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

[Quickleaf]

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)

Mostly, this.

Back during the playtest for 5e, they floated a skill/ability check system which involved mechanics for automatic successes. They were decent, but really not very different from the DM just winging it and saying "You know, what, yeah no need for a check, your character has the acolyte background and proficiency with Religion, so she would be able to lead this religious ceremony in her sleep."

There is one additional trick I've used.

In order to get the automatic success, make some sort of story requirement that the character needs to fulfill through...adventuring! They need to explore, interact with NPCs, or fight monsters to meet those requirements. So, for the ceremony, maybe the PC needs to have a certain level of Renown in the settlement, to retrieve a chalice stolen by goblins, etc.

 

[Rhenny]

Mostly, this.

Back during the playtest for 5e, they floated a skill/ability check system which involved mechanics for automatic successes. They were decent, but really not very different from the DM just winging it and saying "You know, what, yeah no need for a check, your character has the acolyte background and proficiency with Religion, so she would be able to lead this religious ceremony in her sleep."

There is one additional trick I've used.

In order to get the automatic success, make some sort of story requirement that the character needs to fulfill through...adventuring! They need to explore, interact with NPCs, or fight monsters to meet those requirements. So, for the ceremony, maybe the PC needs to have a certain level of Renown in the settlement, to retrieve a chalice stolen by goblins, etc.

This also reminds me of the technique where the DM throws it into the player's court to invent a story to legitimize the success or background knowledge. Player asks if his PC knows...DM responds: "I don't know. Does he? Explain?" This is great for story building.

 

[Satyrn]

Broad like you would call for a Strength (Athletics) check to determine whether or not a character knows how to climb?

Well, I wouldn't need to ask for a check for that, since I'd rule that every adventureing character knows the basics of climbing, with a character proficient in Athletics knowing the finer points. But if there was need to find out if a character knew some obscure fact about climbing, then I would indeed call for a check, although in this case it would likely be Intelligence (Athletics).

 

[mrpopstar]

Well, I wouldn't need to ask for a check for that, since I'd rule that every adventureing character knows the basics of climbing, with a character proficient in Athletics knowing the finer points. But if there was need to find out if a character knew some obscure fact about climbing, then I would indeed call for a check, although in this case it would likely be Intelligence (Athletics).

I understand the game to assume competence. You wouldn't have to rule that every adventurer knows the basics of climbing because it's already assumed that every adventurer has innate talent or training that can be tested, otherwise climbing would be impossible and you wouldn't be calling for a check.

This is the lens through which I understand all of the skills.

 

[fixitgeek]

The autosuccess do generally have a built-in system now, passive skills exist for that reason, if it is a simple task with a DC below your passive skill the check is not needed. Like stated above passive skill levels assume a level of basic competence in most things. Some things even passively you will be bad at due to negative modifiers and no training at all.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

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?

I think an easier overall solution, mechanically speaking, is to have most of the skills use two stats, not one. Religion would be Int/Wis. Survival would be be Con/Wis. Acrobatics and Athletics both would likely be Str/Dex (gymnasts are often incredibly strong, requiring that strength to properly tumble and flip about, and it generally takes great coordination to climb and jump properly). Sleight of Hand could easily be Dex/Cha (in one, you are relying primarily on your raw physical skill and agility, the other you are relying on distraction and misdirection).

This goes beyond merely the named skills. Picking a lock normally requires a Dex check with thieves' tools proficiency added to it, but Int could also be apropos; you know how the locking mechanism itself works, and how to thus get around it. Practice enough with something like lockpicking, and even a klutzy person will develop the muscle memory to be able to do it readily, Dex isn't necessarily required.

 

[mrpopstar]

The autosuccess do generally have a built-in system now, passive skills exist for that reason, if it is a simple task with a DC below your passive skill the check is not needed. Like stated above passive skill levels assume a level of basic competence in most things. Some things even passively you will be bad at due to negative modifiers and no training at all.

Ah, be careful!

Passive checks represent the average result for a task done repeatedly (which assumes multiple failures), or they're used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice (which is an act of discretion that trades math for storycraft).

We shouldn't use passive scores as a baseline of capability in situations where failure has a consequence, and the DM shouldn't use passive scores for anything other than adjudication in secret (as a storytelling tool). Using passive scores for the sake of expediency alone shortchanges investments in ability scores.

Does that make sense?

If you rely on passive ability scores for the sake of expediency, there's no difference between a +0 modifier and a +5 modifier when attempting an easy (DC 10) task.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you rely on passive ability scores for the sake of expediency, there's no difference between a +0 modifier and a +5 modifier when attempting an easy (DC 10) task.

While I agree with you about what passive checks are meant to be used for, this comment isn't actually accurate:

If you are using passive checks for expediency, the difference between a +0 modifier and a +5 modifier when attempting a DC 10 task is that the former fails if disadvantaged during the attempt, but the latter still succeeds.

 

[Rhenny]

I think an easier overall solution, mechanically speaking, is to have most of the skills use two stats, not one. Religion would be Int/Wis. Survival would be be Con/Wis. Acrobatics and Athletics both would likely be Str/Dex (gymnasts are often incredibly strong, requiring that strength to properly tumble and flip about, and it generally takes great coordination to climb and jump properly). Sleight of Hand could easily be Dex/Cha (in one, you are relying primarily on your raw physical skill and agility, the other you are relying on distraction and misdirection).

This goes beyond merely the named skills. Picking a lock normally requires a Dex check with thieves' tools proficiency added to it, but Int could also be apropos; you know how the locking mechanism itself works, and how to thus get around it. Practice enough with something like lockpicking, and even a klutzy person will develop the muscle memory to be able to do it readily, Dex isn't necessarily required.

Yup...this is like the Variant rule using flexible ability mods for actions. If it makes sense to use Wisdom or Intelligence, that may work out. The one that gets thorny is for intimidate. For some, allowing Strength bonus to intimidate seems pretty logical. "I grit my teeth, scowl and flex my muscles while cracking my knuckles." But...substituting Strength for Charisma is a huge bonus for most fighter types.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I do the same about Knowledge checks.

But I don't actually see the issue you mention. It is not at all a problem that a Wizard (or a Rogue) knows a little bit more than a Cleric, when they are all trained in Religion. Why shouldn't the char with higher Int learn faster than the char with lower Int? There is nothing that makes a Cleric inherently more entitled at Knowledge (Religion). The Cleric could be inherently entitled on knowledge about her own religion, but not the religions of others.