D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

Aldarc

Legend
I thought about that, but it then denies the possibility of adding Advantage or Disadvantage. I also thought about Expertise denying Disadvantage, but that didn't fit for me.
That, IMHO, speaks to the advantage, no pun intended, of this house rule in regards to Expertise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mellored

Legend
It's only too good if all the spells that allow you skip skill checks are also too good.

If a wizard can use knock to automatically pass a near impossible lock, or teleport past a door, or fly up a cliff, or glibness, etc... then a rogue with expertise should also be able to automatically accomplish those same tasks.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I wish 5e made the skills (d20 v DC) use the exact same math as combat (d20 v AC).

If someone had ‘expertise’ in combat, it would be considered broken. It should likewise be considered broken in skills.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
The Rogue should have a different mechanic for ‘winning’ skill checks. One that didnt ruin the fundamental math of the gaming system.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I use skill checks heavily during combat, for improvisation, stunts, and so on.

Skills and combat need to use the same math.
 
Last edited:

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
A popular houserule I have seen about Expertise is that it just confers Advantage rather than a flat bonus.

I would dislike that. It means that I have no incentive ever to try to do a task better to get Advantage. It also doesn't change the max of what I can roll - the expert in the field can't get any better result then anyone else with the same ability mod trained in the skill.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I would dislike that. It means that I have no incentive ever to try to do a task better to get Advantage. It also doesn't change the max of what I can roll - the expert in the field can't get any better result then anyone else with the same ability mod trained in the skill.
You would be doing a task better, overall, because you would have Expertise and thereby would already have Advantage. Apart from a few exceptions (e.g., Lucky feat) there is no double Advantage, so there is only so many times or ways you could do something "better." IMHO, you are not describing a problem, but are, in fact, selling my point for me.
 

If I can build a Rogue that's better at Survival than the Ranger or Druid every will be or a Rogue better in Arcana than a Wizard, something is seriously wrong.

Expertise allows me to do either (though probably not both at the same time). In my opinion it's a problematic ability.
 

mellored

Legend
I would dislike that. It means that I have no incentive ever to try to do a task better to get Advantage. It also doesn't change the max of what I can roll - the expert in the field can't get any better result then anyone else with the same ability mod trained in the skill.
If you let advantage stack, 3d20 take the highest, like elven accuracy, it's fine.
 

mellored

Legend
The Rogue should have a different mechanic for ‘winning’ skill checks. One that didnt ruin the fundamental math of the gaming system.
I wouldn't mind seeing reliable talent type replace expertise.

"Any d20 roll less than your proficiency bonus, is equal to your proficiency bonus."

Actually, that wouldn't be bad for all proficiencies. Keep every DC and AC under 20.
Proficiency: "Any d20 roll less than your proficiency bonus, is equal to your proficiency bonus."
Expertise: "Any d20 roll less than your twice your proficiency bonus, is equal to your twice your proficiency bonus."

Rogues can still auto-pass most checks, but it keeps the math the same as everyone else.


Or possibly rerolls. Because rolling is fun.
Proficiency: "Once per roll, you can reroll a single d20 that is less than your proficiency bonus. You must use the new result." (Still works with advantage).


Other suggestions?
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top