Results 121 to 149 of 149
-
2017-09-24, 06:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- Western Washington
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
You continue to polarize this, and doing so is robbing you of perspective. Spells are nothing more than modular class features, just like anything else. Depending on circumstance and the other abilities that a class can bring to bear, a relatively innocuous spell might be incredibly powerful, or vice versa.
Interesting ideas. From my perspective, the Numerical shift offers a cool option to mitigate low ability scores. That is a great ability. However, the lack of anything for skills with already high ability scores is less than desirable. As I said, I want Rogues to have their cool toys. Having more versatility is cool, but it could be upset by a magical tome increasing your stats or a later build choice that turns your great bonus into something kind of depressing. These aren't inherently deal-breakers, but they are a detriment. So your experiment here is a success, I think this is too much of a nerf.
The non-numerical shift option is solid. A little boring, but solid. I would want it to need to be chosen before the roll is made so that it doesn't feel like a re-roll power. The downside is in flavor, of course. Not the first time D&D runs afoul of this, but it's preferable not to have that downside if possible.
Another way to approach this jumps out at me. In World of Warcraft, Blizzard reskinned the xp bar in beta. Originally it provided an xp penalty for playing too long. People HATED it. So they reskinned it, changing no mechanics, and made what had been 'normal xp' into 'rested xp' and turned the penalty into normal. People loved it.
Maybe a Rogue could, by having the appropriate tools, decrease the DC of a check in which they have expertise by their proficiency bonus. And if we're really feeling generous, maybe this could apply to the whole team as well. So if swinging across that rope onto a rickety bridge and diving past the crocodiles is a DC 20 Acrobatics check, well that top level Rogue cries "Follow me," and demonstrates that it's easier than it looks at a now DC 14 (wrapping a leather strap around the hands to prevent rope burn, landing just as the bridge swings towards the rope, and tossing a pouch of sand into the eyes of the crocodiles, for example), and lets the rest of the party follow at the same DC. It's probably far from perfect, but on first pass I like this idea.
Edit: The idea could be manipulated further. Subtract proficiency for just the rogue, subtract half proficiency if it's the entire party. Or either/or. Just throwing thoughts around.
-
2017-09-25, 12:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Florida, USA
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Why would anyone want to nerf expertise, when Guidance and Peerless Skill are already better?
Wolfen Houndog - The World in Revolt (4e)
The Mythic Warrior, a 3.5 base class that severs limbs and sunders armor
The Nameless One, converted to 3.5 and 5e
-
2017-09-25, 01:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Seattle
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
This may be way too fiddly, but what if we took a cue from the BM fighter here. They start with 4 superiority dice that work their way up from d6 to d12 over the course of the game. Unlike the BM instead of choosing powers they chose which skills get this bonus. They may add the dice to a proficient skill check, or they can choose to expend 2 dice to add a dice after a roll has been made, but before success is known.
The d6-d12 mimic the +3 to +6 bonus that expertise provides, but the limited quantity ensures that it's a limited resource to be used. Being able to spend 2 dice to add it to a roll after the fact also allow that rogue who rolled well, but not great to push themselves over a close check.
As far as I can see here are some pro's/con's
Pro's:
- Mimics the system helping keep relative balance (it hopefully isn't breaking the game)
- The random nature of the roll means that it doesn't lead to autosuccess as often (you could still roll a 1)
- Rogues still get to feel awesome at their chosen skills
Con's:
- It's fiddly
- It's very similar to what the bard does making it not feel as unique (although the bards is more party focused while this is self focused).
-
2017-09-25, 07:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- Western Washington
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
My idea doesn't work. I played a bit with it and reducing the DC is just too fussy. Oh well.
-
2017-09-25, 07:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Guidance is great at 1st level (barring all the times when you can't use it because of time or subterfuge/need-for-silence reasons) but does not improve. Peerless Skill is a SR limited, starts-at-level-14 ability. Adding much of anything to skill checks is up for discussion, to be certain, but I'm not exactly sure how you think this negates the concern over expertise.
-
2017-09-25, 02:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
I like the skill expertise feats, because if I want to play a character who is an expert in ________, I don't necessarily also want to play someone who a: is a sneak attacker , or b: is a primary spellcaster. Why is it beyond the pale for a paladin to be an expert in religion, or a barbarian to be an expert in survival?
-
2017-09-25, 02:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Breaking BM: Revised - an updated look at the beast-mounted halfling ranger based on the Revised Ranger: Beast Conclave.
-
2017-09-25, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Bard and Rogue already got a couple of advantages over other (especially martial) classes;
1: the number of and options for skills they get to learn just by virtue of their class
2: great class and subclass features that boost their skills (thief rogue can interact as a bonus action, bards can give their opponent disadvantage, etc)
3: They expertise without taking a feat. and if expertise feats are available to everyone, they also have the option to take expertise feats - which means they're still streets aheadLast edited by alchahest; 2017-09-25 at 02:43 PM.
-
2017-09-25, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
-
2017-09-25, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
or a feat to be able to cast a spell and some cantrips, or a feat to be able to use superiority dice, or a feat to gain proficiency in a save you don't already have, or a feat to gain extra skills from any list...
-
2017-09-25, 03:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
I would pin it closer to Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster (which are designed to allow you to step on others toes), but the point is well made.
I think what we have here, is a bit of a dichotomy. We don't want people stepping on the rogues toes, but we do what to be able to make a 'good at sneaking' fighter or something similar if that's our character concept, and it's hard to do both.
-
2017-09-25, 03:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
a fighter won't ever (outside of multiclassing, which negates this whole thing anyways) be able to hide as a bonus action, or do sneak attack damage by attacking out of hiding, nor will they ever get assassin or thief subclass abilities. The sneaky martial side of things is still very firmly a rogue thing, I think.
-
2017-09-25, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
It was just an example. But yes, there are things other than the flat skill total + that makes a rogue the class to do rogue-y things. My point is that we want to have rogues have a niche, yet if you have a character concept (<class> that surprisingly is a really good <skill>), you want to be able to do it. At least I think that's why the UA skill feats are there.
-
2017-09-25, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
me too!
My current character has the investigation feat, and a previous one had the insight feat. Neither was even remotely thiefy, but they fit the character (the investigation character is a former city guard / detective who is an eldritch knight, and the previous is a hexblade who was a second son, doomed to diplomatic duty, the insight feat was representative of his manner of studying people, he was a very patient listener, despite not having a huge wisdom score (which meant his perception was still fairly poor)
-
2017-09-25, 04:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
I consider expertise and reliable talent the defining features of rogue. The one thing that makes them special. There's no feat for a paladin aura. There's no feat for metamagic. While I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I hope at least you can see the ground I'm standing on.
I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!
-
2017-09-25, 04:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
For many people, rogues are defined by sneak attack and their array of bonus action options, along with the number of and variety of skills they can learn
-
2017-09-25, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Discounting crits, I think 1 attack with sneak attack is just another way of doing about what all martial do. Skills are thankfully not walled off in this edition (in 3.x the real way they screwed the fighter was by giving it few and only terrible skills). As I said, I like that the rogue is the class to be legendary for doing almost magical things with skill alone. I also think it wasn't the best idea to give that to bards as well.
I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!
-
2017-09-25, 05:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Vinland
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Interesting. i would have pegged the "identity" of Rogues as Sneak attack & Cunning action in the same way for Barbarians I think it's Rage & Reckless Attack and Fighters it's Actions Surge & additional Extra Attacks. It never hurts to read different perspectives though.
Part of my problem with Expertise is I think there is little narrative reason to tie it to Thieve's Cant. Like why does my character have to know Thieve's Cant to an expert at Survival if he was raised by wolves? Admittedly this specific problem is fixed by moving Thieve's Cant to the Thief subclass.
-
2017-09-25, 05:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
-
2017-09-25, 05:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Vinland
- Gender
-
2017-09-25, 05:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Yeah, same with Druidic. Although I kinda forced the issue with that one in my last session. Didn't really matter because there was a) a druid, and b) a 14th level monk, so languages were covered. That group can speak with/read anything--monk + warlock with the language invocation = bases covered.
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2017-09-25, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Yeah, I'm with you on druidic. If I were them I think I would have dropped that language all together and gone with druids knowing primordial. I think that would be pretty thematic for them.
And I really appreciate this being a thread with different viewpoints that at least so far hasn't degenerated into a mindless argument.I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!
-
2017-09-25, 07:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Vinland
- Gender
-
2017-09-25, 07:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
well done, everyone!
-
2017-09-25, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
I kinda agree with this. As I said earlier in the thread, my only real problem with expertise was its auto scaling, which lets other classes dip and get the full effect of what I see as a core rogue feature. While I certainly would have no problem with a feat that gives you a bonus to certain skills, straight up expertise would be too much, imo. People can point to Martial Adept of Magic Initiate, but both of those give only a limited version of the thing they are based on. Martial Adept gives you only 1d6 superiority die. That is a smaller size and a quarter of the number the battlemaster gets, and it never scales. Magic Initiate on the other hand, is based off of spellcasting, and it gives you a single spell per day, and two cantrips. Most classes get more cantrips, and the number they get scales with level. They also know more spells, and, even at level one, get more every day. A feat that straight up gives expertise would be giving the full power rogue feature out as a feat. Maybe in lower number, but far greater a fraction of the real feature than any other feat, and it does scale fully.
Now, a feat that was something like.... "choose a skill with which you are proficient and add 2 to any roll you make with it" would be much more in line with these other feats. Lesser in quantity and unscaling. I'd almost even be willing to give out two skills in one feat. But straight up expertise... not something I will ever want from a feat.
With all this said, I do actually have one other problem with Expertise, and that is that Bards get it. They have enough good stuff going for them as is. They don't need it and it takes away from the rogue's identity.
-
2017-09-25, 09:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
I guess the real reason I like the expertise feats is, I feel that you don't need to be a thieves' cant speaking, sneak-attacking, evasion-having assassin, trickster or second story man to be an expert in a thing. Rogues are "skill monkeys" because in the earliest editions they were the only ones who had access to moving silently, hiding in shadows, climbing and lockpicking, and other thiefly things. Now, that's tied into "Stealth" and "acrobatics" and "athletics" which, while everyone can do, rogues can do really well (because of expertise without spending ASIs on it, and things like the thief rogue being able to be more acrobatic, and interact with objects as a bonus action). They also get to be dodgier because of evasion, and are more able to utilise their skills because of reliable talent.
They're skill monkeys because at their inception, skills were something not everyone could have, there was a much less defined way of dealing with abilities beyond spells and fighting - As skills became a thing everyone could have (hurray!) they were moved more into a specialist role for combat, but maintained a wide breadth of skills. Even in 3.5, the closest thing to "expertise" they had was that they had the option to essentially take reliable talent but only for three of their skills. This idea of rogues being the only ones who can be experts in skills is new, and I think perhaps it isn't fully intentional.
-
2017-09-26, 07:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Florida, USA
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Point is, the Rogue is, if anything, not good enough at skills. All it really has going for it when it comes to skills is 2 extra proficiencies (3, counting Thieves' Tools), expertise, and Reliable Talent (which is an average of +2.75 to any skill the Rogue is proficient in). Meanwhile, Guidance alone is an average of +2.5 to any ability check you want, and Knowledge Domain is two proficiencies and expertise in them (let's not even get into what the Bard gets). Wanting to nerf expertise, therefore, seems misguided at best to me. There's nothing wrong with a Rogue having permission to succeed at something. Spellcasters get to do that sort of thing all the time.
Wolfen Houndog - The World in Revolt (4e)
The Mythic Warrior, a 3.5 base class that severs limbs and sunders armor
The Nameless One, converted to 3.5 and 5e
-
2017-09-26, 08:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
If this boils down to an accounting game of what everyone 'gets,' I really don't see the point of the discussion. 'Rogues don't get enough,' to me, is not really an argument for or against whether the mechanical implementation of the expertise base-concept is a good system or not. It's a genuinely orthogonal issue. If you want to argue that the OP should house rule more good things for the rogue, frankly I'll help brainstorm ideas. But that has very little to do with the implementation of expertise.
Meanwhile, Guidance alone is an average of +2.5 to any ability check you want, and Knowledge Domain is two proficiencies and expertise in them (let's not even get into what the Bard gets).
As to the bard, all I got is the designers clearly thought the bard needed part of the rogues' role, because they got some of the rogues stuff. On paper, they clearly seem like a class that got EVERYTHING. My experience with them in play is that they do not dominate the game, so I am of two minds on it. It would be interesting to ask what the designers had in mind or what their thought process was.
Wanting to nerf expertise, therefore, seems misguided at best to me.
There's nothing wrong with a Rogue having permission to succeed at something. Spellcasters get to do that sort of thing all the time.
-
2017-09-28, 02:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Florida, USA
- Gender
Re: Is there a better way to balance expertise?
Ah. I humbly apologize for jumping to conclusions, then.
I don't actually consider there to be anything wrong with Expertise, so I'll just bow out now.Wolfen Houndog - The World in Revolt (4e)
The Mythic Warrior, a 3.5 base class that severs limbs and sunders armor
The Nameless One, converted to 3.5 and 5e