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

Ristamar · Oct 9, 2018

Quartz said:
I agree, but those feats were more-or-less examples.

The UA feats and the Prodigy feat grant expertise plus a small package of other abilities, providing additional context for the question posed by [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]. We already know the Skilled feat in the PHB provides three skill proficiencies and no ability score increase. The designers have also stated that a tool proficiency is typically less valuable than skill proficiency, and languages are typically less valuable than tools.

As such, expertise in one skill or tool seems to be worth about half a feat, at best.

Ristamar · Oct 9, 2018

5ekyu said:
Ok so maybe i missed it but werent the half-feats released with XGtE but actually only DnD Beyond add-ons?

Hard to recall and since i only get Beyond products, hard to tell.

I can't comment on DDB, but the feats are definitely in the book.

Remathilis · Oct 9, 2018

Quartz said:
Well yes, but if you play with reduced bonus then you might decide on day 1 that the DC is lower. And 25 isn't that difficult for a high-level PC with +2 Expertise: +5 stat +6 Proficiency Bonus +2 Expertise is +13 already, and +1d4 Guidance +1d12 Inspiration makes that +22 so is an auto-success thanks to Reliable Talent. Indeed, for a mid-level PC with more modest stats, you get a base of +3 stat bonus +4 Proficiency Bonus +2 Expertise for +9 to the roll; add in 1d4 Guidance and 1d8 Inspiration and your lockpicker has +16 to the roll and Reliable talent means a minimum result of 26.

Anyway, while I dislike Expertise being based on the Proficiency Bonus, I do think it ought to be increased at later levels, much as the Fighter's Combat Styles scale with extra attacks. So, how about replacing the Feat / ASI the Rogue gets at level 10 with

Advanced Knowledge: your Expertise bonus increases to +4. You also gain proficiency in a new skill.

I do hope in you will be fair and also look at dwarf stonecunning, the Lore domain ability, changeling personas, and the prodigy feat, as well as bards and rogues (including scout rogues).

Quartz · Oct 9, 2018

Remathilis said:
I do hope in you will be fair and also look at dwarf stonecunning, the Lore domain ability, changeling personas, and the prodigy feat, as well as bards and rogues (including scout rogues).

One thing at a time. But if you're thinking of changing all x2 PB to +2 then yes, I'd do that if I changed Expertise to +2.

5ekyu · Oct 11, 2018

Ristamar said:
I can't comment on DDB, but the feats are definitely in the book.

That's enough, thx. I must have misread or misunderstood something.

Li Shenron · Oct 11, 2018

Quartz said:
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 don't like it, because IMHO ability/skill checks do need a much larger bonus range compared to attacks and saves, and that's the reason behind WotC introducing Expertise for skills & tools only, with no similar feature available for attacks and saves. In other words, the standard bounded accuracy that works well with attacks and saves, doesn't work equally well with skills. This has something to do with the fact that many attacks/saves are required to reach the target outcome (win the battle, survive the dungeon) while it is common to see more immediate targets for skill checks (unlock the door, disarm the trap, jump the chasm), together with the fact that the latter have a more 'spotlight' effect on the PC doing them. So bounded accuracy works great when the result is to make everyone feel they matter in a fight, but not so great when it makes the 'expert' characters being too often overtaken by others who never invested in the skill. They could have solved the problem by using a less swingy dice for skill checks, but instead they went with doubling the bonus for the true experts.

If there is a problem with Expertise for multiclass characters, I blame multiclassing rather than Expertise.

Edit: got it wrong the first time

Grognerd · Oct 11, 2018

Li Shenron said:
If there is a problem with Expertise for multiclass characters, I blame multiclassing rather than Expertise.

This. Expertise does not break or harm the game as is, and changing it profits nothing. Changing a base feature because of an optional rule (Multiclassing) is backwards. Instead, the better solution is to monitor or fix multiclassing. If it is that much of a concern, then simply don't allow multiclassing. As I've posted before on other threads, between sub-classes, backgrounds, and feats, multiclassing isn't necessary in 5e anyway.

5ekyu · Oct 11, 2018

Li Shenron said:
I don't like it, because IMHO ability/skill checks do need a much larger bonus range compared to attacks and saves, and that's the reason behind WotC introducing Expertise for skills & tools only, with no similar feature available for attacks and saves. In other words, the standard bounded accuracy that works well with attacks and saves, doesn't work equally well with skills. This has something to do with the fact that many attacks/saves are required to reach the target outcome (win the battle, survive the dungeon) while it is common to see more immediate targets for skill checks (unlock the door, disarm the trap, jump the chasm), together with the fact that the latter have a more 'spotlight' effect on the PC doing them. So bounded accuracy works great when the result is to make everyone feel they matter in a fight, but not so great when it makes the 'expert' characters being too often overtaken by others who never invested in the skill. They could have solved the problem by using a less swingy dice for skill checks, but instead they went with doubling the bonus for the true experts.

If there is a problem with Expertise for multiclass characters, I blame multiclassing rather than Expertise.

Edit: got it wrong the first time

Re the last sentence, I agree. I have seen threads where folks complain about how powerful EB compared with other cantrips is but it always hinges on what EB plus warlock this and warlock that does, often with multiclassing so it's not really the cantrip at fault.

With multi-into rogue, you also have the fact that in my experience the DeX 13 requirement means most any PC other than heavy armor types meets the MC into Rogue requirement since Dex is so important.

Quartz · Oct 11, 2018

Grognerd said:
Changing a base feature because of an optional rule (Multiclassing) is backwards.

I disagree. To me, it is the base rule - doubling the proficiency bonus - that is the problem.

To quote from my OP:

Quartz said:
and mathematically, multipliers are a bad idea where bounded accuracy is involved.

Grognerd · Oct 11, 2018

Quartz said:
I disagree. To me, it is the base rule - doubling the proficiency bonus - that is the problem.

To quote from my OP:

I know what you said in the OP. But I think you were wrong then, and I think you are still wrong now. There is only a "problem" (which isn't even really a problem) with Expertise if you allow multiclassing - which is an optional rule. If you feel it is problematic, the far simpler and better solution is to simply not allow the optional rule, rather than rewrite a core feature.

Now, obviously, it is your game and you can do what you like, but to create problems by nerfing Expertise rather than avoid problems by simply disallowing multiclass characters is, as I mentioned, backwards. YMMV, and if your players actually are willing to put up with this, have at it, by all means. Oofta's rule applies.