D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[Fenris-77]

Bards, at least, should be able to know a of lore.

Yup, that makes perfect sense, and it's a great example of a class with expertise that can very reasonabley be expected to know more, in some ways, than a Wizard of equal level.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I guess that just depends on your take on Bards. For me, that is why I love Jack-of-All-Trades. I think of bards more about having a large, eclectic amount of knowledge and being generally good at just about everything but not great at anything.

However, as is, I do agree I think Expertise is better suited to Bards than Rogues.

 

[ChaosOS]

The problem is that what do you leave Rogues then. Bards already seriously step on the toes of rogues, and are full casters to boot. You're just turning the Rogue into another Fighter, with limited niches outside of combat.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The problem is that what do you leave Rogues then. Bards already seriously step on the toes of rogues, and are full casters to boot. You're just turning the Rogue into another Fighter, with limited niches outside of combat.

Well, IMO Bards shouldn't be full casters, either.

And as it is they already gave Bards Expertise, so what are you leaving Rogues? Something a bard can already do, and otherwise just "another Fighter, with limited niches outside of combat."

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

No. What is being said is far more specific than that. What is being said is that rogue is matching classes in areas where certain select classes should be peerless. Its not that "they are out pacing a class". Its that "baseline rogues are outpacing the one base class that its absolutely stupid for them to be outpacing in a given area". They shouldnt outpace wizard's at baseline on any knowledges. Same goes for clerics as pertains to religion and healing. Druid's knowledge nature. All trounced by a poorly int statted rogue. That is horrible design. Not logically good at all.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Bards, at least, should be able to know a of lore.

sure. By default less than wiz though. More than rogue.

Less than dru and cle in their specialties. Anything else is idiocy. Bard is primarily a cha class. They are the most knowledgeable of the cha classes. Baseline bard surpassing knowledgeability of baseline wiz though is a heinous mistake. Shouldnt be happening.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Yup, that makes perfect sense, and it's a great example of a class with expertise that can very reasonabley be expected to know more, in some ways, than a Wizard of equal level.

No. Only the mechanics as they currently are support that. Everything else says they should actually be the second most intellectual class both in specialized and general knowledge. Solidly.

 

[Fenris-77]

Why should the assumption be that Wizards have a monopoly on researching and knowing things magical? There's an equally compelling argument that a Wizard might only be good at his narrow specialization, much like academics in the real world. Its not the given that people seem to assume it is. That peerless idea is much more an opinion and one way of viewing the class than it is an obvious given.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Why should the assumption be that Wizards have a monopoly on researching and knowing things magical? There's an equally compelling argument that a Wizard might only be good at his narrow specialization, much like academics in the real world. Its not the given that people seem to assume it is. That peerless idea is much more an opinion and one way of viewing the class than it is an obvious given.

Monopoly? No. Firmly number one spot over bard? Heck yes. Im saying as concerns knowledge wizards shouldnt have a monopoly, unless you would call what bards have a monopoly. They should switch spots mechanically on knowledges is my point.

Interesting word you chose to use. Monopoly. Is that what you would call it? What bards have? I dont consider being number 1 in an area a "monopoly". If it was though, how would it not be for bards but would be fir wizards? What a wrong headed way to put that...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why should the assumption be that Wizards have a monopoly on researching and knowing things magical? There's an equally compelling argument that a Wizard might only be good at his narrow specialization, much like academics in the real world. Its not the given that people seem to assume it is. That peerless idea is much more an opinion and one way of viewing the class than it is an obvious given.

This goes back to my point. I don't think the Wizard should be the best, just that Rogues and Bards shouldn't have the potential to be better. I wouldn't care if a player made a Fighter and invested everything into INT and had a background with Arcana. At 17th level, that Fighter could also have a +11. That's fine with me because the player invested in it.

That is why we keep expertise as advantage. You are more likely to do better, but your best is just as good as everyone else's.

EDIT: I also think that if you want to make Bards/Rogues skill-monkeys, give them more skills, not just trying to make them better. For instance bards get 3 skills and rogues 4, while others only get 2. That's cool, in fact I would start a bard with as many as 6 to really reflect that they have a wide range of abilities, etc.