Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7064899" data-attributes="member: 1465">Well, yes and no <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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 &quot;stretched&quot; in result range to include the possibility for wildly different outcomes (the proverbial &quot;climbing a tree&quot; at 1st level vs &quot;climbing a frozen waterfall&quot; at 20th level&quot;) with more weight to the bonus compared to the dice.However &quot;currently they don't support characters being good at skills their class should have a focus in&quot; is a matter of perspective. It depends what do you mean with &quot;good&quot;. They already get proficiency, so they are definitely &quot;better&quot; 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 &quot;good&quot; means essentially no failure chance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7064899, member: 1465"] 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 [I]Magic Initiate[/I] feat is so limited for example, or why the [I]Knock[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification