D&D 5E Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise

[Ovinomancer]

Man...if only there was something in the Expertise feature that says anything about training in something...

So, then, I can expect your opprobrium of the Prodigy feat?

 

[Salthorae]

So, then, I can expect your opprobrium of the Prodigy feat?

Why would I offer harsh criticism of, or censure the Prodigy feat? Good 5 gp word though!

prod·i·gy
/ˈprädəjē/

noun: a person, especially a young one, endowed with exceptional qualities or abilities.

You have a knack for learning new things. You gain the following benefits:

What's the disconnect that you see there? It lets you learn various things, which prodigies are renowned for, and it doubles your proficiency with a skill (which would seem prodigious!)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You do realize that a number of class descriptions talk about mastering things and they don't get expertise, right? Wizards have a whole callout section on being scholars of magic (The Lure of Knowledge), and they don't get expertise.

That's just because the game is inconsistent and poorly-designed; not because the designers abandoned all sense of inherent meaning. When in doubt, assume incompetence over malevolence. They weren't actively trying to sabotage the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why would I offer harsh criticism of, or censure the Prodigy feat? Good 5 gp word though!





What's the disconnect that you see there? It lets you learn various things, which prodigies are renowned for, and it doubles your proficiency with a skill (which would seem prodigious!)

Were you not the poster that just told me that the very definition of expertise involves training? I'm deeply confused as to why you'd treat this disconnect with such floccinaucinihilipilification.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's just because the game is inconsistent and poorly-designed; not because the designers abandoned all sense of inherent meaning. When in doubt, assume incompetence over malevolence. They weren't actively trying to sabotage the game.

Wha? Is this related to your belief that mechanics are discoverable truths in the fiction, and so allowing refluffing would be an act of malevolent sabotage of the game?


On point, I assume the issue is accidental, or a design point that was considered too small to make an effort to address during the run up to release, and not really fixable given the errata posture (which I like) afterwards. It's a little pothole in the road that knowledge of can go a long way to avoiding a bump in your game if encountered.

 

[Salthorae]

Were you not the poster that just told me that the very definition of expertise involves training? I'm deeply confused as to why you'd treat this disconnect with such floccinaucinihilipilification.

I am. I don't understand what you're asking though. I see no problem with the Prodigy feat, but you obviously do.

Expertise is a class feature that indicates your character has, in fact, become an Expert in a skill for which they are/were proficient, therefore indicating a high level of training in that skill.

Prodigy feat says that you are a prodigious/exceptional talent (exceptional talent) in a specific skill and therefore add double proficiency to some skill. Then mechanically it says you can't do it for a skill in which you're already an Expert.

I see no disconnect or issue with either of these two things from a fluff vs. mechanic thing. You were arguing that nothing in the Expert class feature indicated it required training. I merely pointed out that by definition you were incorrect.

The fluff of the Prodigy feat, slim as it is, aligns with that a Prodigy is by definition and doesn't ask you to be trained in something because you are exceptionally talented at it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am. I don't understand what you're asking though. I see no problem with the Prodigy feat, but you obviously do.

Expertise is a class feature that indicates your character has, in fact, become an Expert in a skill for which they are/were proficient, therefore indicating a high level of training in that skill.

Prodigy feat says that you are a prodigious/exceptional talent (exceptional talent) in a specific skill and therefore add double proficiency to some skill. Then mechanically it says you can't do it for a skill in which you're already an Expert.

I see no disconnect or issue with either of these two things from a fluff vs. mechanic thing. You were arguing that nothing in the Expert class feature indicated it required training. I merely pointed out that by definition you were incorrect.

The fluff of the Prodigy feat, slim as it is, aligns with that a Prodigy is by definition and doesn't ask you to be trained in something because you are exceptionally talented at it.

Huh, you must have a different printing of XGtE than I do. My copy says that the prodigy feat grants expertise on a skill. Does yours say something different?

 

[Fenris-77]

My copy says expertise as well.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wha? Is this related to your belief that mechanics are discoverable truths in the fiction, and so allowing refluffing would be an act of malevolent sabotage of the game?

It is related to the objective fact that an RPG ruleset necessarily reflects the reality of its game world, so allowing the narrative to change without regards for its mechanical representation would be an act of utter disregard toward everything that the rules are intended to represent.

On point, I assume the issue is accidental, or a design point that was considered too small to make an effort to address during the run up to release, and not really fixable given the errata posture (which I like) afterwards. It's a little pothole in the road that knowledge of can go a long way to avoiding a bump in your game if encountered.

I agree, they simply did not care about being thorough or consistent with their model. Their goals were noble, but they lacked the ability and drive to see them through.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is related to the objective fact that an RPG ruleset necessarily reflects the reality of its game world, so allowing the narrative to change without regards for its mechanical representation would be an act of utter disregard toward everything that the rules are intended to represent.

Sigh, thought so. You really need to get out more. Your "objective fact" isn't objective nor a fact. Try some FATE, or a Powered by the Apocalypse game sometime (I recommend Blades in the Dark). These games are very much RPGs, but don't even try to model the reality with their rulesets. You're locked into a process-sim mindset -- there's more out there. You don't have to like it -- I'm super-cool with you just enjoying how you play right now, that's groovy, baby! But, at least acknowledge there's more out there? The existence of other games doesn't reduce your choices at all -- it's not zero-sum.

I agree, they simply did not care about being thorough or consistent with their model. Their goals were noble, but they lacked the ability and drive to see them through.

I haven't yet seen your magnum opus of an RPG, so maybe don't throw stones?