@Cap'n Kobold
Sure, they
can be sportsmen if they are good in athletics, but saying that an
expert in anything, the best of the best, must be either a bard or a rogue is ludicrous. Also how many sportsmen sneak attack and speak thieves' cant?
As far as your example of a music professor, knowledge of theory and application in performance are two separate skills. Most musicians have both as they are related, but it is certainly possible that a person could possess one without the other. A person can pick up a guitar and teach themselves to play, without ever knowing the notes. Another might be familiar with how an instrument works but can't play it at all. Again, two separate skills. However, we are talking about experts, and IME experts don't have theoretical knowledge without practical skills as well. Certainly one might carry a heavier weight than the other, but both are usually there.
Finesse means precisely what I would expect it to mean.
The problem is
not with expertise (it can cause some BA issues, but that is a different story), it is that only two classes have it. Again, for 5E this means a player has to have either level(s) in rogue or bard or be human or half-elf to get it. THAT, to me, is wrong and limiting. Sure, certain class features grant "double proficiency bonus", but not a lot of them (I've looked
).
Suppose my character is a Dwarf Fighter (STR 16, DEX 10, CHA 10) who has proficiency in Athletics (climbed a lot in the mountains and lifted heavy rocks, etc.). Now, say with a +4 proficiency bonus at 9th level he is +7. (Yeah, yeah, I know... even if you play to max out the prime state, ignoring many feats, at best he is +9.) His comrade, a Rogue (STR 12) has expertise in Athletics (primarily because he climbs and jumps), at at the same level is +9.
So,
why should the Rogue be 10% better even though the Fighter is stronger? Even if you argue a STR 20, they would be equal despite the Dwarf being insanely stronger and "as skilled as he can be", they would be equal at +9 just because the rogue has--what?--better technique??? What has he possibly learned that the fighter couldn't???
As a player of the Dwarf, I might feel a bit cheated by this and find it unrealistic. Now, you have the same two characters grapple each other, and the rogue will win more often than not. Maybe it is the fault that skills were too clumped up?
Now, you can argue but skills are the rogue's thing (and apparently the bard's too...) and my argument is why? Other than to give them a "thing" it serves no purpose other than denying expertise to other classes. If you want to be the "best" at a certain skill, rogue or bard is your only choice... again, limiting.
@Paul Farquhar
First, please stop telling me what to do. You don't own me or this thread. If you don't like what I have to say, you are always free to ignore my posts; I won't be offended.
As my response above shows, the classes of rogue and bard are more than just expertise, and being the best at something (i.e. expertise in 5E) means you either also can sneak attack or cast spells (bard), etc. which for many experts doesn't make any sense, either.
So, I am an Gnome expert in Insight, and decide to go adventuring, I guess I have to be a rogue or a bard then? But, but, I was hoping to be a cleric... I mean my background is an Acolyte (how I got Insight) and cleric makes sense... but oh, no, I can't be one without learning to be a rogue for at least a level. I guess my Insight simply can never be as good as the bard.
Monks were
not optional in 1E, that was the Bard. Monks were, however, listed out of alphabetical order because they were difficult to qualify for and deemed them possibly too powerful/deadly.
Finally, so anyone who wants to be the best (but can't because they lack a class feature) at a skill is just plain out of luck. Well, that is poor game design IMO.
