D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?

[FrogReaver]

5e's skill check math may work better if your actual skill modifier was calculated as half (rounded up) of whatever it normally would be.

I do think a range between +0 and +17 is a bit much for a d20 game. I think d20 games tend to work best when the maximum modifier possible is no more than about half of the d20 or +10. Doing this puts the maximum modifier with expertise at +9. That's honestly right where I would want it to be.

I think reliable talent should just be an extra die roll. I would think a 1d6 added to proficient skill checks would give a nice effect. So would an advantage type effect.

Then leave the hardest check in the game at 20 and rarely use them. Use Dc's mostly between 10 and 15. Sometimes use ones between 15 and 20.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sorry for the long delay and multiple responses. Been a busy weekend.

...11 to a skill is sufficient to contribute most times.... given that most DCs are 15-20.

Yeah. Non-issue.
And any DM who can’t handle their players succeeding at the thing they’ve been building towards THE ENTIRE TIME THEY’VE BEEN PLAYING THAT CHARACTER... well...
Not a system issue. As usual.

And at level 10 which we were talking about that is a +9, on athletics unless talking a dex based fighter.

Let's look at Investigation (finding traps, clues, ect), neither rouge nor Fighter use Intelligence as their prime, so let's say they both have a +2 which may be rather high for both of them.

Prof, expertise and reliable talent means the Rogue has a +10 and a minimum result of 20

Prof means the fighter has a +6

Party enter the room with the secret passage. Who investigates? Techinically they both do, because they use the help action, but the roll? The roll goes to the Rogue because he has a +4 over the fighter and a guaranteed minimum die result.


Sure, the fighter can contribute, but they aren't going to roll the dice unless the Rogue isn't there. Because there isn't a reason to have them roll.


And, as for not being a system issue. I've never said "This breaks the game", I've said "This sucks the fun out of the game for my group sometimes."

Sure, I can change DC's, I can create skill challenges that require multiple different rolls, I can challenge players in different arenas, I can literally just make stuff up. But the issue of the player saying "I rolled a 28" almost every roll in a system where that is supposed to be rare until high levels... that isn't a "You don't know how to DM" that is the system breaking its own assumptions.

This. Exactly this.
I also find it interesting that part of the argument that is repeatedly raised in this thread against Expertise includes the Rogue's ability when buffed with multiple magic sources. If I make a master thief, I expect him to be a master without having to be buffed up by his friends.

Because players mitigate risk by working together. Heck, I encourage players to work as a group instead of a band of individuals because I have problems with players not having fun because everyone is playing the stoic loner.

And it is a compounding problem. Someone says "The Rogue getting a 28 on stealth and sleight of hand isn't an issue, because you can challenge them with other things or increase the DC to 35" ignores the fact that the Rogue can get boosted and the bard being in the party can cover an entire other set of challenges and then you start running out of non-combat challenges that use skills and dice.

Sure, I love RP challenges but the players invested in abilities to use them.

For a d20-based game, the absolute minimum degree of granularity is 5%. I really don't know how you could possibly hit a target range between 60% and 70%, unless you went back to Basic and removed Dexterity from the equation.

It's a serious problem in d20 game design. You either have to remove the ability for characters to specialize at all, or else you have to accept that anyone who specializes will eventually break the upper limit.

A fair point I suppose. Seems like avoiding saying the ability is a problem though, just that is breaks a limitation of a the system... which seems like a problem

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. D&D is good at allowing people to opt out of certain challenges by specializing in overcoming them, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for challenging specialists within their area of expertise.

Agree to disagree then

Except, as previously mentioned, damage is meaningless. No matter how badly you splinch yourself, you'll be fine in the morning. Unless everyone is dead, I guess, in which case you move on to the next campaign.

In my experience, high-level parties have ways of reducing the failure chance to an acceptable level, but that is admittedly something that the DM could deny them if they were so inclined.

Damage is only meaningless if you can take that long rest though, and that may not always happen.

Also, since the Teleport roll is a d100, there are far fewer abilities which can reduce that failure chance. I'm honestly not sure of any die abilities that can, so you are left with reducing it via observing the area you wish to teleport to in order to become more familiar with it, and that may or may not be possible or utilize resources you can easily afford.

I really, really don't think that counts as meta-gaming. Everyone should know what their own strengths are, and discussing how to best progress as a team is a very normal thing to do.

I didn't say it wasn't normal or that it was a bad thing. But, it is "talking about the mechanics of the game" and falls into the purview of meta-game discussions.

But, it does lead to a potential imbalance if the same character ends up always being the best choice for skill challenges, and they are the character who cannot fail a skill challenge. It makes it less likely for other characters to get a chance to participate and shine outside of combat.

Any half way competent DM knows this is a feature not a bug. So the issues that arise are not failures of the system. I know there’s a certain subset of DMs that don’t think they should be responsible for their games.

Edit: the real failure here is the idea that a DM must ‘work around’ their players strengths. Those strengths are something to work with.

[sarcasm] Please be more condescending, oh-great mountain sage, I cherish your wisdom [/sarcasm]

Since I seem to be on the other side of your opinion on this thread, I'm going to be blunt and say that not only does this feel like an attack, but it feels undeserved. I don't see how getting edged into a corner by the mechanics is a strength of the system, or how you expect "working with" strengths is meant to mean anything in the context we are discussing.

I try very hard to adhere to a game that does not overly compensate for the characters. At the table I don't analyze a players average roll to determine if I should adjust the DC of something, and after I set a DC I normally don't alter it if the player rolls one way or the other. So, if the lord buys his locks locally then the DCs are 15 and if the guards are just average they have a +2 to perception checks. The fact that our mid-level thief literally cannot fail to infiltrate, get past every door, steal the McGuffin from the safe, and leave with it does not help me as a DM. Either they do it, and therefore it can't be an important part of the plot, because this is a team game and everyone needs a chance to shine, or I have to come up with some reason that isn't going to work, which means I'm trying to work against what they should be good at to increase tension, which is not something I want to do.


I guess if you think that "working with it" means that instead of worrying about 'this player can find anything I hide' I should say 'this player will find this thing and that will be a clue for the group'... I ask you what the difference is between me letting them find it or me just telling the group myself? I've played in games where players need to find specific clues and they aren't fun if you don't recognize a clue, and if I'm putting clues in my game, I'm going to make sure players see them or find alternate ways to the same answers, but... look maybe this will make my point clearer.

One of the most tense and memorable moments from my last campaign included breaking into a super-vault where the ancient elven empire stored their magical nuke. The Rogue picking this lock did not have expertise (he was a swashbuckling pirate and went for other expertise skills) and it was a skill challenge of 25 with three successes in a row being needed to open the door without setting off the security. They didn't know they needed a 25, but they passed just barely, utilizing Luck, magical items, and even some guidance rolls. After I told them the DC and they realized how close they had come to failing it really shook them and made them feel how dangerous and heavily sealed this place was. Leading to them not touching a single thing (they found the thing by accident) and resealing it behind them. IF the rogue had had expertise in that skill, since they were level 18 or higher, then they would have likely barely struggled with that vault. It wouldn't have been impactful to hear that they had beaten the DC by 7 or more every time like it was to hear they barely eeked past every single check.

It's called becoming a Lock smith.

It would be pretty terrible if anytime you lose your key and call the locksmith that you have a 25-50% chance of never being able to get in your car ever again.

You call the Locksmith because you know they probably can pick the locks and make a key well enough to have a nigh 100% success rate.

Against a safe, even some of the more secure ones, give the locksmith enough time and if they are good, they'll have a nigh 100% success rate.

THAT's because they are trained in it and are proficient at what they do.

Sure, I suspect the guy I call to get my keys out of my car can get them out. I don't suspect that same guy could break into the Fallout Shelter underneath the Whitehouse. Sure, if he had enough time and the right tools he might be able to get in, but I also think that something designed to keep the best of the best out... should give some trouble to the best of the best.

If you want to add challenge, have the players ROLE PLAY the situation rather than ROLL PLAY it out. You'll find that for many, the ROLE PLAY is actually far more fun than the ROLL PLAY.

I suppose it depends on what type of players you have, a min/max player will want to roll, but many will prefer to role instead, and part of that role is being effective in what they are proficient at...

Just like the rules of the game say they should be.

Right... how do you "roleplay" stealth? Have them describe their every move as I mention the guard starts to turn? Roleplay lockpicking by having them describe the tumblers moving?

Look I'm all for people describing what they are doing. I often ask players to elaborate on what they want to say or do in a social encounter or how they want to attempt to do a thing, but there is a limit here to what Role-playing can accomplish unless you want to go full old school and have "well no one said they were looking behind the tapestry" shenanigans. Which I don't think my group would be terribly interested in dealing with.

Well, the Barbarian actually has a +13 max at level 20.

If you are at level 20 and use epic boons with the alternate rule, the bonus for Fighters and Barbarians actually goes up to +16 without any other magic item.

You use a legendary Ioun stone and a +3 weapon to hit and you can get up to +20 to hit.

And all of that is available to the Rogue or Bard too. Even barbarian strength could be bested if they get a belt of storm giant strength.

This is why I try to focus on clas abilities, though I will admit the Barbarian athletics abilities are pretty cool and I like them the problem is that they only work for a single skill while the Rogue and Bard are getting a lot of different skills to work with, and frankly, I've never had a fighter or barbarian get to those levels anyways.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, the fighter can contribute, but they aren't going to roll the dice unless the Rogue isn't there. Because there isn't a reason to have them roll.

If I had to pick one real problem in the 5E skill system, this would be it. For all the noble goals of Bounded Accuracy, and a fighter actually having a chance to succeed on a skill check if they simply had proficiency, they're still so far behind anyone with a high stat that they'll never get to roll. For much of the game, the un-trained wizard has a higher bonus to Investigate than the trained fighter does, so simple proficiency still ends up being meaningless.

I didn't say it wasn't normal or that it was a bad thing. But, it is "talking about the mechanics of the game" and falls into the purview of meta-game discussions.

I mean, it's literally not meta-gaming, because skill bonuses and rogue special abilities are all in-character info. The rogue knows for a fact that they can't fail to pick any lock that isn't of cosmic complexity, so it's not meta-gaming for them to tell anyone that, regardless of the words the player uses to convey it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, I suspect the guy I call to get my keys out of my car can get them out. I don't suspect that same guy could break into the Fallout Shelter underneath the Whitehouse. Sure, if he had enough time and the right tools he might be able to get in, but I also think that something designed to keep the best of the best out... should give some trouble to the best of the best.

Which is the fundamental flaw of Bounded Accuracy, and there's no good way of resolving it within a d20 resolution system. The Advantage mechanic, which can help here, only does so by temporarily shifting the game from d20-resolution to dice-pool resolution.

That gives me an idea for a system hack, where everything was just down to an ability check, but proficiency and expertise each added additional dice to roll. So like, picking a hard lock would be a DC 20 Dexterity check, but you got to roll two dice if you were proficient, or three dice with expertise. You would never need a DC above 25.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If I had to pick one real problem in the 5E skill system, this would be it. For all the noble goals of Bounded Accuracy, and a fighter actually having a chance to succeed on a skill check if they simply had proficiency, they're still so far behind anyone with a high stat that they'll never get to roll. For much of the game, the un-trained wizard has a higher bonus to Investigate than the trained fighter does, so simple proficiency still ends up being meaningless.

Sort of. I mean, yeah the Wizard has a higher bonus for a while, but by level 5 if the wizard has a 20 INT they have a +5, while the fighter with a 12 INT and prof has a +4

A 1 point difference is enough a lot of players will still likely defer, but also small enough that one player could feel confident in pushing for it if it was important to their concept.

I also feel rolling stats helps here, since you are more likely to end up with higher numbers.

I mean, it's literally not meta-gaming, because skill bonuses and rogue special abilities are all in-character info. The rogue knows for a fact that they can't fail to pick any lock that isn't of cosmic complexity, so it's not meta-gaming for them to tell anyone that, regardless of the words the player uses to convey it.

I'm going to assume you are a reader. I'm an avid reader too. How could we know with absolute certainty which one of us is 10% better than the other?

Can we say with absolute certainty that one of us is 15% more likely to know a random piece of lore, despite it applying to the field of study that the other person specializes in via their job?

Sure, big differences are going to be obvious, but small differences are usually where this comes up.

We can agree to disagree though, it isn't important.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which is the fundamental flaw of Bounded Accuracy, and there's no good way of resolving it within a d20 resolution system. The Advantage mechanic, which can help here, only does so by temporarily shifting the game from d20-resolution to dice-pool resolution.

That gives me an idea for a system hack, where everything was just down to an ability check, but proficiency and expertise each added additional dice to roll. So like, picking a hard lock would be a DC 20 Dexterity check, but you got to roll two dice if you were proficient, or three dice with expertise. You would never need a DC above 25.

Could work, though losing out on the "you get better at skills over time" aspect of proficiency would be sad.

 

[5ekyu]

If I had to pick one real problem in the 5E skill system, this would be it. For all the noble goals of Bounded Accuracy, and a fighter actually having a chance to succeed on a skill check if they simply had proficiency, they're still so far behind anyone with a high stat that they'll never get to roll. For much of the game, the un-trained wizard has a higher bonus to Investigate than the trained fighter does, so simple proficiency still ends up being meaningless.
I mean, it's literally not meta-gaming, because skill bonuses and rogue special abilities are all in-character info. The rogue knows for a fact that they can't fail to pick any lock that isn't of cosmic complexity, so it's not meta-gaming for them to tell anyone that, regardless of the words the player uses to convey it.

"For much of the game, the un-trained wizard has a higher bonus to Investigate than the trained fighter does, so simple proficiency still ends up being meaningless."

In my experience, the fighter characters built with proficiency in investigate often have bonuses in INT. it's pretty easy to get to +1 to +2 ability boost early or at chargen **if** it's a task you want to pursue even second fiddle. So, given stat increases do not outpace proficiency gains by much (more an occasional temporary gain in one) and that fighters get more ASIFeat features, your example is not one I find to be true either in the specific or the larger scope.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which is the fundamental flaw of Bounded Accuracy, and there's no good way of resolving it within a d20 resolution system. The Advantage mechanic, which can help here, only does so by temporarily shifting the game from d20-resolution to dice-pool resolution.

That gives me an idea for a system hack, where everything was just down to an ability check, but proficiency and expertise each added additional dice to roll. So like, picking a hard lock would be a DC 20 Dexterity check, but you got to roll two dice if you were proficient, or three dice with expertise. You would never need a DC above 25.

Depends on how you're adjudicating it. When you call a locksmith for your car, your car isn't in a dungeon, there isn't the possibility of a trap or monster lurking in/behind the lock, and the locksmith knows where he's sleeping tonight. For most locks, the locksmith can take his time in a generally relaxed atmosphere and has as many retries as needed. Done deal.

And, yet, locksmiths do occasionally mess up. They break locks, occasionally. There are also some locks they can't open, or, more clearly, that the risk of damage to the lock exceeds the risk threshold for thier skill level.

This models pretty well into bounded accuracy if the DM is only calling for checks for actions that are both uncertain and have a consequence for failure.

 

[BookBarbarian]

It doesn't matter if the Wizard has a higher bonus to investigate than Fighter, If the Wizard never describes what their character does in a way that the DM calls for a Intelligence (Investigation) Check, but the Fighter does.

At this point my group's druid has a +6 to Survival, but she has never described her character doing any tracking or other wilderness activities in any of our sessions.

My Barbarian has a +4 to Survival, and when we were trying to track some missing villagers and discover what happened to them. I had him examine the tracks. He made the check, but would have failed without proficiency, and was able to determine where the villagers went and that there were larger than humanoid tracks heading the same direction.

I had fun doing that. Would it have been better if the Druid had made the check, or if we had a Ranger in the Party, or if some spell has cast that could have imparted the information to us without a chance of failure? Absolutely. But none of those things happened so I did what I could and was grateful to have 14 Wis and just measly Survival proficiency.

Now I'm not saying that the skills system couldn't be improved, just that a certain style of play mitigates the problem of only some players contributing to Ability Checks, even if it's known that they have the best chance at it.

 

[ZenBear]

The bigger issue I find with Expertise is it being exclusive to Bard and Rogue. It seems silly to me that a Rogue can be a greater expert in the scholarly understanding of Arcana than a Wizard can ever hope to be. Thankfully they’ve introduced feats to fix this, but I just don’t like it in general.