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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Replacing Expertise with Lucky
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: 7897616" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p>[USER=6802951]@Cap'n Kobold[/USER] </p><p></p><p>Sure, they <em>can</em> be sportsmen if they are good in athletics, but saying that an <em>expert</em> 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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Finesse means precisely what I would expect it to mean.</p><p></p><p>The problem is <em>not</em> 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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> ).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, <em>why</em> 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???</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[USER=6906155]@Paul Farquhar[/USER] </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p>Monks were <em>not</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7897616, member: 6987520"] [USER=6802951]@Cap'n Kobold[/USER] Sure, they [I]can[/I] be sportsmen if they are good in athletics, but saying that an [I]expert[/I] 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 [I]not[/I] 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, [I]why[/I] 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. [USER=6906155]@Paul Farquhar[/USER] 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 [I]not[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Replacing Expertise with Lucky
Top