NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9168412" data-attributes="member: 7030563">When expertise is part of the Rogue (and Bard and Ranger) classes, then those classes are going to be better than any other at the skills they want to be good at.The Rogue class is about being better than anyone else at the skills she chooses to be better than anyone else at, that is really the point of the class IMO.You and I are just going to have to disagree on this, and the feats are there for a reason.  The whole reason the feat exists is to allow Wizards (and others) to get expertise.  A Wizard needs to invest in a feat to get expertise and a Rogue needs to invest in a feat (or a subclass) to cast spells.I would not have a problem with a Wizard subclass that gave Arcana expertise, but it should not be a class feature IMO.While I am at it a Knowledge Cleric and a Rune Knight Fighter with Arcana proficiency will also beat a Wizard.If you try to make your 3E Rogue better than a Wizard at Alchemy and Scrying she is not going to be viable.  You did not have that "choice" like you do in 5E.Another example - I want my Wizard to wield a Greatsword and hit hard.  Easy to do in 5E, in 3E the BAB means this is just not doable, so while I could in theory play a Wizard that maxes strength at every opportunity and takes power attack, their low BAB would make the character not viable.  If that is your "vision" you are SOL in 3E.  In 5E there is more than one way to execute this vision and be viable.</blockquote>

Verification