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

[mrpopstar]

Yes, you are.

Thanks!

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.

Definitely don't mean to imply that you're wrong for doing so. In all honesty, I see most people playing that way.

My inspiration to post was in response to the misplaced criticism (in this thread and others) regarding randomness. Things get wonky when you invite or employ randomness inappropriately, and ability checks related to knowledge stand out to me as a prime example of that fact.

 

[Satyrn]

My inspiration to post was in response to the misplaced criticism (in this thread and others) regarding randomness. Things get wonky when you invite or employ randomness inappropriately, and ability checks related to knowledge stand out to me as a prime example of that fact.

Indeed.

It's why I think I call for too many checks when I should rather just be letting the Wizard player know what most sigils mean. After all, if he can recognize it, then the barbarian don't even bother trying and I would avoid the wonkiness of that situation.

 

[mrpopstar]

Indeed.

It's why I think I call for too many checks when I should rather just be letting the Wizard player know what most sigils mean. After all, if he can recognize it, then the barbarian don't even bother trying and I would avoid the wonkiness of that situation.

EXACTLY!

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Am I making sense?

Yes, even though you are using words I don't find to be a good fit, it seems we agree on the principle of the matter being basically the following process:

Player says what their character is trying to do (in this case, think up something relevant to current circumstances). DM decides if the outcome of that attempt is certain to succeed, certain to fail, or uncertain (in this case, if the character knows, doesn't know, or might know something relevant to current circumstances). DM calls for a roll of some sort to resolve any uncertainty the outcome might have.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Bear in mind that that is representing a person of only average intelligence directly compared to a one-in-1000-or-less bona fide genius-level intellect.

Who is a one-on-1000-or-less bona fide genius-level intellect? Are you talking about the wizard in the party?

Even if we assume that NPC stats are governed by 3d6 in order rather than 4d6 drop lowest, then one-in-64 humans will have Int 18 or 19 before experience comes into play. (And those gifted students would be much more-likely-than-average to pursue Wizardry beyond a simple apprentice-ship. If we want to talk about default generic setting assumptions, then the average Mage is level 9.)

Either genius-level intellects are much more common in the game world than they are in our real world, or Int 20 is not a genius-level intellect. (Given that it only gives +5 to relevant checks, on the scale of a d20 being rolled, I'm more inclined to believe the latter than the former.)

 

[Azzy]

A number of posts in other threads mention randomness in D&D, and how that might be off-putting to some, and in some situations it just plain goes against the story.

For example, someone used the example of the cleric that has a 10 intelligence. For that cleric, even at mid level, his trained religion check would be only a 13 or 14 while even an untrained wizard of the same level would most likely be equal to or better (depending on Intelligence score of course). This is only one example, but many others exist.

Personally, I don't find this problematic in the slightest given that the cleric's Proficiency Bonus will increase as the character goes up in level.

Using your cleric and wizard above, let's say the wizard a 20 Int (say, a gnome that rolled really well), and that both are first level. The cleric will have a +2 (straight Proficiency Bonus), while the wizard has +5 (solely from Int)—that's a 15% better chance in the wizard's favor. The wizard's potential is maxed out, so that's it for her. The cleric, on the other hand will have a +3 at 5th level, +4 at 9th, +5 at 1, and +6 at 17th level. Additionally, the cleric could use Ability Score Improvements to boost his Int (not likely, but it's possible).

Also, I don't like the idea of giving other characters Expertise because it detracts from the Rogue's ability as well as certain racial abilities.

 

[Mouseferatu]

One of my players is very upset that his Barbarian can't get "better" at intimidation without multiclassing Bard or Rogue.

Sure he can. Raise his Charisma.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Who is a one-on-1000-or-less bona fide genius-level intellect? Are you talking about the wizard in the party?

Even if we assume that NPC stats are governed by 3d6 in order rather than 4d6 drop lowest, then one-in-64 humans will have Int 18 or 19 before experience comes into play. (And those gifted students would be much more-likely-than-average to pursue Wizardry beyond a simple apprentice-ship. If we want to talk about default generic setting assumptions, then the average Mage is level 9.)

Either genius-level intellects are much more common in the game world than they are in our real world, or Int 20 is not a genius-level intellect. (Given that it only gives +5 to relevant checks, on the scale of a d20 being rolled, I'm more inclined to believe the latter than the former.)

Generally only the elite (including PCs) even get to use Player Character methods of determining ability scores. Assuming that every NPC gets to roll their scores at all is extremely unusual. Even when using the standard array for PCs, the vast majority of NPCs don't start with any ability over 12.

 

[Ashrym]

I agree! Expertise is a skill-based class thing, and I like that it's somewhat unique.

Would definitely like to see the Ranger gain some expertise. -- Seems only fitting.

To be fair, the natural explorer ability does replicate expertise. Rangers simply have less control over rolls in which the double proficiency applies. Half elf or skilled feat can actually replicate a bonus similar to expertise in a lot of proficient skills.

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.

Your player is misinformed. He gets "better" automatically because proficiency in the skill increases with levels. He goes from +2 to +6 to measure his increase in ability over time. This is different from previous editions like 3e where the only way to get better was to purchase additional points. Now the points are freely applied with proficiency bonus. It's also not like he doesn't have the opportunity to gain new skills via downtime training or spending a feat, and he can further increase his check bonus in intimidation by investing in CHA or providing a reasonable argument to use a different ability modifier.

He obviously gets better in having learned the proficiency. It sounds like he's hung up on "if you aren't first you're last" and sees expertise in intimidation combined with high CHA and feels lacking because his choices didn't allow for such extreme focus. Of course, he could always MC for it as well. Learning expertise is as easy as taking levels in another class that already has expertise.

If he has a concept, all he needs to do is make the choices to build it. 5e is pretty flexible.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Generally only the elite (including PCs) even get to use Player Character methods of determining ability scores. Assuming that every NPC gets to roll their scores at all is extremely unusual. Even when using the standard array for PCs, the vast majority of NPCs don't start with any ability over 12.

Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of humans in the world are between 8 and 12 for all stats? That the difference between the best and the worst within any given village is only five percent from average? That everyone who isn't a hero or villain has an IQ tightly clustered around 100?

Because that distribution would be way less reasonable than Int 19 being five-in-1000. If your NPC distributions are different from your PC distributions, then any weirdness from that model is going to skew your world design far more than the actual numbers would.