Quartz
Hero
Here is a change for you to consider:
The Expertise Bonus now replaces (instead of stacks with) the Ability Score Bonus.
Yoink!
Here is a change for you to consider:
The Expertise Bonus now replaces (instead of stacks with) the Ability Score Bonus.
The high-level rogue doesn't have to sneak through a dark dungeon past a sleepy guard. The high-level rogue has to sneak past a dragon, in broad daylight, at a full tilt run.
I was actually just thinking about starting a post about whether or not expertise ruins the game. Higher numbers just become auto success, without pushing the DCs past the point that non-specialists can't make it. Other systems have features that let you take a penalty to your check, or voluntarily raise the difficulty to do something they couldn't otherwise do before. Taking a -5 penalty to stealth at full speed, or a -10 penalty to stealth while dashing and moving. A penalty to stealth in light obscurement/dim light. An even higher penalty to stealth in bright light. This would push the specialist to have to try hard, don't put them up against things a non-specialist can achieve.
Remember that the PC only gets to roll if the result is in doubt. Yes, you might be Batman with +20 to your Stealth (+6 base Proficiency, +1 to Proficiency from Ioun stone, 22 Dex boosted by Tome) and Reliable Talent, for a minimum result of 30 but if there's nowhere to hide then you don't get to hide.
Here is a change for you to consider:
The Expertise Bonus now replaces (instead of stacks with) the Ability Score Bonus.
Aside from smoothing the math out, the major gameplay change with this is that Expertise becomes more of something that shores up a weakness instead of something that you double-down on in order to become a super-specialist. And if for some reason you a player still wanted to be an expert in something that they had a good stat in, it's ok, because Expertise is still better than not being an expert in the long run (a +6 bonus instead of +5, baring magic items)
No, no they don't. The problem is that 'ok for D&D standards' is still pretty abysmal generally. What we have is a group of unevenly turn out ideas that are kinda sorta loosely connected because they are about the same thing (social interaction). What we don't have is any kind of actual system with rules that are designed to work together, and that's what I'd like, so I'm going to bang it out myself. I don't think there's any reason that D&D can't have a useful and serviceable system for social interaction either - just saying "the game isn't designed for it" is lazy thinking IMO (replying to someone else upstream). The basic tools are there for sure, and the rules in the DMG are where I'm starting too - there are some good ideas there buried under the dreck.I think they're okay for D&D standards. But almost nobody uses them in my experience because I don't think many DMs actually read the DMG.
Combat is different precisely because everyone does get a turn and the system supports the participation of the whole party. Even if you didn't land the mortal blow, you got your licks in. Social interaction doesn't currently work like that, but I think it should. Part of what I'm working on is ways to do that, both in smaller scale encounters and especially is larger scale social encounters (the Dukes ball etc), and also to spread some of the love outside the bounds of skills controlled by CHA.The rogue isn't being skipped and it isn't really planned though - at least no more than combat where everyone gets a turn. If that doesn't bother you (does it?), why should what amounts to taking turns in a social interaction challenge be bothersome? If a character lacked spotlight in the previous combat challenge, for example, I'm most certainly going to shine that spotlight on the character in this scene. That may or may not be the rogue.
Yeah, that's a a solid idea. I really don't like the Inspiration system as written, but there are versions of it, especially ones where players are leveraging backgrounds and character traits for a bonus specifically related to that thing, that could be very useful. The rogue could do that too of course, but happily his mod is already so high that it almost doesn't matter.Also, let's not forget that Inspiration is useful for effectively closing the gap somewhat between that +11 and +5. Other resources may also come into play which allow characters with lower bonuses compete with the expert rogue and participate effectively in the challenge. So even if the DM shines the spotlight on the character that isn't very effective in social interaction challenges, he or she has a shot, provided the DC isn't through the roof.
<snip>The basic tools are there for sure, and the rules in the DMG are where I'm starting too - there are some good ideas there buried under the dreck.<snip>
The social skills aren't mind control and players only make ability checks when the DM deems it necessary due to an uncertain outcome.
Yoink!
No, no they don't. The problem is that 'ok for D&D standards' is still pretty abysmal generally. What we have is a group of unevenly turn out ideas that are kinda sorta loosely connected because they are about the same thing (social interaction). What we don't have is any kind of actual system with rules that are designed to work together, and that's what I'd like, so I'm going to bang it out myself. I don't think there's any reason that D&D can't have a useful and serviceable system for social interaction either - just saying "the game isn't designed for it" is lazy thinking IMO (replying to someone else upstream). The basic tools are there for sure, and the rules in the DMG are where I'm starting too - there are some good ideas there buried under the dreck.
Combat is different precisely because everyone does get a turn and the system supports the participation of the whole party. Even if you didn't land the mortal blow, you got your licks in. Social interaction doesn't currently work like that, but I think it should. Part of what I'm working on is ways to do that, both in smaller scale encounters and especially is larger scale social encounters (the Dukes ball etc), and also to spread some of the love outside the bounds of skills controlled by CHA.
Yeah, that's a a solid idea. I really don't like the Inspiration system as written, but there are versions of it, especially ones where players are leveraging backgrounds and character traits for a bonus specifically related to that thing, that could be very useful. The rogue could do that too of course, but happily his mod is already so high that it almost doesn't matter.
Also, to be index some of my earlier posts, I'm really not worried about being fair to the character who isn't good at social interaction. That character has other skills and no expectation of great social interaction success. In an intrigue campaign though, most of the characters will have been purposely designed to have some SIP functionality via skills and spells. The spell thing still works fine, but things get dicey with the skills. When the rogue drops expertise on his the SIP skills his skill level outmatches the rest of the classes (except the Bard, obviously) in a way that isn't, for example, reflected in the combat system. The rogue in combat, compared to the fighter, is not the equivalent of the fighter compared to the rogue in social interaction - and that example encapsulates the core of my issues with D&Ds SIP rules.