• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Expertise is RUINING THE GAME!

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Why? Why can't you have a rogue that is so good at picking locks that they're the only one in the world that has a good shot to pick the Lock of X'elios without magic?

That is a good story element. That makes the heroes feel like they stand out.

The underlying belief when we say that Expertise/High skills ruins the game is that character success on most, if not all, skill checks of a certain type is inherently bad. It absolutely is not. I've had the rogue in my game that could hide from anything. I've had the silvertongued devil that coud convince someone of almost anything. I've had the barbarian that could bend things thought to be unbreakable. And it was awesome. The players enjoyed being a Herculean style of awesome, and their exploits were legendary.

If, as a DM, you're frustrated that you can't challenge players with certain things, or that they can 'too easily' do certain things... really consider why that is a problem for you. If the goal is to tell a good story, why can't you use that story element as something to celebrate and applaude? A lot of our iconic myths are about people that can do amazing things - and they're not all wizards or using magic.
Why Indeed? My general guess is it was a way to not be 4e? To conform to elements of an earlier edition? (1e and 2e I think and maybe 3e to an extent) that kept mundanity/non-magic under lock down. 5e designers said they wanted low level things to be challenging for much much longer and that is for the most part what bounded accuracy achieves. Its worse for skills than combat because skill obstacles lack hit points (another arena of advancement beyond the check).

There is also an overall competence loss in 5e, the 4e hero got better at things by being around and learning from allies and gaining general confidence and probably adaptability if you want to think of it that way. 4e assumed there was learning going on that didnt have a big tick mark and name next to it so all adventuring skills got better. My late paragon chosen one of the goddess doesn't have to worry about getting passed the town mayor even though she doesn't specialize in social skills. It is perhaps a different related issue.
 
Last edited:

jgsugden

Explorer
Why Indeed? My general guess is it was a way to not be 4e?
Huh? I don't get this at all. There is no evidence that they don't want nonmagical abilitis to be amazing. They still have a fighter class, after all.
To conform to elements of an earlier edition? (1e and 2e I think and maybe 3e to an extent) that kept mundanity/non-magic under lock down.
I played all of those editions, sir, and there was a lot of miraculous 'mundane' abilities.
5e designers said they wanted low level things to be challenging for much much longer and that is for the most part what bounded accuracy achieves. Its worse for skills than combat because skill obstacles lack hit points.
Yes - but an intentional design element that gives people amazing levels of skills intentionally is designed to break that rule, just as magic is intended to break that rule. It isn't like the math behind expertise and bounded accuracy was impossible to understand - the designers intended it to do exactly what it does.
There is also an overall competence loss in 5e, the 4e hero got better at things by being around and learning from allies and gaining general confidence and probably adaptability if you want to think of it that way. 4e assumed there was learning going on that didnt have a big tick mark and name next to it so all adventuring skills got better. My late paragon chosen one of the goddess doesn't have to worry about getting passed the town mayor even though she doesn't specialize in social skills. It is perhaps a different related issue.
4Es math was faux advancement. You were not supposed to fight goblins of CR 1 at level 20. Instead, they gave you minions that had proportionally higher defenses. All that really mattered were your net differential between character level and CR.

The math in this edition does exactly what it is supposed to do. Many of us use it, as is, and have great adventures that everyone in the game enjoys. There is no inherent problem.
 

tglassy

Explorer
tglassy, I don't even know where to start commenting. Your post felt like it was talking down to me, but that's probably my own reading of it.

Feats in 5E aren't epic feats of heroic proportions. Expertise does allow for doing "nearly impossible things" better than others, but that's a DC 30 which is achievable by a 20 stat and a 5 or 6 proficiency, so it's not really something only they can do (only they can do it regularly).

Using feats or expertise to gate in actually cool stuff is what I'm suggesting. Yes, big numbers are sometimes fun, but I think reliable talent does a better job mechanically of covering the "you're better than the common person". Having a high stat and proficiency still sets someone higher than someone with an average stat and no proficiency.
I don’t mean to talk down to you. But at the same time this entire thread is just another “I don’t know how to challenge powerful characters so here’s how I nerf them” thread that I see popping up all the time. You’re worried about a Rogue who can hide from anything come lvl eleven when a Sorcerer can cast Invisibility at lvl 5, or Greater Invisibility at lvl 9, and do anything the Rogue can do. Or at lvl 3, the Warlock can cast Invisibility on himself and send his Imp to scout the entire Dungeon. The Rogue is vastly outdone if even a little magic is involved. Even being able to unlock any lock isn’t special, as Knock and Silence, so Knock stays quiet, are both lvl 2 spells. In fact, everything a Rogue can do can be done better with a 2nd lvl spell. Sure, it’s a limited resource, but you usually only need them a few times.

I’ve said it a hundred times on these threads, if you feel like you need to nerf a higher lvl character, you’re not giving them the right challenges. If you don’t like running higher level campaigns, then say that to your group and have them roll new lvl 1 characters every time they get too powerful.

Picking locks and hiding are trivial to a higher lvl anything-with-those-skills. So have them, but don’t count on them to be the main challenges. Let the player feel like they’ve graduated from having to worry about failing those threats, and now they can start worrying about other threats. Like Rival Assassins/Thieves Guilds, high level heists and figuring out how to steal a priceless artifact from the city museum.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
I don’t mean to talk down to you. But at the same time this entire thread is just another “I don’t know how to challenge powerful characters so here’s how I nerf them” thread
Not s'much. There's no problem in challenging someone who's only 'powerful' bit is a doubled proficiency - you just give them harder things to do - it's just a bigger number, you challenge it with a bigger number.
There /is/ a potential problem when a campaign puts most of it's emphasis in a single pillar (in this case, the Social/Interaction pillar, arguably the weakest), and the game only offers a relatively few skills that are relevant. It's no longer practical to just kick all the checks to the Expert (and make some of them extra-hard to be 'challenging'), and let the other PCs await their spotlight time, because that time isn't coming. Instead, you have to find a way to keep everyone involved.

So the problem is not just Expertise bringing back a bare hint of the exploding skill ranks problems you had in 3e, it's the system not offering enough depth or structure in the social pillar to keep everyone engaged. Expertise is just a symptom, I'd say.

But, I do like the idea of replacing the bland bonus to expertise with more cool/interesting perks.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Huh? I don't get this at all. There is no evidence that they don't want nonmagical abilitis to be amazing.
I wonder about your ideas of amazing when the fighter in 1e gets another couple hit points and the wizard is now throwing wish spells and teleporting and turning into dragons.

What evidence do you have that they do want them to be... and we arent talking about combat abilities

Yes - but an intentional design element that gives people amazing levels of skills intentionally is designed to break that rule.
Do the numbers back it up? Bounded accuracy is very much intended to keep them in too tight to describe the tasks as being truly incredible.

Here is an example

In the previous edition a task which was literally numerically impossible for your character in the early game call it level 5 in 5e... would be meat and drink even odds at what would be level 15, it varies obviously based on how much someone specialized in it But that would only make it faster and more sure if you took feats and item support and themes and paragon paths and epic destinies and the like.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
You were not supposed to fight goblins of CR 1 at level 20.
No you fought swarms of them in phalanxes of armies if you fought them at all.

The math in this edition does exactly what it is supposed to do.
According to the press releases it means potential failure against low level challenges by high level characters
... shrug

this is one of those I think it is better if the press releases are wrong.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
In 4e there seemed very much encouragement in the form of paragon paths and epic destinies to think in terms of larger than life stuff for every character type... just not seeing that as a feature of 5e.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I'm just throwing stuff out there at this point. I'm in the early black board stage. Seeing what sticks. But the more I think about it, the more I'm not liking "double proficiency bonus" in a vacuum.
I am used to everybody getting +10 from advancement that would be from level 5 to 15 in 5e. Plus this is without taking skill focus feats or themes or items or paragon path bonuses or any of that which are not unlikely at all.

That other stuff can allow one to reach alice in wonderland faster if you take them.

I say embrace the numbers. If you are right then 5e only locked general competency down to mundane numbers and its better off than I thought.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Picking locks and hiding are trivial to a higher lvl anything-with-those-skills.
Because you arent even allowing the impossible stunts. Like hiding with no cover... it still feels like the paradigm for doing impossible is not encouraged in this edition. Why cannot a ninja style rogue level 13 slip a few yards away in the middle of fighting make a stealth check then use some extraordinary trick to hide in plain sight functionally invisible for the rest of the battle. (very rude of him of course)

The problem that happens is beyond stunts like the above when those skilled at things or able to zap em trivially with a spell, get too much better than all the rest of the characters against a specific challenge. In effect adventure challenges become tied to the assumption of the presence of their abilities. I do not think any edition successfully held that issue fully at bay. Problems always being addressable in multiple ways seems a key to making it work.
 
Last edited:

Xaelvaen

Explorer
What do you think?
Early on, when we first started playing 5E, it was my players who came to me with a request to change expertise. With it being limited to two classes, the party felt doubling the very foundation of bound accuracy was an immediate failure. Over the many campaigns we've played using 5E, we've tried a few different variables here.

Party's Favorite
Expertise allowed a player to spend their Bonus Action during a Skill Test to make it Outstanding. If the skill check was a success, it accomplished some incredibly outlandish effect (that the player declared BEFORE making the roll). However, a failure resulted in a critical failure - they really loved the danger of Expertise in this way.
* A couple of Examples:

1) A Rogue attempting to use Thieves' Tools to pick a lock. He declared that his successful Expertise roll would allow him to not only unlock the door, but change the tumblers so that the key would no longer work. The mayor tried for hours to get that door open while the Rogue robbed him blind.

2) A Wizard/Rogue was attempting to use Arcana and figure out a puzzle I had created. He wanted his Expertise to make it so that he could manipulate the magic into more of a visual representation (hologram if you will) that everyone could see. Upon critically failing, the magic leaped to life and created a living Magic Missile spell from all the evocation used to create the lights and interactive devices in the room.

3) A Dex-based Warrior/Rogue wanted to bullrush an enemy off a cliff. Declared his Athletics Expertise to jump off the cliff with the target so it had no chance to grab the ledge, plant his feet on the helpless foe's chest, and kick back safely onto the ledge. -- Success -- Classic action-hero gameplay.


My Favorite
Expertise grants you an expendable resource that returns with a Long Rest. The amount of resource is equal to the proficiency bonus (2 at 1st, 3 at 5th, and so on). Any time a player rolls the chosen skill, they can expend a resource and add +1d6 to the total. The dice rolled never goes up (but I did add a feat at one point to let it be a d8), only the amount of times you can do it in a day. Using this method, however, I also gave those players the option of ignoring the Expertise, and instead choosing a new Trained skill.
 
Last edited:

Xeviat

Explorer
I don’t mean to talk down to you. But at the same time this entire thread is just another “I don’t know how to challenge powerful characters so here’s how I nerf them” thread that I see popping up all the time.
Nope. I'm doing game crafting and thinking of new and better ways to do things. Like I said, I want to be able to use skills to do more, like being used for "attacks" like demoralize and feint. If it is as "easy" as a feat or a rogue level to add a sizable bonus to a skill, then those skills can't be compared to saves and can't really work that way.

There's possibly a problem with stealth vs perception for assassin's and athletics vs athletics/acrobatics for grapplers.

I'm not looking at nerfing powerful characters. I'm looking at making those specialists more interesting while keeping their numbers within the bounds of the game.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Early on, when we first started playing 5E, it was my players who came to me with a request to change expertise. With it being limited to two classes, they party felt doubling the very foundation of bound accuracy was an immediate failure. Over the many campaigns we've played using 5E, we've tried a few different variables here.

Party's Favorite
Expertise allowed a player to spend their Bonus Action during a Skill Test to make it Outstanding. If the skill check was a success, it accomplished some incredibly outlandish effect (that the player declared BEFORE making the roll). However, a failure resulted in a critical failure - they really loved the danger of Expertise in this way.
* A couple of Examples:

1) A Rogue attempting to use Thieves' Tools to pick a lock. He declared that his successful Expertise roll would allow him to not only unlock the door, but change the tumblers so that the key would no longer work. The mayor tried for hours to get that door open while the Rogue robbed him blind.

2) A Wizard/Rogue was attempting to use Arcana and figure out a puzzle I had created. He wanted his Expertise to make it so that he could manipulate the magic into more of a visual representation (hologram if you will) that everyone could see. Upon critically failing, the magic leaped to life and created a living Magic Missile spell from all the evocation used to create the lights and interactive devices in the room.

3) A Dex-based Warrior/Rogue wanted to bullrush an enemy off a cliff. Declared his Athletics Expertise to jump off the cliff with the target so it had no chance to grab the ledge, plant his feet on the helpless foe's chest, and kick back safely onto the ledge. -- Success -- Classic action-hero gameplay.


My Favorite
Expertise grants you an expendable resource that returns with a Long Rest. The amount of resource is equal to the proficiency bonus (2 at 1st, 3 at 5th, and so on). Any time a player rolls the chosen skill, they can expend a resource and add +1d6 to the total. The dice rolled never goes up (but I did add a feat at one point to let it be a d8), only the amount of times you can do it in a day. Using this method, however, I also gave those players the option of ignoring the Expertise, and instead choosing a new Trained skill.

Maybe you could mash yours and their favorites together.... the resource is used to make theirs more reliable or prefferably offset to a more neutral failure
 
Last edited:

MichaelSomething

Adventurer
So instead of an expertise bonus, why not just invent cool skill powers to give to the PCs instead?

Like spend a hit dice to reroll a failed check?
Spend a full round action so that a fellow party can make a check using your skill level?
etc.
 

Xaelvaen

Explorer
Maybe you could mash yours and there favorites together.... the resource is used to make theres more reliable or offset to a more neutral failure
A nice idea, one I might try with some of the newer groups I play. Offsetting the danger of it would annoy my old grognard gamers haha.
 

ad_hoc

Explorer
I think Expertise works very well, just not for the game you're going for.

That doesn't mean it is designed poorly, it's just not designed for you.

The game isn't designed for Ability Checks to be called for frequently. They're for dramatic moments and the characters with Expertise are expected to have a good chance at succeeding at those moments.

It's their chance to be heroic.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
A nice idea, one I might try with some of the newer groups I play. Offsetting the danger of it would annoy my old grognard gamers haha.
Explain it as giving the players strategic resource management and that they do not have to use the karma or whatever you call it.
 

tglassy

Explorer
Early on, when we first started playing 5E, it was my players who came to me with a request to change expertise. With it being limited to two classes, the party felt doubling the very foundation of bound accuracy was an immediate failure. Over the many campaigns we've played using 5E, we've tried a few different variables here.

Party's Favorite
Expertise allowed a player to spend their Bonus Action during a Skill Test to make it Outstanding. If the skill check was a success, it accomplished some incredibly outlandish effect (that the player declared BEFORE making the roll). However, a failure resulted in a critical failure - they really loved the danger of Expertise in this way.
* A couple of Examples:

1) A Rogue attempting to use Thieves' Tools to pick a lock. He declared that his successful Expertise roll would allow him to not only unlock the door, but change the tumblers so that the key would no longer work. The mayor tried for hours to get that door open while the Rogue robbed him blind.

2) A Wizard/Rogue was attempting to use Arcana and figure out a puzzle I had created. He wanted his Expertise to make it so that he could manipulate the magic into more of a visual representation (hologram if you will) that everyone could see. Upon critically failing, the magic leaped to life and created a living Magic Missile spell from all the evocation used to create the lights and interactive devices in the room.

3) A Dex-based Warrior/Rogue wanted to bullrush an enemy off a cliff. Declared his Athletics Expertise to jump off the cliff with the target so it had no chance to grab the ledge, plant his feet on the helpless foe's chest, and kick back safely onto the ledge. -- Success -- Classic action-hero gameplay.


My Favorite
Expertise grants you an expendable resource that returns with a Long Rest. The amount of resource is equal to the proficiency bonus (2 at 1st, 3 at 5th, and so on). Any time a player rolls the chosen skill, they can expend a resource and add +1d6 to the total. The dice rolled never goes up (but I did add a feat at one point to let it be a d8), only the amount of times you can do it in a day. Using this method, however, I also gave those players the option of ignoring the Expertise, and instead choosing a new Trained skill.
For 1, that can just be another Skill check with the Thieves Tools, or have it be that he has to succeed with the check by more than 5 to accomplish the extra stuff. Something the normal Expertise would be able to accomplish, no need to nerf.

For 2, that’s not how Arcana is supposed to work. Arcana is just what you know about magic. It has nothing to do with manipulating it in any capacity. A Barbarian Zealot can have Arcana as a skill, it just means you know about magic. So you’re already changing the skills into something they’re not. Which, hey, kudos to you, but would the Barbarian be able to do that too if he had expertise?

For 3, I’d just have him make an attack roll (shove) and let him narrate how he kills the guy. If he really wanted to make sure he doesn’t grab the ledge, an Athletics check could be done, but in the end, it’s just narration. I’ve had players saw the head off a dragon, rip a guy in two and throw the pieces at a fleeing enemy, explode the heart of a Tarresque, perform a new Mortal Combat fatality where they smash the guy to the ground and the use their giant hammer like a golf club to hit the guys head, sending through his body and out his butt to sail through the air...I mean the tales are endless. And I don’t require a special roll. They brought the enemy’s HP to zero. They get to narrate what the death looks like.

As for the expended resource, that’s just another resource to keep track of, gumming up the works, and nerfs the Rogue, which is unnecessary. The Rogue already gets only one attack, only light armor, and no spells unless you choose Arcane Trickster, which only gives 1/3 castor status. The Rogue can do two things: Sneak Attack, which isn’t guaranteed, and be better than anyone else at a select number of skills. Why would you take that away? Do you nerf the Paladin’s Lay On Hands feature? At lvl 20 that’s 100 HP of free healing to be divided out as needed, and from a primarily combat class. What about the Champion’s crit on a 19? Or a Sorcerer’s Points? Why do high skill checks have to provide such a problem when every class has things they can do better than anyone else? Why do you need to force your players to trade a class skill to kill someone in an awesome way, or force them to expend and keep track of a resource on what the developers felt should be a permanent class feature? It is needlessly nerfing it. It’s SUPPOSED to break Bounded Accuracy. Every class gets to break something. Fighters get more attacks than anyone else, Barbarians can take more damage and deflect attacks with their pecks, Bards get to do literally everything while seducing all the stuff, Clerics get to destroy Undead, Druids get to shape shift, Monks get an ungodly number of attacks and eventually can karate chop with the strength of a battle axe, Paladin can Smite, Sorcerers can break magic, Warlocks can do a no save 10ft push with every beam of Eldritch blast, Wizards can learn every spell in the game, and I’m sure Rangers can do something cool too, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO PICK ON ROGUES AND ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS THEY DO WELL???

(Yes, I know Bards and the Prodigy Feat get it too, but they get it later than Rogues and Bards literally do all the things.)
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
I'll read through the thread tomorrow, but while I have time this is what we thought of:

Expertise adds:

Advantage to a check instead of a bonus.
Allows the character to use the skill as a bonus action but without advantage.
You can spend an Inspiration point to have your check automatically be a 20.

However, after trying it out it wasn't as well received as we thought and changed instead to:

Expertise adds +2, at 7th level is +3, and 14th level is +4.

We like the idea that expertise can allow you to high higher DCs, but not doubling proficiency as this was too much (especially since our proficiency bonus now goes from +2 to +8).
 

tglassy

Explorer
Because you arent even allowing the impossible stunts. Like hiding with no cover... it still feels like the paradigm for doing impossible is not encouraged in this edition. Why cannot a ninja style rogue level 13 slip a few yards away in the middle of fighting make a stealth check then use some extraordinary trick to hide in plain sight functionally invisible for the rest of the battle. (very rude of him of course)

The problem that happens is beyond stunts like the above when those skilled at things or able to zap em trivially with a spell, get too much better than all the rest of the characters against a specific challenge. In effect adventure challenges become tied to the assumption of the presence of their abilities. I do not think any edition successfully held that issue fully at bay. Problems always being addressable in multiple ways seems a key to making it work.
You can Hide in Plain Sight with the Skulker Feat. You just need to be lightly obscured, as in dim light. I’m sorry, but no, you can’t just say “I move back a few feet and now he can’t see me” if you’re in an open room with no cover. Even the movie ninjas throw a smoke bomb and become lightly obscured. But nobody ever takes that Feat.

There are plenty of ways to do impossible feats like the superheroes, people just don’t use them. Monks run up walls, Fighters Attack like a whirlwind (four attacks every six seconds where the other combat classes are half as slow), Rogues dodge everything. I had an Eldritch Knight jump on a flying dragon and succeed in getting one of his bonded weapons lodged in its scales, and since he can’t get disarmed from his weapon, he was able to ride the dragon, slicing at it with his other weapon, until it died. You can do amazing things within the rules if you have an imagination.
 

Xaelvaen

Explorer
For 1, that can just be another Skill check with the Thieves Tools, or have it be that he has to succeed with the check by more than 5 to accomplish the extra stuff. Something the normal Expertise would be able to accomplish, no need to nerf.

For 2, that’s not how Arcana is supposed to work. Arcana is just what you know about magic. It has nothing to do with manipulating it in any capacity. A Barbarian Zealot can have Arcana as a skill, it just means you know about magic. So you’re already changing the skills into something they’re not. Which, hey, kudos to you, but would the Barbarian be able to do that too if he had expertise?

For 3, I’d just have him make an attack roll (shove) and let him narrate how he kills the guy. If he really wanted to make sure he doesn’t grab the ledge, an Athletics check could be done, but in the end, it’s just narration. I’ve had players saw the head off a dragon, rip a guy in two and throw the pieces at a fleeing enemy, explode the heart of a Tarresque, perform a new Mortal Combat fatality where they smash the guy to the ground and the use their giant hammer like a golf club to hit the guys head, sending through his body and out his butt to sail through the air...I mean the tales are endless. And I don’t require a special roll. They brought the enemy’s HP to zero. They get to narrate what the death looks like.

As for the expended resource, that’s just another resource to keep track of, gumming up the works, and nerfs the Rogue, which is unnecessary. The Rogue already gets only one attack, only light armor, and no spells unless you choose Arcane Trickster, which only gives 1/3 castor status. The Rogue can do two things: Sneak Attack, which isn’t guaranteed, and be better than anyone else at a select number of skills. Why would you take that away? Do you nerf the Paladin’s Lay On Hands feature? At lvl 20 that’s 100 HP of free healing to be divided out as needed, and from a primarily combat class. What about the Champion’s crit on a 19? Or a Sorcerer’s Points? Why do high skill checks have to provide such a problem when every class has things they can do better than anyone else? Why do you need to force your players to trade a class skill to kill someone in an awesome way, or force them to expend and keep track of a resource on what the developers felt should be a permanent class feature? It is needlessly nerfing it. It’s SUPPOSED to break Bounded Accuracy. Every class gets to break something. Fighters get more attacks than anyone else, Barbarians can take more damage and deflect attacks with their pecks, Bards get to do literally everything while seducing all the stuff, Clerics get to destroy Undead, Druids get to shape shift, Monks get an ungodly number of attacks and eventually can karate chop with the strength of a battle axe, Paladin can Smite, Sorcerers can break magic, Warlocks can do a no save 10ft push with every beam of Eldritch blast, Wizards can learn every spell in the game, and I’m sure Rangers can do something cool too, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO PICK ON ROGUES AND ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS THEY DO WELL???

(Yes, I know Bards and the Prodigy Feat get it too, but they get it later than Rogues and Bards literally do all the things.)
First, @Xeviat asked for people's alternative to Expertise, and I answered with the same problem with which my players approached me. This comes from a group well over 15+ years together, with a vast majority of favorite characters being rogues (and Bards, in 5E, though that class was considerably less popular the farther back we go). They tell me they hate the 'bignumber=better' approach, so we come up with a solution to change it - I've shared that here, upon the request of the OP.

I don't adjust rules to please anyone but my players because, with all due respect, no one else's opinion matters to me as a GM.

Secondly, I have Arcana be more than knowledge because that's how my players like it. One of the few aspects of 4E they enjoyed, so we unanimously decided to carry it over. Supposed is such an odd word for D&D.

Third, when I have a player shove a creature off a ledge, I give them a Dexterity Saving Throw to grab the ledge. He used his expertise to deny that save - perfectly valid for that particular use, and the way we chose an alternative to 'big numbers.'

Finally, while your passion for the game (and rogues!) is appreciated, this seemed like a rather odd place for what might be construed as an unwarranted attack for people of a like-mind seeking to share alternatives to something they, and apparently their players, feel doesn't work for them.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top