Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 6858906" data-attributes="member: 6750235">I'm not sure why that was left out when we had something like expertise for each class in a play test package iirc.I assumed it was left out intentionally and find that it's only a concern if DM's rely on inflated DC's for some reason.&nbsp; As long as the DM isn't going overboard with high DC's then lack of expertise for each class doesn't matter.&nbsp; Simply taking proficiency in a skill that matches a high ability score is pretty similar to expertise (and normally better than) in a proficiency without the high ability score (such as rogues or bards with perception and lacking WIS investment as a typical example).The randomness also only exists if a DM insists on rolling dice for everything.&nbsp; Checks don't need to be made if there is no risk, so standard actions outside of combat don't require rolls, actions attempted during combat should be risky and dicey, and not that many checks are necessary in combat because combat attacks are much more common than ability checks.Having said that, we use the general rule that if a roll of 10 would succeed and there is no specific danger that might interfere then there's no need to roll.&nbsp; Someone with a +5 bonus can hit a 15 DC just as easily as someone with no bonus can hit a 10 DC so the roll itself wouldn't make sense in the 15 DC case.&nbsp; That removes randomness that shouldn't reasonably exist while still rewarding bonuses with success on higher DC's.&nbsp; This does conflict a bit with reliable talent and the thing to remember is that rogues will still have more skill proficiencies (therefore more auto success abilities at higher DC's), expertise, applied minimum roll as opposed to auto success and in combat, and the benefit even if they don't have a big enough bonus to normally auto succeed at the higher DC.We also allow a character to spend a feat once for expertise in a proficient skill if they really want it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 6858906, member: 6750235"] I'm not sure why that was left out when we had something like expertise for each class in a play test package iirc. I assumed it was left out intentionally and find that it's only a concern if DM's rely on inflated DC's for some reason. As long as the DM isn't going overboard with high DC's then lack of expertise for each class doesn't matter. Simply taking proficiency in a skill that matches a high ability score is pretty similar to expertise (and normally better than) in a proficiency without the high ability score (such as rogues or bards with perception and lacking WIS investment as a typical example). The randomness also only exists if a DM insists on rolling dice for everything. Checks don't need to be made if there is no risk, so standard actions outside of combat don't require rolls, actions attempted during combat should be risky and dicey, and not that many checks are necessary in combat because combat attacks are much more common than ability checks. Having said that, we use the general rule that if a roll of 10 would succeed and there is no specific danger that might interfere then there's no need to roll. Someone with a +5 bonus can hit a 15 DC just as easily as someone with no bonus can hit a 10 DC so the roll itself wouldn't make sense in the 15 DC case. That removes randomness that shouldn't reasonably exist while still rewarding bonuses with success on higher DC's. This does conflict a bit with reliable talent and the thing to remember is that rogues will still have more skill proficiencies (therefore more auto success abilities at higher DC's), expertise, applied minimum roll as opposed to auto success and in combat, and the benefit even if they don't have a big enough bonus to normally auto succeed at the higher DC. We also allow a character to spend a feat once for expertise in a proficient skill if they really want it. [/QUOTE]

Verification