D&D 5E Should each class get its own version of expertise?

[Rhenny]

A number of posts in other threads mention randomness in D&D, and how that might be off-putting to some, and in some situations it just plain goes against the story.

For example, someone used the example of the cleric that has a 10 intelligence. For that cleric, even at mid level, his trained religion check would be only a 13 or 14 while even an untrained wizard of the same level would most likely be equal to or better (depending on Intelligence score of course). This is only one example, but many others exist.

So, should each class have an expertise mechanic (like the rogue or bard) so that key checks can double the proficiency bonus? (Like Fighters can pick from Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidate; Rangers pick from Animal Handling, Perception, Survival, Nature, etc.) Perhaps choosing 1 every 4 or 5 levels?

Or, should there be a feat that grants a few so that anyone can gain expertise if the table uses feats?

Or, should a DM just let PCs that seem to have key requisites succeed without rolling at all? (i.e Cleric with training in Religion should be able to automatically succeed on a DC 10 Religion check -

What are some other options people have to address these situations where a PCs should be better in a key proficiency?

 

[Ashrym]

I'm not sure why that was left out when we had something like expertise for each class in a play test package iirc.

I assumed it was left out intentionally and find that it's only a concern if DM's rely on inflated DC's for some reason. As long as the DM isn't going overboard with high DC's then lack of expertise for each class doesn't matter. Simply taking proficiency in a skill that matches a high ability score is pretty similar to expertise (and normally better than) in a proficiency without the high ability score (such as rogues or bards with perception and lacking WIS investment as a typical example).

The randomness also only exists if a DM insists on rolling dice for everything. Checks don't need to be made if there is no risk, so standard actions outside of combat don't require rolls, actions attempted during combat should be risky and dicey, and not that many checks are necessary in combat because combat attacks are much more common than ability checks.

Having said that, we use the general rule that if a roll of 10 would succeed and there is no specific danger that might interfere then there's no need to roll. Someone with a +5 bonus can hit a 15 DC just as easily as someone with no bonus can hit a 10 DC so the roll itself wouldn't make sense in the 15 DC case. That removes randomness that shouldn't reasonably exist while still rewarding bonuses with success on higher DC's. This does conflict a bit with reliable talent and the thing to remember is that rogues will still have more skill proficiencies (therefore more auto success abilities at higher DC's), expertise, applied minimum roll as opposed to auto success and in combat, and the benefit even if they don't have a big enough bonus to normally auto succeed at the higher DC.

We also allow a character to spend a feat once for expertise in a proficient skill if they really want it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Personally, when I run, I only allow knowledge checks to those characters who are proficient in the skill. The cleric might only have +3 to Religion, but if they're the only one in the party who is actually trained in it, then they're the only one who gets to roll.

It doesn't solve the issue where a trained wizard will usually know more than the cleric about religion, but it does solve the problem where a dumb fighter or barbarian would occasionally know more just by virtue of rolling so many dice.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I have pondered a feat like this...

Expert +1 Intelligence and choose two skill proficiencies or a skill and a tool proficiency. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check that you make that uses either proficiency.

I am not sure if the +1 bonus makes it too much or not, but it does make it attractive to Wizards who I would think would fit the archetype of a character who has extraordinary expertise in a couple of areas.

 

[pdegan2814]

I have pondered a feat like this...

Expert +1 Intelligence and choose two skill proficiencies or a skill and a tool proficiency. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check that you make that uses either proficiency.

I am not sure if the +1 bonus makes it too much or not, but it does make it attractive to Wizards who I would think would fit the archetype of a character who has extraordinary expertise in a couple of areas.

Perhaps something more like this:
Raise any single stat by +1
Choose two skills/tools that you are proficient in which use that stat, and your prof. bonus is doubled when making checks using those proficiencies with the raised stat.

With the idea being that the feat represents focused training with one particular attribute.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe the old playtest solution that sets your stat bonus to a certain minimum would be better for skills you expect the cleric to be superior in.
Another Idea would be allowing to always use a passive check as a cleric in religion if you fail your active check. I think that was a thing in the playtest at some point.

And while we are at it, i am sad that bards lost bardic knowledge.

 

[n0nym]

Personally, when I run, I only allow knowledge checks to those characters who are proficient in the skill

I used to do that, but players complained that it made Intelligence even more useless. To solve this issue, I'm tempted to do the following :

- Intelligence is no longer a "spellcasting" stat for any class. Wizards now use Wisdom.
- Intelligence now grants additionnal proficiencies equal to its modifier
- Intelligence reduces the time needed (or the cost) to learn new tools / skills / feats during downtime by 10% x Modifier

On Expertise :

I would also allow PCs to take a feat (only once) to get Expertise in ONE skill (and grant a +1 to the relative attribute). That would prevent the "one level rogue dip" that everyone at my table seems to enjoy so much.

 

[Zardnaar]

No the skill classes lost a lot of their uniqueness over the editions as class exclusive skills turned into stuff anyone can get via back ground or MCing. Maybe expertise with some rangers or barbarians in survival might make sense as Rangers for example used to be really good trackers. Expertise is somewhat unique to the skill based classes.

 

[JonnyP71]

Personally, when I run, I only allow knowledge checks to those characters who are proficient in the skill. The cleric might only have +3 to Religion, but if they're the only one in the party who is actually trained in it, then they're the only one who gets to roll.

It doesn't solve the issue where a trained wizard will usually know more than the cleric about religion, but it does solve the problem where a dumb fighter or barbarian would occasionally know more just by virtue of rolling so many dice.

This is what we do... the DM judges it relative to how 'specialist' the detail is:
- if it's highly generic then we can all have a go - foraging for food in a regular deciduous wood, we all know what an apple tree looks like, can we find one?
- but if it is more specialist - we're in a foreign desert, looking for something edible growing by an oasis, none of the PCs have anything in their background regarding desert life, and we find some hardy plants - are they edible? Only a PC with Survival proficiency will be allowed to roll, all others will be assumed to auto-fail.

It works, it 'feels' authentic and it gives characters the chance to shine in different environments and situations.

And most importantly it removes the ridiculous situation of a stupid Barbarian recognising an arcane sigil because he rolled a 20, but the intelligent wizard with sage background failing because they rolled a 1 - without the need for the DM continually upping DCs.

 

[mellored]

No. I prefer skills to not be class based. Though if everyone could get expertise by taking the skill twice, that could work.

That said, it wouldn't really solve randomness. Rolling 1 when on the wrong athletics check can KO you with or without double proficiency.

Now if you would add 1/2 of a missm both damage and effects like hold person slowing you down, you make things less all-or-nothing and less random. Of course, you'd need to rebalance much of the game that way.

Alternitively, drop the attack roll and use armor as DR. 1d8+Str - leather (2)+dex. And hold person can be 1d8 - Wis rounds. Though again, that would cause a lot of rebalancing as well.