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

[Jester David]

Personally, my interest is more toward making skill checks more like combat − robust, balanced, thoughtful, challenging.

When skills use the same math that combat does, then it is easier to adjudicate the difficulty and the appropriate levels when difficult stunts should be more plausible. Consistent math makes it easier to handle skill checks on the fly, as they arise naturally as part of narrative decisions by players.

Also, when skills use the same math as combat, it is easier and more balanced to integrate skill checks as *part* of innovative or situational attack maneuvers.

The difference is in play, you want combat to have a moderate miss chance. And unless you die, you can repeat the check again during your next turn with little or no penalty due to having missed. Missing once in combat doesn't majorly alter the narrative.

Meanwhile, for skills, a single missed check can change the story. And you may not get a second chance. So while there should be a chance of failure, the odds should be different as the results are different.

Plus, all characters have roughly comparable success rates for combat. A mage hitting with a spell and warrior hitting with a weapon have the same odds of success. But skilled characters should have higher chances of success than unskilled. Excluding Expertise, the bonuses of a proficient character are not that much higher than an non-proficient one; for most of the game, Ability scores will matter more, so the Wizard might be better at Religion than the cleric just because they're smarter. Given the swingy nature of the die, if everyone in the party rolls the check (because everyone can) then the odds of the person who chose to specialise and train in that skill getting the highest result, is likely 1:3. It only gets higher if you can synergize with Ability Score and proficiency, but even then a lucky roll can make someone "better" at the task than you.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't think it's necessary. Skill mastery is what rogues shine at. They sort of need those very high skill to even keep up with some of the other classes.

Bards... I think it's excessive. Bards are too good in 5e

 

[clearstream]

Currently, Expertise doubles your proficiency bonus. This means that PCs can simply take a level of Rogue and instantly get +4 to +12 to their roll. That doesn't seem right to me, and mathematically, multipliers are a bad idea where bounded accuracy is involved.

So how about having Expertise as a plain +2? That's low enough to not be game-breaking but high enough to matter, especially at low levels. Rogues could perhaps improve it to +4 at 10th level instead of the ASI.

How would this affect the game?

I'm finding that stacked adds per the rules take some interest out of the game, by reducing challenge, and Expertise is certainly contributing to that.

Still, Rogue is not really OP. Therefore, as a thought, what about making Expertise base on Rogue levels?

 

[AmerginLiath]

As precedent, I'll cite two of the Fighter's Combat Styles: Sharpshooter is a fixed +2 to hit and Duellist is a fixed +2 to damage. Both are initially the same as the Proficiency Bonus but unlike Expertise stay there.

Not to derail, but a thought on the other foot, as it were: how would it affect the High Level Fighter Argument if the +2 bonuses from Combat Styles were changed to +Proficiency Bonus? (the obvious first issue is how to deal with dips)

 

[guachi]

Yeah I've never once seen anyone dip rogue just for expertise.

The word "just" is doing an awful lot of work here. I find your argument disingenuous. First level in a class gives you a multiple of features. I've dipped rogue for expertise. But it wasn't "just" for expertise. Though the other things didn't really matter. They could have been any random features.

 

[Mistwell]

The word "just" is doing an awful lot of work here. I find your argument disingenuous. First level in a class gives you a multiple of features. I've dipped rogue for expertise. But it wasn't "just" for expertise. Though the other things didn't really matter. They could have been any random features.

You think it's disingenuous that I repeated my experience? I assure you, it's genuine. I have never seen anyone dip rogue for expertise, even if it was just expertise as the primary thing they were getting and they also got other things they might want. Or phrase it any way you want. In my experience, I have never seen anyone dip rogue with expertise in mind even vaguely.

You say you have. OK then, you're literally the first person I've heard who has done that.

So, would you say it's a problem? Was it overpowering in your game?

 

[Zen Ferno]

As someone that's GMed a game from level 1 to 18, and playing as RAW as possible, I can say it's not an issue to use Expertise as written.

We have a Cleric, a Paladin, a Sorcerer and a Rogue. The Rogue does trivialize "hard" Acrobatics and Deception checks, but it's never been as disruptive as anything the other party members do (flying, turning into gas clouds, summoning a literal storm of fire, nearly one-shotting a Vampire Lord, etc.)

At this high a level, the challenges are taking down evil demigods, so things like needing to run along a rope or lying to a guard are just for flavor anyway.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First, I have no problem with either approach. The current x2 is fine for our group, and for me it gives a distinct mechanical slap-in-the-face to everyone at the table that the Rogue REALLY knows this skill AND is just plain ol' naturally good at it. Seeing as the Rogue only gets two skills to start with that have this bonus, it really isn't a problem.

That said, just having a set bonus for Expertise does cut down on the sometimes rather extreme differences that can occure between PC's.

As precedent, I'll cite two of the Fighter's Combat Styles: Sharpshooter is a fixed

+2 to hit and Duellist is a fixed +2 to damage. Both are initially the same as the Proficiency Bonus but unlike Expertise stay there.

Second, I'd just like to point out you are comparing Apples to Oranges here. The AC's for most creatures tend to fall into the 12 to 18 range, with higher-danger creatures getting up around 19 to 22 or so. Extreme high-AC opponents, like the Terrasque, has what, a 25? So for the vast majority of the PC's "encounters", he's going to have to hit AC 16 as a "general target". The bonuses you need to hit that are, well, no more than -4. Even with no bonus you're still hitting that target number about 25% of the time (right?).

With the DC's for picking locks, sneaking, climbing, perceiving secret doors, or deducing where the secret compartment is on the elaborate desk...the DC's tend to be higher. A usual "default" DC for my games is 10 or 12. If there is anything more tricky about it, it goes to 15. If it is also had specific things done to make it even more difficult/confusing, it goes up to 17 or 20. For things that were "done" by a professional who really knew what they were doing, we are looking at DC's in the 22, 25 or even 27 range.

The bottom line is..."regular" DC's go up 'higher' than "regular" AC's tend to. Also, multiple Fighters can attack the same creature...who also has HP's, btw...where you can't normally get multiple Thieves to pick the same lock...which doesn't have HP's (e.g., success against it is binary; yes/no, based on one roll). So succeeding at the task for a Thief should, imnsho, be more common than a Sharpshooter fighter succeeding at hitting the same target number (AC) of a monster.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Quartz]

With the DC's for picking locks, sneaking, climbing, perceiving secret doors, or deducing where the secret compartment is on the elaborate desk...the DC's tend to be higher. A usual "default" DC for my games is 10 or 12. If there is anything more tricky about it, it goes to 15. If it is also had specific things done to make it even more difficult/confusing, it goes up to 17 or 20. For things that were "done" by a professional who really knew what they were doing, we are looking at DC's in the 22, 25 or even 27 range.

That's a bit of a circular argument, though, isn't it? Your DCs are high because the PC gets such a large bonus to the roll. If the PC doesn't get that large bonus you don't make the DC so high. A DC 27 lock is an automatic success for a high-level rogue with Dex 20 thanks to Reliable Talent.

So succeeding at the task for a Thief should, imnsho, be more common than a Sharpshooter fighter succeeding at hitting the same target number (AC) of a monster.

That's a more telling argument, though I have plans for Sharpshooter.

 

[Quartz]

Not to derail, but a thought on the other foot, as it were: how would it affect the High Level Fighter Argument if the +2 bonuses from Combat Styles were changed to +Proficiency Bonus? (the obvious first issue is how to deal with dips)

I think that +PB to anything is a bad idea if multi-classing is allowed - it's one of the things that prompted me to start this thread. But combat styles are so varied that a lot of work would need to go into changing some of them to fit that. Duellist and Sharpshooter are the easy ones.