couple of follow up questions if I may to see if I'm looking at it from your perspective. Do you assign every task the players describe their characters as doing a DC and ability check? Also, do you believe it's more interesting for the PCs to fail than it is for them to succeed? Do players ask to make ability checks or choose to make them on their own in your games?
variant
Adventurer
An obstacle is there whether it is ran into by the Rogue or another character. I don't make something easier just because some other character stumbled their way into it.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Okay. Do you set the DC based on the approach the player gives to the goal? Or the obstacle has a set DC no matter what anyone does to overcome it? Will there always be a roll to overcome it?
Also, in your games, who decides they are making an ability check, the DMs or the players? Or do the players ask with the expectation the answer will be "Yes?"
