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

[mrpopstar]

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 player describes what her character is trying to do (in this case, decipher an esoteric symbol). The Dungeon Master decides whether the outcome of that attempt is certain to succeed (in this case, very easy to decipher), certain to fail (in this case, impossible to decipher), or uncertain (in this case, somewhere between very easy and impossible to decipher).

The point I'm trying to make is that the description of each lore skill (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion) uses the word recall. An ability check that tests a lore skill is measuring your ability to remember and recollect knowledge you presumably hold.

 

[mrpopstar]

To be fair, the natural explorer ability does replicate expertise. Rangers simply have less control over rolls in which the double proficiency applies.

Ah, very true!

 

[Rhenny]

Great ideas. I can't get to my computer to respond, but I like the way this is building. When I get some time I'll reply to some of the comments. I like that a number of you feel that there needs to be niche protection for rogues and bards. I also like what was said about not calling for rolls for many knowledge checks that should be in a classes wheel house.

 

[Satyrn]

The point I'm trying to make is that the description of each lore skill (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion) uses the word recall. An ability check that tests a lore skill is measuring your ability to remember and recollect knowledge you presumably hold.

I try not to get hung up on a single word, like recall, when I'm figuring out how to use the rules. In this specific case, I interpret "recall" to mean something much broader, not just to see if he recalls something, but also if he "knows and recalls" (as you've noted up thread that other people do too).

And beyond that I'll happily use the knowledge skills to apply when the character is interpreting a similar that he couldn't possibly know, but it's related to those he doesn't, the way I might reasonably guess at the meaning of a Spanish word that's similar to the French and Italian words I know.

I like to use the skills broadly as possible.

 

[mrpopstar]

Great ideas. I can't get to my computer to respond, but I like the way this is building. When I get some time I'll reply to some of the comments. I like that a number of you feel that there needs to be niche protection for rogues and bards. I also like what was said about not calling for rolls for many knowledge checks that should be in a classes wheel house.

Protect the niches!

I try not to get hung up on a single word, like recall, when I'm figuring out how to use the rules. In this specific case, I interpret "recall" to mean something much broader, not just to see if he recalls something, but also if he "knows and recalls" (as you've noted up thread that other people do too).

Even when the single word in question is used repetitiously in the form of a standard?

I like to use the skills broadly as possible.

I'm with you, and I fully support.

 

[Satyrn]

Even when the single word in question is used repetitiously in the form of a standard?

Aye. Like letting wizards use their spells creatively, I would like all players to use their skills creatively, and that requires a broad interpretation of what is standard.

 

[mrpopstar]

Aye. Like letting wizards use their spells creatively, I would like all players to use their skills creatively, and that requires a broad interpretation of what is standard.

Broad like you would call for a Strength (Athletics) check to determine whether or not a character knows how to climb?

 

[Rhenny]

when it comes to skills you get them from from class and background and in some cases race.
In the rules as they are now if you get the same skill from more then one cource you must chose another skill instead.

Instead I might consider that if you get a skill from 2 sources you get dubble proficiency bonus in that skill.
and edit expertise so you can't apply it to a skill you already have dubble proficiency bonus in.

I like this because it works within the system. It is pretty simple and it forces a choice where to get double proficiency, the PC has to give up a proficiency. Cool.

I lik

 

[Rhenny]

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.




Is randomness really the issue? I'm inclined to believe that the Dungeon Master is the issue.

The DM should only call for a Strength (Athletics) check when a character attempts an action that has a chance of failure that justifies a potential KO. Otherwise, randomness has been introduced inappropriately.

Good points. DM can always just give appropriate information to the most likely PC. That keeps the game moving and rewards class/background choices.

I even had the idea to try playing without proficiencies entirely. Instead, just grant a proficiency die bonus (like in one of the playtest packages) if the action seems to fall within Class/Race/Background. This would be a much more free form story mode playstyle, but it's something that I may try out some time.

(Oh...and I do hear you and others with the plea for niche protection)

 

[Rhenny]

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.

I can see this too. If proficiency could stack so that double proficiency could be gained at some level (maybe even setting a level limit where double proficiency can't be done until - like 5th or 6th) then the "Skilled" Feat might be worth more too.