Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7641827" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p>A slight misunderstanding perhaps. A fighter with the soldier background, for example, has proficiency in athletics and intimidation. Our house-rule is the <em>fighter</em> can choose to have expertise in athletics, but at the expense of intimidation. The player could then use one of the Fighter skill choices to still take intimidation if he wanted to, but otherwise the skill is never learned.</p><p></p><p>A bard, as you say, has 3 class slots and 2 background from whatever they choose. If the player takes expertise in one background and loses the other, then the 4 expertise slots would be used on the 3 class skills and the 4th would be lost unless the character gained more skills before level 10 (which for bards, is very possible really).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOL, we're not ignoring the bard, but he isn't even in the room in our case. We had one bard character, which the player abandoned because they sort of suck really and is now playing a druid. However, any changes we make to expertise would of course apply to any bard that joins us. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Glad to hear you aren't hurting yourself! Of course, I understand about the hair but at this point have none left to loose. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>As for standing up for the rogues, they do well enough at our table. We even added four new cunning action features (Free Movement, Misdirect, Take Aim, and Unbound) so they are even more versatile in their actions.</p><p></p><p>Actually, I am not concerned with the consequences since anything we implement will have the numbers balance out to match RAW. I started the thread because of the desire to move some of the potential contribution from ability scores and expertise back to proficiency like in other games.</p><p></p><p>If you have no ability modifier due to a 10 ability and no expertise, the current improvement for proficiency alone during all 20 levels is only +4, which is just pathetic really. Our current idea with proficiency maxing at +11 would increase that to a +9 difference over the 20 levels. This appeals to our table much more. I understand it is a different mindset on what the three features represent, shifting abilities back to more simply natural talent and taking all training out of them. Expertise would represent a one-time boost, but right now it ranges from +2 to +4 at our table depending on level.</p><p></p><p>I think in some ways the labels the chose also leads to some misunderstanding. With our idea, skill, ability, and focus would be better terms than proficiency, ability, and expertise; but who wants to argue semantics?</p><p></p><p>About finesse, et al., Finesse can add STR or DEX to attack, but all weapon damage is based on STR for bonuses except Loading weapons, which don't get bonuses to damage. And to answer your question, no one was assassinated. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Considering our main rogue <em>is</em> the assassin archetype, you might think he was opposed to this finesse change, but he really wasn't. Sure, he lost a couple points to damage, but rogues have gained other features which make them still just viable or even better. He is enjoying his character as much as ever. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can understand how you made the easy choice given your recent adventures, but man you picked a doosie! LOL</p><p></p><p>Maybe part of this is because how we use passive perception. I should explain and that might clarify the situation better in this instance. We play with passive perception as it allows you to make a check, it is NOT automatic. This means in your example, if the rogue rolled a 1 for instance and had a total of 13, since the passive perception at 14 is higher, the Oni (for instance) <em>might </em>notice the rogue and is allowed to roll. There is a 40% chance the Oni will fail (8 or lower) and still not notice the rogue even though the rogue rolled a 1. So, the 10% you think would be there solely based on the rogue's check, is really only 4% due to the Oni also making a check.</p><p></p><p>Having to play this way is an unfortunate side-effect of the passive perception checks for secret doors and traps and such. The party had scores high enough that they would automatically notice just about everything without even the need to roll. Our DM grew annoyed by this to changed how passive checks work. For instance, if there was a DC 20 secret door, and the passive perception was 21, the character would simply <em>know</em> it is there without checking or even telling the DM they are looking. Now what happens is if the player doesn't say anything but the character passes by the door, the DM will ASK the player to roll because there is something there and they might notice it by chance because their score is so good. If the character is actively searching then they roll to find it anyway.</p><p></p><p>In the rogue/oni example, the passive perception 14 is not automatic. However, if this oni was on guard duty, they are always looking so roll all the time. Thus there is a 40% chance they would fail to notice the rogue in a contested check even if the rogue rolled a 1, but overall since they would now have a chance to notice the rogue on higher rolls, the over chances of noticing the roue would be 19.5% (and that is active so reasonable IMO).</p><p></p><p>I guess the point with passive that bugs us is when you are passive (not really actively doing something) you shouldn't be nearly as good as your average performance when actively <em>trying</em>. Perhaps the term passive is also misleading and "routine" would have been a better choice (akin to Take 10) but again, that implies you are actually making an effort, even if only "routine."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7641827, member: 6987520"] A slight misunderstanding perhaps. A fighter with the soldier background, for example, has proficiency in athletics and intimidation. Our house-rule is the [I]fighter[/I] can choose to have expertise in athletics, but at the expense of intimidation. The player could then use one of the Fighter skill choices to still take intimidation if he wanted to, but otherwise the skill is never learned. A bard, as you say, has 3 class slots and 2 background from whatever they choose. If the player takes expertise in one background and loses the other, then the 4 expertise slots would be used on the 3 class skills and the 4th would be lost unless the character gained more skills before level 10 (which for bards, is very possible really). LOL, we're not ignoring the bard, but he isn't even in the room in our case. We had one bard character, which the player abandoned because they sort of suck really and is now playing a druid. However, any changes we make to expertise would of course apply to any bard that joins us. :) Glad to hear you aren't hurting yourself! Of course, I understand about the hair but at this point have none left to loose. :) As for standing up for the rogues, they do well enough at our table. We even added four new cunning action features (Free Movement, Misdirect, Take Aim, and Unbound) so they are even more versatile in their actions. Actually, I am not concerned with the consequences since anything we implement will have the numbers balance out to match RAW. I started the thread because of the desire to move some of the potential contribution from ability scores and expertise back to proficiency like in other games. If you have no ability modifier due to a 10 ability and no expertise, the current improvement for proficiency alone during all 20 levels is only +4, which is just pathetic really. Our current idea with proficiency maxing at +11 would increase that to a +9 difference over the 20 levels. This appeals to our table much more. I understand it is a different mindset on what the three features represent, shifting abilities back to more simply natural talent and taking all training out of them. Expertise would represent a one-time boost, but right now it ranges from +2 to +4 at our table depending on level. I think in some ways the labels the chose also leads to some misunderstanding. With our idea, skill, ability, and focus would be better terms than proficiency, ability, and expertise; but who wants to argue semantics? About finesse, et al., Finesse can add STR or DEX to attack, but all weapon damage is based on STR for bonuses except Loading weapons, which don't get bonuses to damage. And to answer your question, no one was assassinated. :) Considering our main rogue [I]is[/I] the assassin archetype, you might think he was opposed to this finesse change, but he really wasn't. Sure, he lost a couple points to damage, but rogues have gained other features which make them still just viable or even better. He is enjoying his character as much as ever. :) I can understand how you made the easy choice given your recent adventures, but man you picked a doosie! LOL Maybe part of this is because how we use passive perception. I should explain and that might clarify the situation better in this instance. We play with passive perception as it allows you to make a check, it is NOT automatic. This means in your example, if the rogue rolled a 1 for instance and had a total of 13, since the passive perception at 14 is higher, the Oni (for instance) [I]might [/I]notice the rogue and is allowed to roll. There is a 40% chance the Oni will fail (8 or lower) and still not notice the rogue even though the rogue rolled a 1. So, the 10% you think would be there solely based on the rogue's check, is really only 4% due to the Oni also making a check. Having to play this way is an unfortunate side-effect of the passive perception checks for secret doors and traps and such. The party had scores high enough that they would automatically notice just about everything without even the need to roll. Our DM grew annoyed by this to changed how passive checks work. For instance, if there was a DC 20 secret door, and the passive perception was 21, the character would simply [I]know[/I] it is there without checking or even telling the DM they are looking. Now what happens is if the player doesn't say anything but the character passes by the door, the DM will ASK the player to roll because there is something there and they might notice it by chance because their score is so good. If the character is actively searching then they roll to find it anyway. In the rogue/oni example, the passive perception 14 is not automatic. However, if this oni was on guard duty, they are always looking so roll all the time. Thus there is a 40% chance they would fail to notice the rogue in a contested check even if the rogue rolled a 1, but overall since they would now have a chance to notice the rogue on higher rolls, the over chances of noticing the roue would be 19.5% (and that is active so reasonable IMO). I guess the point with passive that bugs us is when you are passive (not really actively doing something) you shouldn't be nearly as good as your average performance when actively [I]trying[/I]. Perhaps the term passive is also misleading and "routine" would have been a better choice (akin to Take 10) but again, that implies you are actually making an effort, even if only "routine." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
Top