D&D 5E Should each class get its own version of expertise?

[Jediking]

The DM determines what knowledge your character has, and then uses a check to measure your ability to recall something from that knowledge base. A fighter with no religious background, and no proficiency with Religion as a skill, should not be granted the opportunity to randomly recall nuggets of information. -- This is where the whole "randomness produces wonky outcomes"-thing arises.

I do agree with this to an extent. Sometimes I'll call for certain checks for only those who are proficient, or single out the character that took the lead. But if it feels wonky to you, find an explanation that works.

So even if the Barbarian manages to ace his Arcana check when the Wizard flubs it, as the DM don't just tell him how he knows that. This Outlander Barbarian somehow came across a rare piece of Arcane knowledge. How? Let the player quickly make up something interesting and keep it in mind. It's now part of his background, permanently. Whether it ever comes up again or affects anything is up to the DM and player, but some piece of the Barbarian's past is now set.

But I like to keep backgrounds pretty general and let my players fill in specifics over time, so YMMV.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The DM determines what knowledge your character has, and then uses a check to measure your ability to recall something from that knowledge base.

I don't think that meshes very well with what 5th edition says in its "How to Play" section, at least not in the way you've phrased it.

If the DM determines the character knows something (meaning that it is definitely in the character's "knowledge base" to borrow your phrasing), then there is no call for a roll - that information is just known.

If the DM determines the character doesn't know something (meaning it is definitely not in the character's "knowledge base" to keep your phrasing), then there is no call for a roll - that information just isn't known.

Only if the DM is not sure whether the character knows or doesn't know the information (meaning it might be in the "knowledge base" of the character or it might not be) is there a call for a roll.

 

[mrpopstar]

So even if the Barbarian manages to ace his Arcana check when the Wizard flubs it, as the DM don't just tell him how he knows that. This Outlander Barbarian somehow came across a rare piece of Arcane knowledge. How? Let the player quickly make up something interesting and keep it in mind. It's now part of his background, permanently. Whether it ever comes up again or affects anything is up to the DM and player, but some piece of the Barbarian's past is now set.

Why would the Dungeon Master call for an Intelligence (Arcana) check before it was established that the barbarian has a knowledge base from which to recall information?

Requesting justification for knowledge after an ability check has been made rewards player ingenuity, not character experience. -- Right?

 

[mrpopstar]

I don't think that meshes very well with what 5th edition says in its "How to Play" section, at least not in the way you've phrased it.

Could be my phrasing.

If the DM determines the character knows something (meaning that it is definitely in the character's "knowledge base" to borrow your phrasing), then there is no call for a roll - that information is just known.

If the DM determines that the character has a knowledge base from which to recall information, then he would call for an ability check to determine if the character is successful in doing so.

If the DM determines the character doesn't know something (meaning it is definitely not in the character's "knowledge base" to keep your phrasing), then there is no call for a roll - that information just isn't known.

If the DM determines that the character does not have a knowledge base from which to recall information, then he would not call for an ability check.

Only if the DM is not sure whether the character knows or doesn't know the information (meaning it might be in the "knowledge base" of the character or it might not be) is there a call for a roll.

Technically, the DM must have determined that the character has a knowledge base from which to recall information, otherwise he wouldn't be calling for an ability check to determine if the character is successful. -- Does that make sense?

The distinction I'm trying to make is that the DM should not being checking to see if the character who knows nothing about arcana knows something about arcana. They either have a knowledge base to draw from, or they don't. Otherwise, the wonkiness of randomness presents itself.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Could be my phrasing.

It is definitely your phrasing. You seemed to be saying that if the DM decides you know something that the DM would ask you to roll to remember that you know that thing - but what it turns out that you are saying if the DM determines that you might know something the DM would call for a roll that decides whether you do or don't know.

The problem that remains is that you seem not to have any coverage for "Yes, your character definitely knows that" situations with your phrasing.

 

[mrpopstar]

The problem that remains is that you seem not to have any coverage for "Yes, your character definitely knows that" situations with your phrasing.

I've been operating under the assumption that such a determination precludes an ability check, which is the topic at hand.

If you know something, you just know it. — Ability checks are not a part of that equation.



EDIT: Of course, this folds back on my point that the DM determines character knowledge.

 

[mrpopstar]

It is definitely your phrasing. You seemed to be saying that if the DM decides you know something that the DM would ask you to roll to remember that you know that thing - but what it turns out that you are saying if the DM determines that you might know something the DM would call for a roll that decides whether you do or don't know.

What I'm saying is that the DM decides if you have knowledge, and calls for a check to see if you can successfully recall something specific from that knowledge.

Ability checks related to knowledge skills are a test of recall, not a test of whether you do or don't know. (Seems like an exercise in semantics, but the semantic distinction is important. There isn't a question of you having the knowledge, there's a question of you being able to apply it in this instance.)

Am I making sense?

 

[Xeviat]

I'm starting to wonder if characters should get extra proficiencies as they gain levels, and then those extra proficiencies could be used to buy "Expertise" at certain points. One of my players is very upset that his Barbarian can't get "better" at intimidation without multiclassing Bard or Rogue.

 

[Satyrn]

What I'm saying is that the DM decides if you have knowledge, and calls for a check to see if you can successfully recall something specific from that knowledge.

Ability checks related to knowledge skills are a test of recall, not a test of whether you do or don't know. (Seems like an exercise in semantics, but the semantic distinction is important. There isn't a question of you having the knowledge, there's a question of you being able to apply it in this instance.)

Am I making sense?

Yes, you are.

I don't play that way, though. Not just that way, anyway. Sometimes, the check is indeed to determine if a character knows something, like that barbarian making the Arcana check upthread.

And I kinda feel like I should reduce the number of times I call for a check on the memory part of it.

 

[steeldragons]

Should each class get its own version of expertise?

No.

They have their skills to which they add proficiency. That's all they need.

Expertise, as a 5e mechanic, is a niche..."need", really,...for the [Rogue and, arguably, Ranger] classes that are dependent on non-combat, non-magic /skills/.

And that is what it should stay. Giving every class its own version of expertise falls squarely under the heading of "When everyone is special, no one is."