D&D 5E Expertise is RUINING THE GAME!

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

jgsugden said:
Why? Why can't you have a rogue that is so good at picking locks that they're the only one in the world that has a good shot to pick the Lock of X'elios without magic?

That is a good story element. That makes the heroes feel like they stand out.

The underlying belief when we say that Expertise/High skills ruins the game is that character success on most, if not all, skill checks of a certain type is inherently bad. It absolutely is not. I've had the rogue in my game that could hide from anything. I've had the silvertongued devil that coud convince someone of almost anything. I've had the barbarian that could bend things thought to be unbreakable. And it was awesome. The players enjoyed being a Herculean style of awesome, and their exploits were legendary.

If, as a DM, you're frustrated that you can't challenge players with certain things, or that they can 'too easily' do certain things... really consider why that is a problem for you. If the goal is to tell a good story, why can't you use that story element as something to celebrate and applaude? A lot of our iconic myths are about people that can do amazing things - and they're not all wizards or using magic.

Why Indeed? My general guess is it was a way to not be 4e? To conform to elements of an earlier edition? (1e and 2e I think and maybe 3e to an extent) that kept mundanity/non-magic under lock down. 5e designers said they wanted low level things to be challenging for much much longer and that is for the most part what bounded accuracy achieves. Its worse for skills than combat because skill obstacles lack hit points (another arena of advancement beyond the check).

There is also an overall competence loss in 5e, the 4e hero got better at things by being around and learning from allies and gaining general confidence and probably adaptability if you want to think of it that way. 4e assumed there was learning going on that didnt have a big tick mark and name next to it so all adventuring skills got better. My late paragon chosen one of the goddess doesn't have to worry about getting passed the town mayor even though she doesn't specialize in social skills. It is perhaps a different related issue.

jgsugden · Jul 10, 2019

Garthanos said:
Why Indeed? My general guess is it was a way to not be 4e?

Huh? I don't get this at all. There is no evidence that they don't want nonmagical abilitis to be amazing. They still have a fighter class, after all.

To conform to elements of an earlier edition? (1e and 2e I think and maybe 3e to an extent) that kept mundanity/non-magic under lock down.

I played all of those editions, sir, and there was a lot of miraculous 'mundane' abilities.

5e designers said they wanted low level things to be challenging for much much longer and that is for the most part what bounded accuracy achieves. Its worse for skills than combat because skill obstacles lack hit points.

Yes - but an intentional design element that gives people amazing levels of skills intentionally is designed to break that rule, just as magic is intended to break that rule. It isn't like the math behind expertise and bounded accuracy was impossible to understand - the designers intended it to do exactly what it does.

There is also an overall competence loss in 5e, the 4e hero got better at things by being around and learning from allies and gaining general confidence and probably adaptability if you want to think of it that way. 4e assumed there was learning going on that didnt have a big tick mark and name next to it so all adventuring skills got better. My late paragon chosen one of the goddess doesn't have to worry about getting passed the town mayor even though she doesn't specialize in social skills. It is perhaps a different related issue.

4Es math was faux advancement. You were not supposed to fight goblins of CR 1 at level 20. Instead, they gave you minions that had proportionally higher defenses. All that really mattered were your net differential between character level and CR.

The math in this edition does exactly what it is supposed to do. Many of us use it, as is, and have great adventures that everyone in the game enjoys. There is no inherent problem.

tglassy · Jul 10, 2019

Xeviat said:
tglassy, I don't even know where to start commenting. Your post felt like it was talking down to me, but that's probably my own reading of it.

Feats in 5E aren't epic feats of heroic proportions. Expertise does allow for doing "nearly impossible things" better than others, but that's a DC 30 which is achievable by a 20 stat and a 5 or 6 proficiency, so it's not really something only they can do (only they can do it regularly).

Using feats or expertise to gate in actually cool stuff is what I'm suggesting. Yes, big numbers are sometimes fun, but I think reliable talent does a better job mechanically of covering the "you're better than the common person". Having a high stat and proficiency still sets someone higher than someone with an average stat and no proficiency.

I don’t mean to talk down to you. But at the same time this entire thread is just another “I don’t know how to challenge powerful characters so here’s how I nerf them” thread that I see popping up all the time. You’re worried about a Rogue who can hide from anything come lvl eleven when a Sorcerer can cast Invisibility at lvl 5, or Greater Invisibility at lvl 9, and do anything the Rogue can do. Or at lvl 3, the Warlock can cast Invisibility on himself and send his Imp to scout the entire Dungeon. The Rogue is vastly outdone if even a little magic is involved. Even being able to unlock any lock isn’t special, as Knock and Silence, so Knock stays quiet, are both lvl 2 spells. In fact, everything a Rogue can do can be done better with a 2nd lvl spell. Sure, it’s a limited resource, but you usually only need them a few times.

I’ve said it a hundred times on these threads, if you feel like you need to nerf a higher lvl character, you’re not giving them the right challenges. If you don’t like running higher level campaigns, then say that to your group and have them roll new lvl 1 characters every time they get too powerful.

Picking locks and hiding are trivial to a higher lvl anything-with-those-skills. So have them, but don’t count on them to be the main challenges. Let the player feel like they’ve graduated from having to worry about failing those threats, and now they can start worrying about other threats. Like Rival Assassins/Thieves Guilds, high level heists and figuring out how to steal a priceless artifact from the city museum.

Tony Vargas · Jul 10, 2019

tglassy said:
I don’t mean to talk down to you. But at the same time this entire thread is just another “I don’t know how to challenge powerful characters so here’s how I nerf them” thread

Not s'much. There's no problem in challenging someone who's only 'powerful' bit is a doubled proficiency - you just give them harder things to do - it's just a bigger number, you challenge it with a bigger number.
There /is/ a potential problem when a campaign puts most of it's emphasis in a single pillar (in this case, the Social/Interaction pillar, arguably the weakest), and the game only offers a relatively few skills that are relevant. It's no longer practical to just kick all the checks to the Expert (and make some of them extra-hard to be 'challenging'), and let the other PCs await their spotlight time, because that time isn't coming. Instead, you have to find a way to keep everyone involved.

So the problem is not just Expertise bringing back a bare hint of the exploding skill ranks problems you had in 3e, it's the system not offering enough depth or structure in the social pillar to keep everyone engaged. Expertise is just a symptom, I'd say.

But, I do like the idea of replacing the bland bonus to expertise with more cool/interesting perks.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

jgsugden said:
Huh? I don't get this at all. There is no evidence that they don't want nonmagical abilitis to be amazing.

I wonder about your ideas of amazing when the fighter in 1e gets another couple hit points and the wizard is now throwing wish spells and teleporting and turning into dragons.

What evidence do you have that they do want them to be... and we arent talking about combat abilities

jgsugden said:
Yes - but an intentional design element that gives people amazing levels of skills intentionally is designed to break that rule.

Do the numbers back it up? Bounded accuracy is very much intended to keep them in too tight to describe the tasks as being truly incredible.

Here is an example

In the previous edition a task which was literally numerically impossible for your character in the early game call it level 5 in 5e... would be meat and drink even odds at what would be level 15, it varies obviously based on how much someone specialized in it But that would only make it faster and more sure if you took feats and item support and themes and paragon paths and epic destinies and the like.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

jgsugden said:
You were not supposed to fight goblins of CR 1 at level 20.

No you fought swarms of them in phalanxes of armies if you fought them at all.

jgsugden said:
The math in this edition does exactly what it is supposed to do.

According to the press releases it means potential failure against low level challenges by high level characters
... shrug

this is one of those I think it is better if the press releases are wrong.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

In 4e there seemed very much encouragement in the form of paragon paths and epic destinies to think in terms of larger than life stuff for every character type... just not seeing that as a feature of 5e.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

Xeviat said:
I'm just throwing stuff out there at this point. I'm in the early black board stage. Seeing what sticks. But the more I think about it, the more I'm not liking "double proficiency bonus" in a vacuum.

I am used to everybody getting +10 from advancement that would be from level 5 to 15 in 5e. Plus this is without taking skill focus feats or themes or items or paragon path bonuses or any of that which are not unlikely at all.

That other stuff can allow one to reach alice in wonderland faster if you take them.

I say embrace the numbers. If you are right then 5e only locked general competency down to mundane numbers and its better off than I thought.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

tglassy said:
Picking locks and hiding are trivial to a higher lvl anything-with-those-skills.

Because you arent even allowing the impossible stunts. Like hiding with no cover... it still feels like the paradigm for doing impossible is not encouraged in this edition. Why cannot a ninja style rogue level 13 slip a few yards away in the middle of fighting make a stealth check then use some extraordinary trick to hide in plain sight functionally invisible for the rest of the battle. (very rude of him of course)

The problem that happens is beyond stunts like the above when those skilled at things or able to zap em trivially with a spell, get too much better than all the rest of the characters against a specific challenge. In effect adventure challenges become tied to the assumption of the presence of their abilities. I do not think any edition successfully held that issue fully at bay. Problems always being addressable in multiple ways seems a key to making it work.

Xaelvaen · Jul 10, 2019

Xeviat said:
What do you think?

Early on, when we first started playing 5E, it was my players who came to me with a request to change expertise. With it being limited to two classes, the party felt doubling the very foundation of bound accuracy was an immediate failure. Over the many campaigns we've played using 5E, we've tried a few different variables here.

Party's Favorite
Expertise allowed a player to spend their Bonus Action during a Skill Test to make it Outstanding. If the skill check was a success, it accomplished some incredibly outlandish effect (that the player declared BEFORE making the roll). However, a failure resulted in a critical failure - they really loved the danger of Expertise in this way.
* A couple of Examples:

1) A Rogue attempting to use Thieves' Tools to pick a lock. He declared that his successful Expertise roll would allow him to not only unlock the door, but change the tumblers so that the key would no longer work. The mayor tried for hours to get that door open while the Rogue robbed him blind.

2) A Wizard/Rogue was attempting to use Arcana and figure out a puzzle I had created. He wanted his Expertise to make it so that he could manipulate the magic into more of a visual representation (hologram if you will) that everyone could see. Upon critically failing, the magic leaped to life and created a living Magic Missile spell from all the evocation used to create the lights and interactive devices in the room.

3) A Dex-based Warrior/Rogue wanted to bullrush an enemy off a cliff. Declared his Athletics Expertise to jump off the cliff with the target so it had no chance to grab the ledge, plant his feet on the helpless foe's chest, and kick back safely onto the ledge. -- Success -- Classic action-hero gameplay.

My Favorite
Expertise grants you an expendable resource that returns with a Long Rest. The amount of resource is equal to the proficiency bonus (2 at 1st, 3 at 5th, and so on). Any time a player rolls the chosen skill, they can expend a resource and add +1d6 to the total. The dice rolled never goes up (but I did add a feat at one point to let it be a d8), only the amount of times you can do it in a day. Using this method, however, I also gave those players the option of ignoring the Expertise, and instead choosing a new Trained skill.