D&D 5E Replacing Expertise with Lucky

[Don Durito]

This is just a thought following on from the expertise thread.

Expertise has never sat right with me. It's annoys me that a Rogue can simply be better than another class at whichever skill they want to be.

And it never really fixes the biggest problem for Rogues all that well anyway, which is inherent unreliabily of skill rolls.

What are people's thoughts on basically replacing the Expertise class feature with the Lucky Feat? (Possibly limited to skill rolls only.)

Edit: Somewhat inspired by Dungeon Crawl Classics, where luck points are a key feature of the Thief class.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Lucky is a great feat, but a 3/day reroll isn't equivalent to an always on bonus. If you make it apply to all skills, you're removing a point of differentiation for rogues. Choosing two skills to apply Lucky towards is too limited, however.

I don't think it's a good substitution.

 

[Don Durito]

The actual number of luck points could be played around with, especially if they're only being used for skills. It doesn't have to be 3. It could be 5 (or 2). And of course they would have to get more at level 6 anyway.

I probably wouldn't worry about limiting them to specific skills. It would rub out in the wash anyway. The player who wants their Rogue to be really good at stealth is going to use it them to make sure they succeed on their stealth rolls.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Rogue is the adventuring version of the expert. Being really good at some skill is the core identity of the class.

 

[Don Durito]

Ok call them expertise points then.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you ask me something about astrophysics, I have a pretty good chance of answering it more than three times per day.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Expertise has never sat right with me. It's annoys me that a Rogue can simply be better than another class at whichever skill they want to be.

Thats pretty much the Rogue's thing. Whether its a learned magical theoretician and sage, a wilderness and survival expert, or a gifted con man, the Rogue doesn't get powerful automatic success abilities like spells, but it does get to be better at mundane skills. When it comes to something that just involves learning and training rather than a magical shortcut, then a Rogue character that has made that skill a significant focus of their character will be better at it than a non-skill-expert class.

And it never really fixes the biggest problem for Rogues all that well anyway, which is inherent unreliabily of skill rolls.

Its the Reliable Talent ability that helps more with that.

What are people's thoughts on basically replacing the Expertise class feature with the Lucky Feat? (Possibly limited to skill rolls only.)

For one, that is a significant downgrade, and I would expect you to have to introduce something else to boost Rogue out-of--combat capabilities in addition.
For two, I'm not sure that it would actually fix your previous issue with expertise really. - it doesn't make skill rolls much more reliable at the high end.
For three, having an extra roll still makes Rogues better than another class at that skill. That would seem to conflict with your first point.

 

[Quartz]

What are people's thoughts on basically replacing the Expertise class feature with the Lucky Feat?

Not the Lucky Feat; this seems more like the Fighter's Indomitable ability, but applied to Skill Rolls. I like it. One of the problems with Expertise is that it breaks Bounded Accuracy.

So we could have Expertise defined as:

Pick 2 Skills. A number of times per Short Rest (Long Rest?) equal to your Proficiency Bonus you may re-roll a failed skill roll.

 

[NotAYakk]

Indomidable sucks so bad, I cannot imagine "I have a problem, and I am going to fix it by mimicing indomidable" ever working.

 

[Quartz]

Indomidable sucks so bad,

For the fighter at level 9? Yes. But not if you make it an ability gained very early on and usable often.