D&D 5E Replacing Expertise with Lucky

[Cap'n Kobold]

Seconded. Keep the game organic. Besides, expertise is for munchkins. We all know it.

Munchkins?

 

[Don Durito]

I’m unclear what you’re trying to accomplish with the reroll. Do you just want to limit the number of times per day rogues can benefit from their skill-enhancing feature?

Really I'd like to limit it to number of times per session (as per day is largely meaningless).

I guess I'd want to accomplish two things.
1) Make it so that the Rogue isn't always the go to to person for a particular area of skill. But is still exceptional when they need to be.
2) Actually give the Rogue a bit more reliability at low levels. Rogues in particular need reliability because a lot of the classic rogue thing is to put themselves in positions where failure is dangerous, and they may not have the immediate support of the party. A reroll is actually better than Advantage at reasonable DCs until very late in the game.

 

[Don Durito]

Or perhaps just limit the application of expertise to the skills on the class list. Thieves are good at thief stuff, sounds fair to me. That fixes the age old problem of the Rogue Arcana expert. As far as swingy goes, maybe advantage is a better option, stacking to elven accuracy when combined with an additional source of advantage. Just a thought.

In the end I probably will just do that. I'm just flirting with this idea.

 

[Charlaquin]

Really I'd like to limit it to number of times per session (as per day is largely meaningless).

I guess I'd want to accomplish two things.
1) Make it so that the Rogue isn't always the go to to person for a particular area of skill. But is still exceptional when they need to be.

I feel like that’s asking to take away the rogue’s niche. Would you want to make the Fighter not be the go-to person for fighting as well?

2) Actually give the Rogue a bit more reliability at low levels. Rogues in particular need reliability because a lot of the classic rogue thing is to put themselves in positions where failure is dangerous, and they may not have the immediate support of the party. A reroll is actually better than Advantage at reasonable DCs until very late in the game.

Ah, now that, I think, is a much more workable design goal. What about replacing expertise with reliable talent (for the chosen skills only)? Then the rogue is more reliable at their chosen areas of specialization, without having a higher ceiling than everyone else.

 

[Don Durito]

I feel like that’s asking to take away the rogue’s niche. Would you want to make the Fighter not be the go-to person for fighting as well?

The fighter isn't the go to person for Fighting - that's part of the issue. But I take the point that 'skill monkey' is built into the Rogue - however poor a design decision that may have been.

Possibly part of the answer is background proficiency. After all if the Rogue's background is "catburglar" it's obvious that creeping through the woods isn't part of their area of expertise.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Or perhaps just limit the application of expertise to the skills on the class list. Thieves are good at thief stuff, sounds fair to me. That fixes the age old problem of the Rogue Arcana expert. As far as swingy goes, maybe advantage is a better option, stacking to elven accuracy when combined with an additional source of advantage. Just a thought.

Limiting expertise to Rogue only skills works well for Rogues (and I liked it a lot and suggested it in another thread myself). Even allowing Bard to choose any skill isn't bad, especially since our house-rule allows other classes to get expertise in one background skill.

 

[Don Durito]

Limiting expertise to Rogue only skills works well for Rogues (and I liked it a lot and suggested it in another thread myself). Even allowing Bard to choose any skill isn't bad, especially since our house-rule allows other classes to get expertise in one background skill.

The problem is though that the Rogue skill list includes all the best skills anyway.

The rogue can still be a better Athlete than a Fighter or Barbarian, make the stealthy Ranger redundant in the wild, and take Persuasion and be better than everyone in the social pillar (unless you have a bard who can do the same thing).

But perhaps a narrower list is the way to go.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The problem is though that the Rogue skill list includes all the best skills anyway.

The rogue can still be a better Athlete than a Fighter or Barbarian, make the stealthy Ranger redundant in the wild, and take Persuasion and be better than everyone in the social pillar (unless you have a bard who can do the same thing).

But perhaps a narrower list is the way to go.

This is why we allow any character to gain expertise at level 1 via sacking one background skill for expertise in the other. A fighter with a solider background, could have expertise in either Athletics or Intimidation by giving up proficiency in the other skill. So, a rogue with expertise in Athletics could be as good as any character with a soldier background who also chooses expertise in Athletics, etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1) Make it so that the Rogue isn't always the go to to person for a particular area of skill.

But that is the whole point of rogues.

The rogue can still be a better Athlete than a Fighter or Barbarian

Yes, of course. If you wanted to make a professional sportsperson character rogue would be the way to go. Because rogues are all about being really skilled at things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem is though that the Rogue skill list includes all the best skills anyway.

The rogue can still be a better Athlete than a Fighter or Barbarian, make the stealthy Ranger redundant in the wild, and take Persuasion and be better than everyone in the social pillar (unless you have a bard who can do the same thing).

But perhaps a narrower list is the way to go.

Do you actually have any players doing this? If not, then it doesn't matter. If no one uses an allowable rule, then that rule might as well not even exist.

Until you actually have a game where you have both a Fighter and a Rogue with high STR and Expertise in Athletics who is consistently out-performing the Fighter in Athletic endeavors to the point where it is noticeable and irritating to the Fighter player... or you have a game with both a Paladin and a Rogue with high CHA and Expertise in Persuasion who is consistently taking opportunities away from the Paladin for rolling checks during interactions... the fact that the rules in a white-room might eventually at 20th level allow a rogue to be "best" at it is irrelevant.

And besides which... none of these classes are actually supposed to be the "best" at certain specific skills. And we know this because no classes are forced to take them. You can have Wizards who don't know Arcana. You can have Clerics that don't know Religion. Rangers without Stealth, Fighters without Athletics. So in no way should we even be claiming that these classes are supposed to be the best at them, and not the Rogue. If these classes were designed such that they were supposed to be the best, they would have received these skills automatically.