D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[iserith]

In my games, the players never say, ‘I want to make a insight check’.

They say something like, ‘Does the guard believe what we are saying?’ If the answer is nonobvious, I have them roll a skill check.

Players interact narratively.

Maybe it's just a bad example, but that's not really describing what they're doing and isn't, in my view, "interacting narratively." I would have no way of determining whether a check was necessary if that's what the players said.

But I'll put you down for players don't ask to make checks or make rolls unprompted.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

The big difference is that a fighting style is something which comes into play every round of every combat - often more than once, for most of the styles. A skill to which Expertise has been applied is something which might only come up a handful of times per session; thief tools, for example, are unlikely to be used more than half-a-dozen times per dungeon.

When you compare two bonuses with such wildly varying frequencies, the less frequent bonus should be much greater in magnitude in order for it to make the same overall contribution. If anything, Expertise is too weak at low levels, where the Archery fighting style applies that same +2 every round. So in terms of a comparison between the abilities, I definitely wouldn't say Expertise is too good.

The issue comes with Bounded Accuracy, though. As a design goal, Bounded Accuracy is supposed to ensure that you never need to hyper-specialize in order to compete - there should never be a case where only an optimized character has any chance at all, and where someone who actually invested resources in something could still have zero chance. From that perspective, Expertise is definitely broken, although it shares some of that blame with Reliable Talent.

In my game, Expertise gives you an extra 1d6 to roll, and Reliable Talent only kicks in if the sum of that 1d20+1d6 is still below 10.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe it's just a bad example, but that's not really describing what they're doing and isn't, in my view, "interacting narratively." I would have no way of determining whether a check was necessary if that's what the players said.

But I'll put you down for players don't ask to make checks or make rolls unprompted.

Good enough.



Regarding the specific example.

In narrative immersion, the players are the characters. They see the situation from the perspective of their characters. A player just told a guard something. (It might be true or not true.) The player is looking at the guard, and wants to know if the guard is on board with what the player just said. Sometimes the answer is obviously yes, the guard is enthusiastic and helpful. Sometimes the answer is obviously no, the guard tries to arrest the player on the spot. Sometimes it is kinda hard to tell. Maybe the guard is moreorless on board, but has doubts. In the case of uncertainty, the player needs to make an insight skill check to make an accurate assessment of where the guard is at.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe it's just a bad example, but that's not really describing what they're doing and isn't, in my view, "interacting narratively." I would have no way of determining whether a check was necessary if that's what the players said.

But I'll put you down for players don't ask to make checks or make rolls unprompted.

I think you can be a bit too formulaic at times. The player asking "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" is practically begging you to give him some information to interact with. He can't see the guard with his own eyes or hear him with his own ears, but his character can. Being silent about any such details unless the player says "I listen to the guard and observe him to see if his actions or demeanors give any noticeable signs of disbelief" is attempting to rely to much on a particular communication formula IMO. Both players are trying to find out the same information so they can actually decide what to do next about the guard. Perhaps one does it a bit more eloquently but both players just want to know if their characters are picking up on any signs about whether the guard believes them or not. Perhaps you shouldn't be such a stickler for your specific formula when the approach the player is taking out to be obvious and his goal is already clearly stated?

 

[iserith]

Regarding the specific example.

In narrative immersion, the players are the characters. They see the situation from the perspective of their characters. A player just told a guard something. (It might be true or not true.) The player is looking at the guard, and wants to know if the guard is on board with what the player just said. Sometimes the answer is obviously yes, the guard is enthusiastic and helpful. Sometimes the answer is obviously no, the guard tries to arrest the player on the spot. Sometimes it is kinda hard to tell. Maybe the guard is moreorless on board, but has doubts. In the case of uncertainty, the player needs to make an insight skill check to make an accurate assessment of where the guard is at.

My response to the question would either be silence, an exasperated sigh, or "I don't know, DOES HE?" If I'm in a good mood or if the player is new to the table, I might say "What do you do to determine that?" to remind them that asking a question isn't describing what he or she wants to do, which is what a player is supposed to do. I can't narrate the result of non-dialogue questions, after all!

 

[Yaarel]

My response to the question would either be silence, an exasperated sigh, or "I don't know, DOES HE?" If I'm in a good mood or if the player is new to the table, I might say "What do you do to determine that?" to remind them that asking a question isn't describing what he or she wants to do, which is what a player is supposed to do. I can't narrate the result of non-dialogue questions, after all!

The thing is, in reallife, some people are really good at reading other people. A high insight skill represents this. Some people can even do ‘cold readings’ discerning information accurately, even with very subtle clues often unnoticed by most.

So, if a guards frame of mind is somewhat ambiguous, an attempt to discern it probably requires an insight skill check.

It is plausible for the player to ask this. And it is reasonable for the DM to answer this. In this case, a skill check helps the DM adjudicate the ambiguity.

 

[iserith]

I think you can be a bit too formulaic at times. The player asking "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" is practically begging you to give him some information to interact with. He can't see the guard with his own eyes or hear him with his own ears, but his character can. Being silent about any such details unless the player says "I listen to the guard and observe him to see if his actions or demeanors give any noticeable signs of disbelief" is attempting to rely to much on a particular communication formula IMO. Both players are trying to find out the same information so they can actually decide what to do next about the guard. Perhaps one does it a bit more eloquently but both players just want to know if their characters are picking up on any signs about whether the guard believes them or not. Perhaps you shouldn't be such a stickler for your specific formula when the approach the player is taking out to be obvious and his goal is already clearly stated?

You assume I didn't already describe some level of the guard's credulity though when in Step 1 ("describe the environment"). I'm pretty good about that sort of thing, despite being "formulaic" because I want to avoid players being unaware of what's going on in the scene. If you're heard me drone endlessly about telegraphing and all that good stuff in other threads, you should know that I'm very cognizant about describing the important bits.

Anyway it's not about player eloquence. "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" hints at a goal, but says nothing of the approach. I need a complete approach to a goal before I can narrate the result of the adventurer's action. What I say next might be what I would call "auto-success," which to bring it around to what I've mentioned in earlier posts, is different in my view from an Expert character tapping the DC if I call for a check.

 

[iserith]

The thing is, in reallife, some people are really good at reading other people. A high insight skill represents this. Some people can even do ‘cold readings’ discerning information accurately, even with very subtle clues often unnoticed by most.

So, if a guards frame of mind is somewhat ambiguous, an attempt to discern it probably requires an insight skill check.

It is plausible for the player to ask this. And it is reasonable for the DM to answer this. In this case, a skill check helps the DM adjudicate the ambiguity.

I didn't say I was against Insight checks. But in order to determine an Insight check is called for, I have to hear an approach to a goal and determine that approach falls short of automatic success (and doesn't automatically fail, either).

 

[Yaarel]

Anyway it's not about player eloquence. "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" hints at a goal, but says nothing of the approach. I need a complete approach to a goal before I can narrate the result of the adventurer's action. What I say next might be what I would call "auto-success," which to bring it around to what I've mentioned in earlier posts, is different in my view from an Expert character tapping the DC if I call for a check.

If a player says. ‘Does the guard believe what we said? Can I use insight to see if I can tell?’ That is fine.

But if that same character has a big expertise bonus in insight, then that screws up the DM adjudication. For one thing it becomes more about exploiting the bonus, and less about narrative nuance. But mostly, the DM gets a feel for difficulty for what should be challenging and what should be easy. The big bonus expertise is playing a different kind of game, that players without it are unable to play.

 

[Yaarel]

I didn't say I was against Insight checks. But in order to determine an Insight check is called for, I have to hear an approach to a goal and determine that approach falls short of automatic success (and doesn't automatically fail, either).

We might be agreeing with each other. The impression I get is, you want the player to articulate the mechanics that will be in play. If so, by contrast, I want the player to articulate the story that is in play. I as DM can decide if any mechanics are necessary, if any. Of course, players can suggest mechanics. But it is the narrative that decides the outcome. Sometimes the narrative results in uncertainty and dice rolls.