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

[Nagol]

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.

So, should each class have an expertise mechanic (like the rogue or bard) so that key checks can double the proficiency bonus? (Like Fighters can pick from Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidate; Rangers pick from Animal Handling, Perception, Survival, Nature, etc.) Perhaps choosing 1 every 4 or 5 levels?

Or, should there be a feat that grants a few so that anyone can gain expertise if the table uses feats?

Or, should a DM just let PCs that seem to have key requisites succeed without rolling at all? (i.e Cleric with training in Religion should be able to automatically succeed on a DC 10 Religion check -

What are some other options people have to address these situations where a PCs should be better in a key proficiency?

I'd suggest a different approach: different types of tests.

• General knowledge/trivia: standard roll anyone can try.
• Something anyone trained was exposed to but may not remember: standard roll, trained gets a +n bonus.
• Something anyone trained "should" know: Anyone who is trained is told the answer, no roll needed. Others may roll.
• Something only the initiated are told: Player was told answer and wll hopefully remember. Assuming the player forgets, only that player may roll to remember.

The first case covers the majority of the typical in-the-field player initiated cases. I find the last two cover the majority of "story" cases where there is a narrative expectation someone in the party knows a fact.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

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.

So, should each class have an expertise mechanic (like the rogue or bard) so that key checks can double the proficiency bonus? (Like Fighters can pick from Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidate; Rangers pick from Animal Handling, Perception, Survival, Nature, etc.) Perhaps choosing 1 every 4 or 5 levels?

Or, should there be a feat that grants a few so that anyone can gain expertise if the table uses feats?

Or, should a DM just let PCs that seem to have key requisites succeed without rolling at all? (i.e Cleric with training in Religion should be able to automatically succeed on a DC 10 Religion check -

What are some other options people have to address these situations where a PCs should be better in a key proficiency?

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.

 

[mrpopstar]

No the skill classes lost a lot of their uniqueness over the editions as class exclusive skills turned into stuff anyone can get via back ground or MCing. Maybe expertise with some rangers or barbarians in survival might make sense as Rangers for example used to be really good trackers. Expertise is somewhat unique to the skill based classes.

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.

No. I prefer skills to not be class based. Though if everyone could get expertise by taking the skill twice, that could work.

That said, it wouldn't really solve randomness. Rolling 1 when on the wrong athletics check can KO you with or without double proficiency.

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.

 

[fixitgeek]

The way I am looking at this as the roll is there when needed otherwise it is trivial knowledge. But just because some is trained in a skill, in this example a knowledge, does not mean they will always be the one getting the proper answer. The first thing to look at, DCs in this edition are not anywhere close to what they used to be. Next just because say your cleric knows a lot about religion doesn't make them the encyclopedia of religion. A fighter might have heard a tale or bit of knowledge somewhere growing up about the particular nugget of wisdom, that is what the roll represents here. Expertise should not be an every class thing. It's one of the few things unique about a rogue and jack of all trades has always been bard only. The rogue is meant to be the one with lots of skills. The bard is meant to know a little bit about everything.

 

[bid]

Perhaps something more like this:
Raise any single stat by +1
Choose two skills/tools that you are proficient in which use that stat, and your prof. bonus is doubled when making checks using those proficiencies with the raised stat.

Just adapt skilled to allow a single boost to expertise and 2 proficiencies.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

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.

 

[mellored]

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.

I'd still rather have more shades of success than all-or-nothing.

For instance...

if you fail a climb check, you can lose hit points equal to the twice the difference needed. i.e. if you fail by 5, you can spend 10 HP to not fall.
And you can climb 5' for each point you succeed by, up to your speed. i.e. if you succeed by 3, you can climb 15'.


Win/Lose is simpler, but a bit too simple IMO.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I don't require rolls where something should be basic knowledge. Clerics would know the basic tenets of and myths related to their own faith, for example. They might have role for questions of what other faiths believe depending on how familiar the cleric would be with those faiths.

In reality though, while I see the theoretical issue, in game I have never seen it come up in any manner that struck me. I am sure I have said to some character "Well you would know that...." without calling for a roll, but I have never seen anyone have an issue that the book smart wizard knows more than the cleric about religion. That may be because I'd almost always make the wizard role a Religion check in cases where I wouldn't require it of the cleric.

 

[mrpopstar]

The way I am looking at this as the roll is there when needed otherwise it is trivial knowledge. But just because some is trained in a skill, in this example a knowledge, does not mean they will always be the one getting the proper answer. The first thing to look at, DCs in this edition are not anywhere close to what they used to be. Next just because say your cleric knows a lot about religion doesn't make them the encyclopedia of religion. A fighter might have heard a tale or bit of knowledge somewhere growing up about the particular nugget of wisdom, that is what the roll represents here.

Hmm... I disagree that an Intelligence (Religion) roll represents nuggets of wisdom that a character might have heard or acquired somewhere in their past. It's not intended that rolls instruct the Dungeon Master on what lore your character knows.

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.

 

[mrpopstar]

I'd still rather have more shades of success than all-or-nothing.

I fully support degrees of success and failure!