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: 7641901" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p><strong>New Cunning Action </strong><strong>options</strong></p><p><em>When you use your bonus action, you can choose to:</em></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Free Movement.</strong> You ignore difficult terrain until the start of your next turn.</p><p><strong>Misdirect.</strong> You choose one opponent you can see, and the next attack that opponent makes against you has disadvantage.</p><p><strong>Take Aim.</strong> You gain advantage on your next ranged attack roll until the end of your turn.</p><p><strong>Unbound.</strong> If you are grappled or restrained, you can make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to escape.</p><p></p><p>We are currently play-testing these, but the idea was to represent the maneuverability of rogues. We tried to keep it balanced with two combat-oriented and two non-combat-oriented. Personally, instead of just being skill monkeys, I would to develop rogue is very versatile characters with more options for more things.</p><p></p><p>So far, the only one we are sort of concerned with is Take Aim. Instead of granting advantage on your next attack (until the end of your turn), we might make it so you can add your expertise bonus to your shot or something... I don't know. I like the overall idea and of course suggestions are welcome. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, if we tone down expertise we won't allow other character to get it via backgrounds, etc. like we currently do. So, they often have an edge due to expertise since the change in proficiency would affect them as well. This is what we are currently using and IMO it is better than RAW.</p><p></p><p>Level 1 (+2 prof):</p><p>Rogue, STR 10, Athletics expertise (+2) = +4</p><p>Fighter, STR 16, Athletics = +5</p><p></p><p>Level 5 (+3 prof):</p><p>Rogue, STR 10, Athletics expertise (+2) = +5</p><p>Fighter, STR 18, Athletics = +7</p><p></p><p>Level 11 (+5 prof):</p><p>Rogue, STR 12, Athletics expertise (+3) = +9</p><p>Fighter, STR 20, Athletics = +10</p><p></p><p>Level 20 (+8 prof):</p><p>Rogue, STR 12, Athletics expertise (+4) = +13</p><p>Fighter, STR 20, Athletics = +13</p><p></p><p>So, despite being substantially weaker, the rogue is nearly as good as the fighter. A rogue more focused in athletics and STR development, could be better. Once we capped ability mod at +4, and might return to that in which case the rogue would actually be better than the fighter at level 20.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It isn't a big factor, no. We don't dump many stats honestly, you might find a character once in a while with a 9, but 10 is the standard for low stat. The motivation is both a bit for balance and a bit for RL representation. We toyed with the idea of allowing Finesse to add DEX mod on top of STR mod for attack, but only STR for damage, but when you have a character with good STR and DEX, the cumulative bonus is really too high.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOL true!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, if they are actively trying they have a better chance--that part makes perfect sense. But, if the Oni's passive is 14, and the rogue rolls 15 or higher (most likely consider +12), then the oni has <em>NO</em> chance to notice the rogue unless the DM determines for some reason it chooses to actively scan at that moment (Sorry, you sneak-thief, just bad timing...) and then the contested roll happens.</p><p></p><p>And yes, the way we handle it does make it less effective, but that is because RAW the rogue was nearly impossible to find because so few creatures have 15+ passive perceptions. I mean, even earlier on the rogue was +10 back with RAW at level 5. Most creatures then only had passive scores of 10-14 at best. So, all the rogue needed was a 5 to be nearly undetectable. The DM decided that was just TOO good, and we are only talking the normal +3 proficiency, +3 expertise, and +4 DEX; nothing unusual there really.</p><p></p><p>So... meaningful, yes--certainly, overpowering, um--no.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Great, but that isn't how it works RAW. If they ruled passive was something like 5 + since DC 5 is "very easy" and your passive/routine should be good enough to always accomplish the very easy, that would make sense, but then it wouldn't be as "useful."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7641901, member: 6987520"] [B]New Cunning Action [/B][B]options[/B] [I]When you use your bonus action, you can choose to:[/I] [B]Free Movement.[/B] You ignore difficult terrain until the start of your next turn. [B]Misdirect.[/B] You choose one opponent you can see, and the next attack that opponent makes against you has disadvantage. [B]Take Aim.[/B] You gain advantage on your next ranged attack roll until the end of your turn. [B]Unbound.[/B] If you are grappled or restrained, you can make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to escape. We are currently play-testing these, but the idea was to represent the maneuverability of rogues. We tried to keep it balanced with two combat-oriented and two non-combat-oriented. Personally, instead of just being skill monkeys, I would to develop rogue is very versatile characters with more options for more things. So far, the only one we are sort of concerned with is Take Aim. Instead of granting advantage on your next attack (until the end of your turn), we might make it so you can add your expertise bonus to your shot or something... I don't know. I like the overall idea and of course suggestions are welcome. Well, if we tone down expertise we won't allow other character to get it via backgrounds, etc. like we currently do. So, they often have an edge due to expertise since the change in proficiency would affect them as well. This is what we are currently using and IMO it is better than RAW. Level 1 (+2 prof): Rogue, STR 10, Athletics expertise (+2) = +4 Fighter, STR 16, Athletics = +5 Level 5 (+3 prof): Rogue, STR 10, Athletics expertise (+2) = +5 Fighter, STR 18, Athletics = +7 Level 11 (+5 prof): Rogue, STR 12, Athletics expertise (+3) = +9 Fighter, STR 20, Athletics = +10 Level 20 (+8 prof): Rogue, STR 12, Athletics expertise (+4) = +13 Fighter, STR 20, Athletics = +13 So, despite being substantially weaker, the rogue is nearly as good as the fighter. A rogue more focused in athletics and STR development, could be better. Once we capped ability mod at +4, and might return to that in which case the rogue would actually be better than the fighter at level 20. It isn't a big factor, no. We don't dump many stats honestly, you might find a character once in a while with a 9, but 10 is the standard for low stat. The motivation is both a bit for balance and a bit for RL representation. We toyed with the idea of allowing Finesse to add DEX mod on top of STR mod for attack, but only STR for damage, but when you have a character with good STR and DEX, the cumulative bonus is really too high. LOL true! Sure, if they are actively trying they have a better chance--that part makes perfect sense. But, if the Oni's passive is 14, and the rogue rolls 15 or higher (most likely consider +12), then the oni has [I]NO[/I] chance to notice the rogue unless the DM determines for some reason it chooses to actively scan at that moment (Sorry, you sneak-thief, just bad timing...) and then the contested roll happens. And yes, the way we handle it does make it less effective, but that is because RAW the rogue was nearly impossible to find because so few creatures have 15+ passive perceptions. I mean, even earlier on the rogue was +10 back with RAW at level 5. Most creatures then only had passive scores of 10-14 at best. So, all the rogue needed was a 5 to be nearly undetectable. The DM decided that was just TOO good, and we are only talking the normal +3 proficiency, +3 expertise, and +4 DEX; nothing unusual there really. So... meaningful, yes--certainly, overpowering, um--no. Great, but that isn't how it works RAW. If they ruled passive was something like 5 + since DC 5 is "very easy" and your passive/routine should be good enough to always accomplish the very easy, that would make sense, but then it wouldn't be as "useful." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
Top