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Niche protection is an outdated concept that shackles character builds more than it helps them.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."
