D&D 5E Giving Ranger Expertise

[Horwath]

You want to play a ranger?

You play 3rd level rogue with scout archetype


On topic: yes that would be best. Instead of default crap that is favored terrain and enemy give them expertise in Survival and Nature at 1st level and stealth and perception at 6th level.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm of the opinion that everyone should have access to expertise.

I'm kind of doing so in my Rokugan 5e conversion, but that's a specific rule for that settings where there are no Rogues, and where otherwise almost every PC is expected to pursue excellence in at least one fine art or performance (usually something impressive in a social context, skill or tool, but not a general skill that is useful in adventuring).

I think that by the spirit of 5e, Expertise should be very expensive to get in order not to step on the Rogue's niche, just like it's very costly and DM-controlled (i.e. feats) to get spells if you're not a spellcaster or to get maneuvers if you're not a fighter.

 

[Vulf]

Colossus Slayer and Uncanny Dodge should be removed from the options available to the Hunter Archetype.

Instead, they should be given to both Hunter and Beast Master at levels 3 and 7.
This way the Hunter can have Horde Breaker and Colossus Slayer. The Beast Master's pet should be able to use both abilities as well as well.

Class fixed.

 

[nswanson27]

Along these lines, it seems like perception/stealth is also a good candidate for expertise. Feels very rangerish, and then you don't have to have the scout role be solely owned by rogue.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that by the spirit of 5e, Expertise should be very expensive to get in order not to step on the Rogue's niche, just like it's very costly and DM-controlled (i.e. feats) to get spells if you're not a spellcaster or to get maneuvers if you're not a fighter.

Except:
1) 2 classes and 1 subclass get expertise. It's hardly a niche.
2) The rogue gets 4 categories of expertise, vs everyone else's 1 (assuming you use my suggestion, and excluding bards and clerics).
3) The rogue also gets more skills than most classes.
4) The rogue also gets reliable talent, which is incredibly good for skill use.

I think niche protection is something that used to exist in early D&D editions, but it's pretty much gone now. Classes are supposed to be representing archetypes, and currently they don't support characters being good at skills their class should have a focus in.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think niche protection is something that used to exist in early D&D editions, but it's pretty much gone now. Classes are supposed to be representing archetypes, and currently they don't support characters being good at skills their class should have a focus in.

Well, yes and no But it's hardly gone... they even talked about it explicitly, about how one 5e design principle has been to provide ways for characters to dabble into another class' role BUT to always make then one step behind, and with a price tag. That's why the Magic Initiate feat is so limited for example, or why the Knock spell has negative sides.

One expertise is ok compared to four, but I'd rather put it into a feat that one has to pay for.

I have the feeling too that the proficiency bonus to skills is not the same as the proficiency bonus to attacks or saves, and that skills would probably need to be more "stretched" in result range to include the possibility for wildly different outcomes (the proverbial "climbing a tree" at 1st level vs "climbing a frozen waterfall" at 20th level") with more weight to the bonus compared to the dice.

However "currently they don't support characters being good at skills their class should have a focus in" is a matter of perspective. It depends what do you mean with "good". They already get proficiency, so they are definitely "better" than those who don't have it. But if you compare it to previous editions (where the numerical difference between a maxed skill and an untrained skill was huge), they always feel they aren't good enough even with Expertise. And there are even players who think that to be "good" means essentially no failure chance.

 

[Horwath]

Well, yes and no But it's hardly gone... they even talked about it explicitly, about how one 5e design principle has been to provide ways for characters to dabble into another class' role BUT to always make then one step behind, and with a price tag. That's why the Magic Initiate feat is so limited for example, or why the Knock spell has negative sides.

One expertise is ok compared to four, but I'd rather put it into a feat that one has to pay for.

I have the feeling too that the proficiency bonus to skills is not the same as the proficiency bonus to attacks or saves, and that skills would probably need to be more "stretched" in result range to include the possibility for wildly different outcomes (the proverbial "climbing a tree" at 1st level vs "climbing a frozen waterfall" at 20th level") with more weight to the bonus compared to the dice.

However "currently they don't support characters being good at skills their class should have a focus in" is a matter of perspective. It depends what do you mean with "good". They already get proficiency, so they are definitely "better" than those who don't have it. But if you compare it to previous editions (where the numerical difference between a maxed skill and an untrained skill was huge), they always feel they aren't good enough even with Expertise. And there are even players who think that to be "good" means essentially no failure chance.

I would buff up skilled feat to gain 4 skills or 2 skills and +1 to any ability.

And add train expertise feat where you gain 2 expertise or 1 expertise and +1 to any ability.

Also fear of failure is due to d20 swinginess, as it treats average performance(10) on equall % chance with best(20) and worst(1). If you play with 3d6 instead of d20 you would see that players with +5 or +6 feel very competent about themselves as they are going to fail DC 15 rarely and DC 10 almost never.

 

[Aldarc]

However "currently they don't support characters being good at skills their class should have a focus in" is a matter of perspective. It depends what do you mean with "good". They already get proficiency, so they are definitely "better" than those who don't have it. But if you compare it to previous editions (where the numerical difference between a maxed skill and an untrained skill was huge), they always feel they aren't good enough even with Expertise. And there are even players who think that to be "good" means essentially no failure chance.

This is my concern as well, at least in part. There are already complaints that Expertise trivializes bounded-accuracy once players reach a certain level, particularly when coupled with the Rogue's Reliable Talent.

 

[happyhermit]

I have found advantage to work well enough for situations where people are doing what they should be good at ie; Wizard with wizardy stuff or a ranger climbing trees and it doesn't have any detrimental side effects.

 

[Lanliss]

I have found advantage to work well enough for situations where people are doing what they should be good at ie; Wizard with wizardy stuff or a ranger climbing trees and it doesn't have any detrimental side effects.

Allowing rangers to be good at what they are meant to be is just a side effect. My primary reasoning is that Expertise fits the ranger perfectly, since they are the only "expert" class that doesn't have it. All of the other classes are much more general in their total concept. The only other additional class I might give expertise is Wizard, and then not until a much higher level than normal. I would say that around level 11-13 they could be considered Experts of their craft.

Of course, my ideas tend to throw balance to the wind, in the interest of what I read as a hole that needs to be filled. For example, I am also considering giving fighters a single Weapon expertise, allowing them to add twice their proficiency to a single weapon type. Because "Fighting man" should be expert at fighting.