D&D 5E Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Was the smile at the end of my sentence unclear in some way?

Yeah, it was, mostly because I am used to your posting history on more than just this board so that easily read as "duh, it's this easy, you dummy." It's not like you haven't done that before.

So, maybe don't pin your lack of clarity on others? :winkgun:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
I think this is just standard RAW. Otherwise it would not be possible for bards to use all 4 of their expertise slots, since they only have 3 class skills that they can select. They must be able to pick from their backgrounds in order to fill in that last slot. Also, expertise just says pick from proficiencies, not class proficiencies, so they can select any skill they know.

A slight misunderstanding perhaps. A fighter with the soldier background, for example, has proficiency in athletics and intimidation. Our house-rule is the fighter can choose to have expertise in athletics, but at the expense of intimidation. The player could then use one of the Fighter skill choices to still take intimidation if he wanted to, but otherwise the skill is never learned.

A bard, as you say, has 3 class slots and 2 background from whatever they choose. If the player takes expertise in one background and loses the other, then the 4 expertise slots would be used on the 3 class skills and the 4th would be lost unless the character gained more skills before level 10 (which for bards, is very possible really).

Niche protection is an outdated concept that shackles character builds more than it helps them. The best thing to do with the Rogue class would be delete it and give the skill-enhancing bits to the Fighter.

Besides, everyone always goes on about Rogues when talking about Expertise as if there wasn't a Bard in the room trying desperately to not get noticed while stealing the spotlight and upstaging everyone.

LOL, we're not ignoring the bard, but he isn't even in the room in our case. We had one bard character, which the player abandoned because they sort of suck really and is now playing a druid. However, any changes we make to expertise would of course apply to any bard that joins us. :)

Oh, don't worry, I'm not literally slamming my head on the table. The hair I've pulled out, on the other hand...

What, and just leave other rogue players everywhere to fend for themselves against the onslaught? I mean, granted, they are pretty good at avoiding taking serious injuries from barrages of barbed house rules, but still.

I mean... obviously everyone here is going to do that. I figure the point of a discussion about a proposed house rule is to get other people's perspectives and become better aware of the consequences.

You do the finesse thing too? Do you allow non-finesse weapons to add strength to the attack roll? If you do that but you don't give finesse weapons DEX to damage, then I ask: which of your pets or loved ones was assassinated by a rogue?

Glad to hear you aren't hurting yourself! Of course, I understand about the hair but at this point have none left to loose. :)

As for standing up for the rogues, they do well enough at our table. We even added four new cunning action features (Free Movement, Misdirect, Take Aim, and Unbound) so they are even more versatile in their actions.

Actually, I am not concerned with the consequences since anything we implement will have the numbers balance out to match RAW. I started the thread because of the desire to move some of the potential contribution from ability scores and expertise back to proficiency like in other games.

If you have no ability modifier due to a 10 ability and no expertise, the current improvement for proficiency alone during all 20 levels is only +4, which is just pathetic really. Our current idea with proficiency maxing at +11 would increase that to a +9 difference over the 20 levels. This appeals to our table much more. I understand it is a different mindset on what the three features represent, shifting abilities back to more simply natural talent and taking all training out of them. Expertise would represent a one-time boost, but right now it ranges from +2 to +4 at our table depending on level.

I think in some ways the labels the chose also leads to some misunderstanding. With our idea, skill, ability, and focus would be better terms than proficiency, ability, and expertise; but who wants to argue semantics?

About finesse, et al., Finesse can add STR or DEX to attack, but all weapon damage is based on STR for bonuses except Loading weapons, which don't get bonuses to damage. And to answer your question, no one was assassinated. :) Considering our main rogue is the assassin archetype, you might think he was opposed to this finesse change, but he really wasn't. Sure, he lost a couple points to damage, but rogues have gained other features which make them still just viable or even better. He is enjoying his character as much as ever. :)

I picked Cloud Giant more or less randomly from the first several alphabetical entries in a list of CR 9 monsters (since we're talking about a level 9 PC, an encounter against one is considered medium) with proficiency in Perception; outside restricting to perception proficiency it wasn't cherry-picked, I promise. My group recently infiltrated a fire giant lair at level 10, and my rogue did a lot of sneaking around, so that's what I had in mind. In any case, if a monster isn't even proficient in perception, then a stealth expert should certainly have a near-guarantee of not being heard by them, IMO (they still need to stay out of line of sight; a successful stealth check doesn't automatically mean you aren't noticed).

But let's dial back the monster's passive perception to 14, say (sticking with the giant theme, maybe they're Onis). Now the rogue with stealth +12 needs a natural 3 or better; so they have a 90% chance of success against passive perception. Still a meaningful failure chance given the stakes, in my opinion. Against one creature's active roll, it's down to about 80%. Against two creatures' active rolls it's down to 70%.

Do you really think that a level 9 character who chose to become an expert at stealth and finds a way in somewhere that keeps them out of sight should have a more than 1/5 chance of accidentally being heard by one guard keeping watch, or a 3/10 chance of being heard by two?

I can understand how you made the easy choice given your recent adventures, but man you picked a doosie! LOL

Maybe part of this is because how we use passive perception. I should explain and that might clarify the situation better in this instance. We play with passive perception as it allows you to make a check, it is NOT automatic. This means in your example, if the rogue rolled a 1 for instance and had a total of 13, since the passive perception at 14 is higher, the Oni (for instance) might notice the rogue and is allowed to roll. There is a 40% chance the Oni will fail (8 or lower) and still not notice the rogue even though the rogue rolled a 1. So, the 10% you think would be there solely based on the rogue's check, is really only 4% due to the Oni also making a check.

Having to play this way is an unfortunate side-effect of the passive perception checks for secret doors and traps and such. The party had scores high enough that they would automatically notice just about everything without even the need to roll. Our DM grew annoyed by this to changed how passive checks work. For instance, if there was a DC 20 secret door, and the passive perception was 21, the character would simply know it is there without checking or even telling the DM they are looking. Now what happens is if the player doesn't say anything but the character passes by the door, the DM will ASK the player to roll because there is something there and they might notice it by chance because their score is so good. If the character is actively searching then they roll to find it anyway.

In the rogue/oni example, the passive perception 14 is not automatic. However, if this oni was on guard duty, they are always looking so roll all the time. Thus there is a 40% chance they would fail to notice the rogue in a contested check even if the rogue rolled a 1, but overall since they would now have a chance to notice the rogue on higher rolls, the over chances of noticing the roue would be 19.5% (and that is active so reasonable IMO).

I guess the point with passive that bugs us is when you are passive (not really actively doing something) you shouldn't be nearly as good as your average performance when actively trying. Perhaps the term passive is also misleading and "routine" would have been a better choice (akin to Take 10) but again, that implies you are actually making an effort, even if only "routine."
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
A slight misunderstanding perhaps. A fighter with the soldier background, for example, has proficiency in athletics and intimidation. Our house-rule is the fighter can choose to have expertise in athletics, but at the expense of intimidation. The player could then use one of the Fighter skill choices to still take intimidation if he wanted to, but otherwise the skill is never learned.

A bard, as you say, has 3 class slots and 2 background from whatever they choose. If the player takes expertise in one background and loses the other, then the 4 expertise slots would be used on the 3 class skills and the 4th would be lost unless the character gained more skills before level 10 (which for bards, is very possible really).

Gotcha. Yeah, that would be a house rule. :p
 

Esker

Hero
As for standing up for the rogues, they do well enough at our table. We even added four new cunning action features (Free Movement, Misdirect, Take Aim, and Unbound) so they are even more versatile in their actions.

That's cool; what are the mechanics there?

Actually, I am not concerned with the consequences since anything we implement will have the numbers balance out to match RAW. I started the thread because of the desire to move some of the potential contribution from ability scores and expertise back to proficiency like in other games.

If you have no ability modifier due to a 10 ability and no expertise, the current improvement for proficiency alone during all 20 levels is only +4, which is just pathetic really. Our current idea with proficiency maxing at +11 would increase that to a +9 difference over the 20 levels. This appeals to our table much more. I understand it is a different mindset on what the three features represent, shifting abilities back to more simply natural talent and taking all training out of them. Expertise would represent a one-time boost, but right now it ranges from +2 to +4 at our table depending on level.

I get that; I agree that the gap between proficient and not doesn't feel like it changes that much. But my concern is that by upping regular proficiency and tamping down expertise, it's effectively like giving everyone partial expertise in all their proficient skills, and so even if the rogue or bard winds up with the same modifiers they would have by RAW, the value of their feature has still been diminished, whatever supporting fiction you have in mind (whether expertise, focus, or whatever). But, that said, I'm glad to hear you created some new features for rogues, so maybe it works out fine on balance.

About finesse, et al., Finesse can add STR or DEX to attack, but all weapon damage is based on STR for bonuses except Loading weapons, which don't get bonuses to damage. And to answer your question, no one was assassinated. :) Considering our main rogue is the assassin archetype, you might think he was opposed to this finesse change, but he really wasn't. Sure, he lost a couple points to damage, but rogues have gained other features which make them still just viable or even better. He is enjoying his character as much as ever. :)

At high enough levels rogues get such a small part of their overall damage from the static mod that it's not a huge difference (though at lower levels, it's pretty major if you start with 16 DEX and 8 or 10 STR which is not uncommon, since most rogues get something from at least one mental stat). The DEX melee fighter is the one really hurt by this one (and they are the fighter type with the worst feat support already). But I guess I don't really understand the motivation for doing this. Is it just that DEX is seen as too good compared to STR? Or is it just a simulationist thing?

I can understand how you made the easy choice given your recent adventures, but man you picked a doosie! LOL

Hah, well at least I didn't pick the one right after Cloud Giant in the list, which had a +9 (the Conclave Dryad, from GGtR)! There are a lot of +6s at that CR too.

Maybe part of this is because how we use passive perception. I should explain and that might clarify the situation better in this instance. We play with passive perception as it allows you to make a check, it is NOT automatic. This means in your example, if the rogue rolled a 1 for instance and had a total of 13, since the passive perception at 14 is higher, the Oni (for instance) might notice the rogue and is allowed to roll. There is a 40% chance the Oni will fail (8 or lower) and still not notice the rogue even though the rogue rolled a 1. So, the 10% you think would be there solely based on the rogue's check, is really only 4% due to the Oni also making a check.

Yeah, but (as you note below, and as I noted above), if the Oni is making an active roll, they have a higher chance of noticing overall. So the way you handle perception already makes high stealth bonuses less effective. In general, high modifiers have diminishing returns in opposed checks, which is part of the reason expertise needs to be big to feel meaningful in these situations.

I guess the point with passive that bugs us is when you are passive (not really actively doing something) you shouldn't be nearly as good as your average performance when actively trying. Perhaps the term passive is also misleading and "routine" would have been a better choice (akin to Take 10) but again, that implies you are actually making an effort, even if only "routine."

I heard Jeremy Crawford in an interview endorse the idea in an interview that passive perception was meant to be a floor on your result, as if everyone had reliable talent for perception. So then an active check can only improve on that result.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
That's cool; what are the mechanics there?

New Cunning Action options
When you use your bonus action, you can choose to:


Free Movement. You ignore difficult terrain until the start of your next turn.
Misdirect. You choose one opponent you can see, and the next attack that opponent makes against you has disadvantage.
Take Aim. You gain advantage on your next ranged attack roll until the end of your turn.
Unbound. If you are grappled or restrained, you can make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to escape.

We are currently play-testing these, but the idea was to represent the maneuverability of rogues. We tried to keep it balanced with two combat-oriented and two non-combat-oriented. Personally, instead of just being skill monkeys, I would to develop rogue is very versatile characters with more options for more things.

So far, the only one we are sort of concerned with is Take Aim. Instead of granting advantage on your next attack (until the end of your turn), we might make it so you can add your expertise bonus to your shot or something... I don't know. I like the overall idea and of course suggestions are welcome.

I get that; I agree that the gap between proficient and not doesn't feel like it changes that much. But my concern is that by upping regular proficiency and tamping down expertise, it's effectively like giving everyone partial expertise in all their proficient skills, and so even if the rogue or bard winds up with the same modifiers they would have by RAW, the value of their feature has still been diminished, whatever supporting fiction you have in mind (whether expertise, focus, or whatever). But, that said, I'm glad to hear you created some new features for rogues, so maybe it works out fine on balance.

Well, if we tone down expertise we won't allow other character to get it via backgrounds, etc. like we currently do. So, they often have an edge due to expertise since the change in proficiency would affect them as well. This is what we are currently using and IMO it is better than RAW.

Level 1 (+2 prof):
Rogue, STR 10, Athletics expertise (+2) = +4
Fighter, STR 16, Athletics = +5

Level 5 (+3 prof):
Rogue, STR 10, Athletics expertise (+2) = +5
Fighter, STR 18, Athletics = +7

Level 11 (+5 prof):
Rogue, STR 12, Athletics expertise (+3) = +9
Fighter, STR 20, Athletics = +10

Level 20 (+8 prof):
Rogue, STR 12, Athletics expertise (+4) = +13
Fighter, STR 20, Athletics = +13

So, despite being substantially weaker, the rogue is nearly as good as the fighter. A rogue more focused in athletics and STR development, could be better. Once we capped ability mod at +4, and might return to that in which case the rogue would actually be better than the fighter at level 20.

At high enough levels rogues get such a small part of their overall damage from the static mod that it's not a huge difference (though at lower levels, it's pretty major if you start with 16 DEX and 8 or 10 STR which is not uncommon, since most rogues get something from at least one mental stat). The DEX melee fighter is the one really hurt by this one (and they are the fighter type with the worst feat support already). But I guess I don't really understand the motivation for doing this. Is it just that DEX is seen as too good compared to STR? Or is it just a simulationist thing?

It isn't a big factor, no. We don't dump many stats honestly, you might find a character once in a while with a 9, but 10 is the standard for low stat. The motivation is both a bit for balance and a bit for RL representation. We toyed with the idea of allowing Finesse to add DEX mod on top of STR mod for attack, but only STR for damage, but when you have a character with good STR and DEX, the cumulative bonus is really too high.

Hah, well at least I didn't pick the one right after Cloud Giant in the list, which had a +9 (the Conclave Dryad, from GGtR)! There are a lot of +6s at that CR too.

LOL true!

Yeah, but (as you note below, and as I noted above), if the Oni is making an active roll, they have a higher chance of noticing overall. So the way you handle perception already makes high stealth bonuses less effective. In general, high modifiers have diminishing returns in opposed checks, which is part of the reason expertise needs to be big to feel meaningful in these situations.

Sure, if they are actively trying they have a better chance--that part makes perfect sense. But, if the Oni's passive is 14, and the rogue rolls 15 or higher (most likely consider +12), then the oni has NO chance to notice the rogue unless the DM determines for some reason it chooses to actively scan at that moment (Sorry, you sneak-thief, just bad timing...) and then the contested roll happens.

And yes, the way we handle it does make it less effective, but that is because RAW the rogue was nearly impossible to find because so few creatures have 15+ passive perceptions. I mean, even earlier on the rogue was +10 back with RAW at level 5. Most creatures then only had passive scores of 10-14 at best. So, all the rogue needed was a 5 to be nearly undetectable. The DM decided that was just TOO good, and we are only talking the normal +3 proficiency, +3 expertise, and +4 DEX; nothing unusual there really.

So... meaningful, yes--certainly, overpowering, um--no.

I heard Jeremy Crawford in an interview endorse the idea in an interview that passive perception was meant to be a floor on your result, as if everyone had reliable talent for perception. So then an active check can only improve on that result.

Great, but that isn't how it works RAW. If they ruled passive was something like 5 + since DC 5 is "very easy" and your passive/routine should be good enough to always accomplish the very easy, that would make sense, but then it wouldn't be as "useful."
 

This is utterly unsupported by the rules, though. Arcana covers both knowledge and application.
In the context of this example, I believe Arcana is the knowledge, the Spellcasting class feature is the training required to actually create effects from its principles (or at least one subsection of its principles).

Further, you're ignoring that a wizard cannot be the professor on your example to justify how a specific rogue might be better than a given wizard.
Yep. Unless they pick up one of the feats as I suggested, the Wizard is always going to have that practical capability to cast spells, but lag behind in pure theory to an equivalently intelligent rogue who focused on esoteric knowledge.
Hence the metaphor involving the professor and field tech stereotypes.
You can enact house rules to have the rogue's arcana function differently from the wizard's, but I'm not super interested in house rules -- they don't illuminate the design oddity at all.
What house rules? Both Wizards and Rogues get to make Arcana checks to know stuff about magic items, inhabitants of planes etc. Same DC, same everything. But even through the rogue might have a higher chance to recall the name of a particular planar denizen, they're never going to be able to cast Planar Binding just by making an Arcana check.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Yeah, and I still have an issue with their modifier to Arcana being bigger than a Mage's. It just doesn't feel right somehow. Completely independent of the ability to cast spells I mean.

Also, I agree that the application of the Arcana skill isn't spell casting. The skill covers a lot more than just spells, and is indeed a "knowledge about" rather than "how to" kind of deal.
 

Esker

Hero
Free Movement. You ignore difficult terrain until the start of your next turn.
Misdirect. You choose one opponent you can see, and the next attack that opponent makes against you has disadvantage.
Take Aim. You gain advantage on your next ranged attack roll until the end of your turn.
Unbound. If you are grappled or restrained, you can make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to escape.

We are currently play-testing these, but the idea was to represent the maneuverability of rogues. We tried to keep it balanced with two combat-oriented and two non-combat-oriented. Personally, instead of just being skill monkeys, I would to develop rogue is very versatile characters with more options for more things.

So far, the only one we are sort of concerned with is Take Aim. Instead of granting advantage on your next attack (until the end of your turn), we might make it so you can add your expertise bonus to your shot or something... I don't know. I like the overall idea and of course suggestions are welcome.

I like these.

The free movement one seems redundant with dash, since half movement at double speed is the same as full movement at regular speed. I guess if you let it extend to other types of movement restrictions that aren't technically "difficult terrain" (things like plant growth, or effects like spirit guardians that halve speed), it'd have some non-redundant uses, though.

Misdirect is a nice "poor man's dodge". If the rogue can do a weaker dodge for no resources while the monk can do a full dodge with resources, it makes for a nice contrast without stepping on the monk's toes.

I like take aim as is: it removes the need to have a place where you can hide to get advantage, but unlike hide, you can't use it after your attack for a defensive benefit, so hide still has a use.

Unbound is great too, and seems very thematic. Might want to give it to the monk, too.

I think the only issue I have is that between the boost to ranged rogues and the nerf to finesse weapons, you're skewing the mechanics in favor of staying at range as a rogue, which is a shame, since in my experience having played both melee and ranged rogues, it's more fun to be getting in there, using uncanny dodge, cunning action disengage, and evasion. Misdirect is a nice defensive toy, but it'd be nice if you had something in there for melee rogues' offense too. I can see not wanting to just grant blanket advantage, but maybe let them make a contested INT check or something for advantage?

Well, if we tone down expertise we won't allow other character to get it via backgrounds, etc. like we currently do. So, they often have an edge due to expertise since the change in proficiency would affect them as well. This is what we are currently using and IMO it is better than RAW.

Yeah, but at higher levels you've basically left the rogue's bonus alone (higher proficiency, lower expertise) while bringing up everyone else's via increased proficiency. So the gap is reduced. You're making the rogue less of a skill monkey, which you said was a goal, so fine; as long as the extra benefits you grant elsewhere are equal or better in value.

So, despite being substantially weaker, the rogue is nearly as good as the fighter. A rogue more focused in athletics and STR development, could be better. Once we capped ability mod at +4, and might return to that in which case the rogue would actually be better than the fighter at level 20.

Your example rogue had to put an ASI into STR to catch up to the fighter. Not letting them surpass the fighter even with their merely average strength means that
it's harder to make a rogue that's a really great climber or grappler. They may eventually be equally good at these things as a STR-based fighter, but they'll never be as good as the fighter at hurting things, even with your enhancements to cunning action (especially since you've taken away their DEX-bonus-to-damage if they're melee). Since a big part of the reason to play a rogue instead of a fighter is being able to do all sorts of cool things out of combat, or in combat that aren't attacking, it feels like a shame to me to weaken that distinctiveness, especially when I'm still not convinced it's addressing a real problem.

Sure, if they are actively trying they have a better chance--that part makes perfect sense. But, if the Oni's passive is 14, and the rogue rolls 15 or higher (most likely consider +12), then the oni has NO chance to notice the rogue unless the DM determines for some reason it chooses to actively scan at that moment (Sorry, you sneak-thief, just bad timing...) and then the contested roll happens.

Yeah, hence the 10% chance (the rogue has to roll a 1 or a 2 to fail). I like the idea of house ruling that natural 1s are always failures on skill checks (like they are for attack rolls), so that nothing is ever a completely foregone conclusion, but really, if your character is an expert in something, they should be nearly always succeeding at that thing unless they're trying to do something above what is typical for their level. And they should have some chance of doing really extraordinary things.

All the rogue needed was a 5 to be nearly undetectable. The DM decided that was just TOO good, and we are only talking the normal +3 proficiency, +3 expertise, and +4 DEX; nothing unusual there really.

But you're talking "most creatures" who are level-matched to the character. And needing a 5 or better to succeed is still only 80% success; again, once they find a way in that's out of sight, vs creatures who aren't actively looking, and putting themselves at substantial risk if they fail. By comparison, a fighter archer at level 5 with 18 STR has a +9 to-hit, which means they hit AC 14 with only a 5. And nothing especially bad happens to them if they miss. Is that too high too?[/QUOTE]
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
I like these.

The free movement one seems redundant with dash, since half movement at double speed is the same as full movement at regular speed. I guess if you let it extend to other types of movement restrictions that aren't technically "difficult terrain" (things like plant growth, or effects like spirit guardians that halve speed), it'd have some non-redundant uses, though.

Misdirect is a nice "poor man's dodge". If the rogue can do a weaker dodge for no resources while the monk can do a full dodge with resources, it makes for a nice contrast without stepping on the monk's toes.

I like take aim as is: it removes the need to have a place where you can hide to get advantage, but unlike hide, you can't use it after your attack for a defensive benefit, so hide still has a use.

Unbound is great too, and seems very thematic. Might want to give it to the monk, too.

I think the only issue I have is that between the boost to ranged rogues and the nerf to finesse weapons, you're skewing the mechanics in favor of staying at range as a rogue, which is a shame, since in my experience having played both melee and ranged rogues, it's more fun to be getting in there, using uncanny dodge, cunning action disengage, and evasion. Misdirect is a nice defensive toy, but it'd be nice if you had something in there for melee rogues' offense too. I can see not wanting to just grant blanket advantage, but maybe let them make a contested INT check or something for advantage?

Yeah, but at higher levels you've basically left the rogue's bonus alone (higher proficiency, lower expertise) while bringing up everyone else's via increased proficiency. So the gap is reduced. You're making the rogue less of a skill monkey, which you said was a goal, so fine; as long as the extra benefits you grant elsewhere are equal or better in value.

At one point we considered swapping out dash for these options, so free movement was meant to help with that. I think the currently the DM might have a reduced "Dash" for half-move or something. Otherwise, it is meant to help with things like you said.

I love unbound for the thematic element. It is probably my favorite of them in that respect. Glad you like it.

A nice melee option would be good, maybe something like this:

Second Chance. If you miss with a melee attack, you can use your bonus action to make a second melee attack.

or

Careful Strike. You can use your bonus action to add your DEX (or maybe INT?) modifier to damage with your weapon attacks until the end of your turn.

I'm sure I'll come up with something...

Your example rogue had to put an ASI into STR to catch up to the fighter. Not letting them surpass the fighter even with their merely average strength means that
it's harder to make a rogue that's a really great climber or grappler. They may eventually be equally good at these things as a STR-based fighter, but they'll never be as good as the fighter at hurting things, even with your enhancements to cunning action (especially since you've taken away their DEX-bonus-to-damage if they're melee). Since a big part of the reason to play a rogue instead of a fighter is being able to do all sorts of cool things out of combat, or in combat that aren't attacking, it feels like a shame to me to weaken that distinctiveness, especially when I'm still not convinced it's addressing a real problem.

Well, the rogue only put in one ASI for STR (while the fighter did two) so the rogue will be benefiting to DEX or getting a feat or something else, and even without it would still only one point behind the much stronger fighter. And at this point consider what you would be looking at: one of the strongest poeople in the world, skilled at climbing, against another who has only average physical strength, skill at climbing, and some additional expertise.

I suppose one way to look at is this: I am fine with ability score matching expertise. This would allow a rogue with no great strength enough skill to match an equally proficient super-strong character. That is why our current +5 max ability and +4 max expertise is close enough I am fine with it. With proficiency max at +8, expertise can still add an edge but not overwhelmingly so.

Yeah, hence the 10% chance (the rogue has to roll a 1 or a 2 to fail). I like the idea of house ruling that natural 1s are always failures on skill checks (like they are for attack rolls), so that nothing is ever a completely foregone conclusion, but really, if your character is an expert in something, they should be nearly always succeeding at that thing unless they're trying to do something above what is typical for their level. And they should have some chance of doing really extraordinary things.

Well, with a 90% chance to not even allow the oni a chance to detect him, he is nearly always succeeding. Even if the oni is active and it is a contested roll, he still has over 80% chance of success, which is pretty darn good IMO.

Everyone should have some chance of doing really extraordinary things IMO, not just rogues (fine... and bards).

But you're talking "most creatures" who are level-matched to the character. And needing a 5 or better to succeed is still only 80% success; again, once they find a way in that's out of sight, vs creatures who aren't actively looking, and putting themselves at substantial risk if they fail. By comparison, a fighter archer at level 5 with 18 STR has a +9 to-hit, which means they hit AC 14 with only a 5. And nothing especially bad happens to them if they miss. Is that too high too?

Yeah, actually a 5th-level fighter with +9 to me IS too much. I am not a fan of the 5E mentality of hitting-more-often-and-giving-things-tons-of-hit-points.
Well, the rogue only put in one ASI for STR (while the fighter did two) so the rogue will be benefiting to DEX or getting a feat or something else, and even without it would still only one point behind the much stronger fighter. And at this point consider what you would be looking at: one of the strongest poeople in the world, skilled at climbing, against another who has only average physical strength, skill at climbing, and some additional expertise.

I suppose one way to look at is this: I am fine with ability score matching expertise. This would allow a rogue with no great strength enough skill to match an equally proficient super-strong character. That is why our current +5 max ability and +4 max expertise is close enough I am fine with it. With proficiency max at +8, expertise can still add an edge but not overwhelmingly so.
 
Last edited:

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
In the context of this example, I believe Arcana is the knowledge, the Spellcasting class feature is the training required to actually create effects from its principles (or at least one subsection of its principles).

Yep. Unless they pick up one of the feats as I suggested, the Wizard is always going to have that practical capability to cast spells, but lag behind in pure theory to an equivalently intelligent rogue who focused on esoteric knowledge.
Hence the metaphor involving the professor and field tech stereotypes.
What house rules? Both Wizards and Rogues get to make Arcana checks to know stuff about magic items, inhabitants of planes etc. Same DC, same everything. But even through the rogue might have a higher chance to recall the name of a particular planar denizen, they're never going to be able to cast Planar Binding just by making an Arcana check.

Except, and I've said this, nothing requires the rogue to have the fiction of extensive esoteric study to have the knowledge. They could be a street urchin with a hobbyist's interest and be just as good. 5e does not require fictional justification for class abilities. They just are, and you can flavor them as you want.

So, in this case, you can, fictionally, have a wizard that's spent decades in dedicated study of the nature of magic and a street kid who dabbles and the street kid knows more. Hence my rebuttal of the professor Wizard. This is a singular explanation for a specific fictional setup, not a general explanation of how the oddity occurs. The oddity still exists, your one specific explanation notwithstanding.

Also, Arcana does cover the application of magic. If a players states an action involving manipulation of magic (like say, directing a Sphere of Annihilation, for a by the book direct example), what skill do you call for?
 

Remove ads

Top