D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

Yaarel said:

Personally, I gauge by difficulties 15, 20, 25.

Because most checks add an ability and a proficiency, there is roughly about +5 to every check even at the lowest levels.

Thus 10 is normally trivially easy.

The difficulties of 15 and 20 are the respective challenging and hard of combat math. These two are my goto numbers.

Click to expand...

I think DC 10 works as a better go-to number because:

1) The +5 only appears when a character who is GOOD at the skill is making the check. This isn't always true for skills. Sometimes a player is forced to make a check their PC is not optimized for (actually this happens a lot at my tables).

This is a major difference between skill math and combat math. Unless someone has deliberately gimped their character, a 1st-level PC should be making every attack with a +5, or maybe a +4 if you're not precisely optimized ("wrong" race, for example). There is no way that a 1st-level PC should be making every single skill check with a +5; it's much too constraining to ask players to only ever do things that jive with their very best skills.

2) DC 10 can still have tension and be interesting if the consequences for failure are interesting. If the consequence is a boring "didn't work, try something else," then sure, use the higher DC. But if there's a real downside for failure, even the PC with the good bonus is going to seek out advantage, even for DC 10.

Of course context matters:

I tend to use DC 15 as my go-to number in combat, often because the consequences of success and failure are often analogous to an attack, so it makes sense not to overpower skills by giving them a low DC.

The other time I use DC 15 as the go-to number is when the whole party gets to attempt something. When a bunch of PCs are rolling, the odds of success shoot way up. DC 15 makes it more likely that the PC who actually has the good modifier is the one who succeeds.

I've considered adding the following degree-of-success mechanic:

1) Ability checks crit on a 20.
2) If you're adding proficiency, your ability check crits on a 19-20
3) If you have Expertise, instead of a bonus, any success you roll on that skill is a crit.

Something like that would make Expertise very powerful without distorting the probability math.

77IM said:

2) DC 10 can still have tension and be interesting if the consequences for failure are interesting. If the consequence is a boring "didn't work, try something else," then sure, use the higher DC. But if there's a real downside for failure, even the PC with the good bonus is going to seek out advantage, even for DC 10.

Click to expand...

In a separate discussion on Inspiration I was having in Discord, someone who observed some recent sessions pointed out that Inspiration in my games is very attractive because of the downsides of failure. You do NOT want to fail an ability check in my game. So players are frequently spending Inspiration on ability checks. In fact, that you are already making an ability check may signal you've already flumphed up by some measure by not getting auto-success.

The rules do say that a requirement for having an ability check at all is a meaningful consequence for failure. So, "didn't work, try something else," shouldn't really be a thing by that standard. Yet I see it being a thing in many, many games.

Some assorted thoughts here.

1.) Consequences for failure really have to be meaningful if I want a die roll - so if the consequence is “whatever you tried didn’t work and we remain at the status quo ante,” then I screwed up. Something must change as a result of the failure or else the check isn’t relevant and the effort should probably automatically succeed or automatically fail.

2.) If the problem is mathematical, how about rethinking proficiency altogether? Proficiency in a field gives you great in-game benefit, but no mechanical benefit. For instance, proficiency in religion let’s you perform and recognize rites, identify divine spells, pray in such a way as to warrant the attention of deities, and recognize undead types - all without a roll. And Expertise in a field gets you the numeric bonus equal to the stated proficiency bonus wherever a roll may come up. As an example, proficiency with thieves’ tools allows you to attempt to unlock doors with a dexterity check (no numeric bonus). Expertise in thieves tools would get you that bonus. Proficiency in longsword let’s you use one to attack (no bonus, no disadvantage). Expertise grants a numeric bonus to hit. If that feels unfair re weapons, maybe give the proficiency bonus as a damage bonus for weapons while expertise is an accuracy bonus.

3.) revisit how we set a DC. I do not think we should take the party’s makeup into account. If you played 2nd edition, maybe you remember having a train of hirelings that could do some tasks you couldn’t. I think the best way to set DCs relates exclusively to intent/approach, and that factoring in the capabilities of the adventurers is best left to the adventurers themselves. If they lack a competent lockpick or trap finder, don’t reduce those lock/trap DCs. Let them figure out how they want to proceed and adjudicate that.

Bawylie said:

2.) If the problem is mathematical, how about rethinking proficiency altogether? Proficiency in a field gives you great in-game benefit, but no mechanical benefit. For instance, proficiency in religion let’s you perform and recognize rites, identify divine spells, pray in such a way as to warrant the attention of deities, and recognize undead types - all without a roll. And Expertise in a field gets you the numeric bonus equal to the stated proficiency bonus wherever a roll may come up. As an example, proficiency with thieves’ tools allows you to attempt to unlock doors with a dexterity check (no numeric bonus). Expertise in thieves tools would get you that bonus. Proficiency in longsword let’s you use one to attack (no bonus, no disadvantage). Expertise grants a numeric bonus to hit. If that feels unfair re weapons, maybe give the proficiency bonus as a damage bonus for weapons while expertise is an accuracy bonus.

Click to expand...

I think this represents a philosophical difference between you and WotC. It's pretty clear from the design of 5e, and in particular from how it has changed from 3e, that they want PCs to try checks in tasks they're not proficient in, and have a reasonable chance of success.

TheCosmicKid said:

I think this represents a philosophical difference between you and WotC. It's pretty clear from the design of 5e, and in particular from how it has changed from 3e, that they want PCs to try checks in tasks they're not proficient in, and have a reasonable chance of success.

Click to expand...

I don’t have a philosophical difference with WotC over expertise. I was just brainstorming some alternatives.