Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 6861990" data-attributes="member: 4348">I can see both sides of the point.If it were a limited thing, and NOT the expertise of a Rogue, I think the Rogue may still have it's niche protection.  Part of the reason for Expertise as I see it, is because the senseless reduction of the Rogue's key arena in prior editions.  Individuals would think Rogues were not needed or useless because they could replicate anything a Rogue could do with another class.Expertise makes it so the Rogue is the skill expert.  Rogues also were able to be the trapfinder, lockpicker, pickpocket, and other Theif/Rogue type ideals in AD&D.  However, in later editions this wasn't necessarily always the fact.  With Expertise, the Rogue has the option to become the default on these, as with their intial skill choices, the Rogue is more likely to have expertise in a field that is a traditional Rogue field if the player has that desire.If we limit the other classes to things like this to ONE area or ONE skill where they could do the same thing as expertise, but with that ONE skill only, I don't see a problem.   Perhaps the Cleric could have that as Religion, the Ranger as Survival, the Barbarian as Intimidate.That also allows those classes to accentuate what has been their forte in the past.  It's goes along with how their classes were described, and allows them excel in checks.If one simply says, if you have the skill you succeed, I see it as also undermining the Rogue.  What's the purpose of expertise if you never roll skill checks in the first place?  If you ONLY make the Rogue roll, the Rogue will soon feel that you are unfairly applying skill checks to Rogue skills and no one else.Having a VERY limited idea of Expertise for other classes in their traditional skill focuses means that skill rolls and expertise still have value, but that each class also has their traditional areas where they are the best...remaining.On the otherhand, I can see a problem with this.  Who decides what skills represent each class?  What is to prevent a fighter from saying...this should be applied to their Attack bonuses or Weapon Proficiencies?  Afterall, the argument could be made that this is where the Fighter has traditionally excelled, and I've seen it as a complaint in regards to Bounded accuracy occasionally (the old, wizard gets the same weapon proficiency bonus as martials type thing).What if one doesn't agree intimidation is the Barbarian skill, or Religion isn't a cleric arena (as we have actually already seen in this very thread).  Furthermore, doesn't this start to undermine Bounded Accuracy if we grant everyone a way to do this, even if it's a limited basis.Why didn't we just go with a +4 to +12 in the first place, if this is the case.I can see the benefits of the idea where you apply a type of expertise ability to key skills for a class and I think it has merit.  I also can see how this can disrupt the spirit of Bounded accuracy and especially start trouncing on the Rogue's key arena.At the end of the day, I think if I had to make the choice, a LIMITED form of what the OP suggests doesn't trouble me.  I would rather have the option to do so, or MORE options available, than less.  I think it will be difficult to decide exactly WHAT skills or abilities that applies to, and in some ways it could be controversial.  For that reason I think it would be fine to houserule such an idea, or if WotC wants, to suggest it as an option, but I'm not certain applying it in the official rules is the best idea for a default class setting.</blockquote>

Verification