Nothing about the arcane trickster does it better than the thief assassin, scout, inquisitive, or mastermind. In fact the AT makes it worse because we've been talking about an arcana expertise rogue with int at 8-10 rather than a modest 12-14
D&D 5E Critiquing the System
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
Agreed. They are the less surprising exception im thinking of. Still a bit of a surprise. Not the default assumption. But possibly reasonable compared to an average wizard.
Not really, put in modern terms it would be like a professional pentester who spent time learning to program basic shell scripts & a senior developer. The pentester might be really good with shell scripting, maybe even better at shell scripting than the senior dev working at the company he's testing... but the skill system puts shell scripting, c#, java, c/c++/cobol/unix admin/windows admin/*sql admin/ network engineer/CPU design/GPU design/DCO tech/helldesk tech/etc under the skill "computers" so that AT pentester is also likely to be just as good at or better in every IT position as the people who actually apply for & naughty word their way into those jobs.
People usually use Arcana as the go to example because that's the big remaining pillar of "I've got high int & know stuff", but the stealth expertise on dumpstat rogue/moderate-high dex stealth ranger is another example that faces the same kind of problem....
Just because the game theorizes something could happen... like the Rogue with Arcana Expertise at level 20 being numerically "better" than a Wizard...
...doesn't mean it ever actually has, does, or will happen.
Talk to me when you actually have a game where there's a Level 20 Rogue PC with a 10 INT and Arcana Expertise standing next to a 20 INT Wizard PC with Arcana, and the Wizard player feels like they are getting overshadowed by the Rogue player. Until that actually happens, it'll just be white room conjecture about the most extremely unlikely scenario that no one should bother wasting their time trying to re-do the skill system just to "fix" it.
If the game only "breaks" when you have to go out of your way to build the unlikeliest of situations that never actually happens... it means the system is actually pretty good. And if by some of the wildest chances this Level 20 Rogue with a 10 INT and Expertise in Arcana DOES appear in your game... my guess is that the story of their time in the campaign will exemplify exactly why they are who they are.
...doesn't mean it ever actually has, does, or will happen.
Talk to me when you actually have a game where there's a Level 20 Rogue PC with a 10 INT and Arcana Expertise standing next to a 20 INT Wizard PC with Arcana, and the Wizard player feels like they are getting overshadowed by the Rogue player. Until that actually happens, it'll just be white room conjecture about the most extremely unlikely scenario that no one should bother wasting their time trying to re-do the skill system just to "fix" it.
If the game only "breaks" when you have to go out of your way to build the unlikeliest of situations that never actually happens... it means the system is actually pretty good. And if by some of the wildest chances this Level 20 Rogue with a 10 INT and Expertise in Arcana DOES appear in your game... my guess is that the story of their time in the campaign will exemplify exactly why they are who they are.
ChaosOS
Legend
For what it's worth I do think Expertise is more busted in the sense that it's really stretching bounded accuracy - it's fine when it's a +3, but by the time it gets to +6 it feels like a bit much. Sure, that's also tier 4 where everything is "broken", but I think it also highlights how skill-focused the non-combat pillars are. It really clarifies the issues fighters have outside of combat at that tier.
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
In an rp heavy game i find myself wondering what business any base class has having higher base potential for intellectual skills than the ACTUAL intellectual class, ie the wizard. It should have an inherent edge above at least any base class in int skills. Its the penultimate intellectual class after all. It makes no sense when your rogue or bard is able to have a casual or academic discussion on matters arcane, religious, or whatever (intellectual pursuits specifically) with the regional archmage better than the dedicated wizard purist. Thats wrong. Pure and simple. That is the time when the wizard should excel at interpersonal rp if his cha is not absolutely in the basement because unlike the rogue he will know enough to actually have that conversation (good cha and social skills are simply not enough in such a scenario. I should wonder that a rogue would even understand what sort of conversation hes having if it goes beyond the novice technical, theoretical, or knowledgeability level). And there are many others like it.
Last edited:
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Sure the rogue/wizard is an extreme example, but it is only part of the problem. One of the ideas with BA was to cap things around 30. With the normal +11 max, that works, but with expertise is blows up to +17. This increased both the floor and ceiling too much IMO. The simplest solutions are a flat +2 bonus, advantage, or half-prof (round down) bonus.
Otherwise, you have rogues better at grappling than fighters, better at medicine than clerics, better at arcana than wizards, and so on. Yeah, rogues (and bards) are supposed to be the skill-monkeys, but IMO something like Jack-of-All-Trades more represents that.
Of course, other classes have features in some subclasses that grant the equivalent of expertise (and why NOT just call it what it is for crying out loud???) such as Blessings of Knowledge for the Knowledge Domain, and the addition of the prodigy feat helps. If you allow it to anyone then you at least remove the problems with rogues and bards being superior at things most people IME don't think they should be the best at (at least potentially).
Otherwise, you have rogues better at grappling than fighters, better at medicine than clerics, better at arcana than wizards, and so on. Yeah, rogues (and bards) are supposed to be the skill-monkeys, but IMO something like Jack-of-All-Trades more represents that.
Of course, other classes have features in some subclasses that grant the equivalent of expertise (and why NOT just call it what it is for crying out loud???) such as Blessings of Knowledge for the Knowledge Domain, and the addition of the prodigy feat helps. If you allow it to anyone then you at least remove the problems with rogues and bards being superior at things most people IME don't think they should be the best at (at least potentially).
To play devil's advocate for a moment, what we're saying here is that 5Es skill monkey class does a skill better than another class. To which a very reasonable person might reply "so what". It's not as though the Rogue does actual magic better than the Wizard, actual magic being the thing that defines the Wizard class far more than the Arcana skill. It's also an enormously niche example. Why is this hypothetical rogue using one of his precious two expertise slots on Arcana? Mostly this isn't going to happen because rogues have far more important skills to worry about, but we can play along. A rogue would chose a non-core skill like Arcana to expertise because he wanted his character to be an expert in it, most likely for character reasons ('cause there aren't many other good reasons). Which takes us back to the skill monkey class being the best at a skill, and back to "so what".
This issue only looks like a huge deal if you take the side of the butt hurt Wizard.
/Devil's advocate.
This issue only looks like a huge deal if you take the side of the butt hurt Wizard.
/Devil's advocate.
Bards, at least, should be able to know a of lore.
