D&D 5E Expertise for all Skills

[Falling Icicle]

While I like the general way they're doing skills in the last packet, the mere +1 bonus characters start with seems rather insignificant. Having a +3 instead of +2, or whatever, doesn't really matter much, and certainly doesn't do nearly enough to distinguish those who have training in a skill from those who don't. The cleric with an 18 Wis is still better than the 14 Wis Ranger at Survival. The 18 Str Fighter is still better at Athletics than the 14 Str rogue. This bothers me. I can see those with higher ability scores having an advantage from natural talent, but it shouldn't eclipse training so easily.

Of course, rogues can choose four skills to get "expertise", but that's what I thought I'd bring up here as a solution. In 4e, every skill got a +5 bonus just for being trained. Bonuses from leveling were on top of that. This is basically what expertise does for rogues. But why should rogues be the only ones that get this? I think they should give ALL skills that are trained a +5 expertise bonus, for every class. That would certainly help to distinguish those with training in a skill from those relying on nothing but natural talent! And it wouldn't be overpowered, either.

If anything, it seems to me like most actions are way too difficult, even for characters who have the appropriate skill and a good ability score on top of it. Take, for example, a character with a 16 Dex and training in Acrobatics. That gives him a total of +4 on his Dexterity (acrobatics) checks. Even attempting a simple task, with DC 10, the character has a pretty big chance to fail (25%). A DC 15 action would be failed 50% of the time, and a DC 20 task 75% of them. A DC 25+ task is literally impossible. Keep in mind, the DCs go up to 35! Even a 20th level character with a 20 Dex would only have +11 on those checks, meaning DC 35 actions are completely impossible for such a character, and even actions with lower DCs have extremely high failure rates compared to what you'd expect an epic character with a maxed out ability score to be able to accomplish.

Giving a +5 bonus for skill training solves most of these issues, and makes the DCs for actions much more reasonable. And there'd still be a much smaller gap between skilled and unskilled characters than there was in 3rd and 4th editions.

 

[ccooke]

While I like the general way they're doing skills in the last packet, the mere +1 bonus characters start with seems rather insignificant. Having a +3 instead of +2, or whatever, doesn't really matter much, and certainly doesn't do nearly enough to distinguish those who have training in a skill from those who don't. The cleric with an 18 Wis is still better than the 14 Wis Ranger at Survival. The 18 Str Fighter is still better at Athletics than the 14 Str rogue. This bothers me. I can see those with higher ability scores having an advantage from natural talent, but it shouldn't eclipse training so easily.

Of course, rogues can choose four skills to get "expertise", but that's what I thought I'd bring up here as a solution. In 4e, every skill got a +5 bonus just for being trained. Bonuses from leveling were on top of that. This is basically what expertise does for rogues. But why should rogues be the only ones that get this? I think they should give ALL skills that are trained a +5 expertise bonus, for every class. That would certainly help to distinguish those with training in a skill from those relying on nothing but natural talent! And it wouldn't be overpowered, either.

If anything, it seems to me like most actions are way too difficult, even for characters who have the appropriate skill and a good ability score on top of it. Take, for example, a character with a 16 Dex and training in Acrobatics. That gives him a total of +4 on his Dexterity (acrobatics) checks. Even attempting a simple task, with DC 10, the character has a pretty big chance to fail (25%). A DC 15 action would be failed 50% of the time, and a DC 20 task 75% of them. A DC 25+ task is literally impossible. Keep in mind, the DCs go up to 35! Even a 20th level character with a 20 Dex would only have +11 on those checks, meaning DC 35 actions are completely impossible for such a character, and even actions with lower DCs have extremely high failure rates compared to what you'd expect an epic character with a maxed out ability score to be able to accomplish.

Giving a +5 bonus for skill training solves most of these issues, and makes the DCs for actions much more reasonable. And there'd still be a much smaller gap between skilled and unskilled characters than there was in 3rd and 4th editions.

One point. The first two levels of the game are "apprentice" levels. "Standard" games are expected to start at level 3, as that's the level where all the iconic abilities are present for all classes. If you're starting at level 1, you're playing a barely-trained beginner who doesn't have much to offset against other people's natural ability. This is also why the proficiency bonus goes up to +2 at level 3. If you read back through the Legends and Lore archives, you'll see that proficiency is said to "start at +2" and reach to +6. This is the apprentice effect in play.

This probably won't be enough for you, but it is a misconception that changes a lot of the feel of the early game.

 

[Teataine]

I think the problem is the misapplication of DCs, not the numbers themselves.
The character you describe, with the +4 bonus, that's what we would call an "average" adventurer, right? So let's measure stuff off his baseline.
If an action is so simple or routine that failure would be inconsequential or boring, then you don't make the player roll, period. That 10 DC? That's where things get interesting. You set a DC 10 check, when you think that there's an interesting chance of failure. If the chance of failure is not significant (ie. below 25%) then don't make them roll. That's at low levels. As the characters level up, the once difficult tasks become routine as their skill and abilities increase. Buffs from spells and bard songs help, too.
The DCs go to 35, because that is the absolute limit of possibility. Of course a lvl 1 character doesn't have the chance to do something that high. DC 25 is starting to get into superhero territory. DC 35 is demigod stuff. Go beyond that and you're bending reality. So, DC 10 if a normal person would have trouble with it, 15 if a competent indivisual would have trouble with it, 20 if a hero would have trouble with it, 25 if you only envision someone like Batman or Hawkeye pulling it off, 30 if this is Hercules or Samson territory and 35 if you think the task is almost impossible by all accounts.

Now if it's the disparity between trained and untrained that's bothersome, especially at low levels (it becomes more pronounced as characters level up. You could make the lvl 1 bonus +3 then slow down the advancement, so you still end up with +6 at level 20. However you would also need to boost the current ACs of low level monsters or gove the, some other advantage because proficiency also applies to attack rolls.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To all skills seounds like a bad idea, but I think, every class should get expertise in their field of specialization:

mages should have arcana expertise
clerics should get religion expertise etc.

 

[ccooke]

To all skills seounds like a bad idea, but I think, every class should get expertise in their field of specialization:

mages should have arcana expertise
clerics should get religion expertise etc.

But that undermines other classes. The cleric is the best class at divine magic. The mage is the most flexible user of magic.

The rogue is supposed to be the most skillful class. It has the most options for using skills (things like cunning action) and the best bonuses earliest to slills. The bard gets expertise later, but it's really the best generalist - doesn't get as many options to use skills as the rogue, and gets bonuses later.

Giving skill-class features to other classes would just undermine the concept of being a skill class.

 

[Mistwell]

Wait, have we not already done this thread? Not a similar thread, this EXACT thread, with that EXACT complaint from Falling Ice? Or am I just experiencing deja vu'?

 

[Sunseeker]

But that undermines other classes. The cleric is the best class at divine magic. The mage is the most flexible user of magic.

The rogue is supposed to be the most skillful class. It has the most options for using skills (things like cunning action) and the best bonuses earliest to slills. The bard gets expertise later, but it's really the best generalist - doesn't get as many options to use skills as the rogue, and gets bonuses later.

Giving skill-class features to other classes would just undermine the concept of being a skill class.

That's not a very good argument. Being skilled in one particular area that is very near and dear to what you do should be obvious. I wouldn't expect a cleric to know nothing about religion, that would just be weird.

Further, I don't think that even the rogue, who has more skills by default anyway(and always has) is designed to be a "skill class" in DDN.

 

[DEFCON 1]

mages should have arcana expertise
clerics should get religion expertise etc.

I disagree with this, because not all clerics are priestly scholars and not all wizards are knowledgeable seers. At least not to the point they should start the game with a +9 in religion/arcana (+4 stat / +1 prof / +5 expertise.)

Almost all clerics and wizards are already going to have +5s due to stat and prof. For a cleric of the god of war who goes out swinging his warhammer for his god... a +5 in religion seems more than enough. Maybe if the Priest and Seer backgrounds added the +5 for expertise, it'd be a little more acceptable.

 

[Sunseeker]

I disagree with this, because not all clerics are priestly scholars and not all wizards are knowledgeable seers. At least not to the point they should start the game with a +9 in religion/arcana (+4 stat / +1 prof / +5 expertise.)

Almost all clerics and wizards are already going to have +5s due to stat and prof. For a cleric of the god of war who goes out swinging his warhammer for his god... a +5 in religion seems more than enough. Maybe if the Priest and Seer backgrounds added the +5 for expertise, it'd be a little more acceptable.

It would make sense that they may have sub-skills for specific classes. IE: a cleric of The Church of Bacon is really only knowledgeable about the Church of Bacon, and not the Cult of the Damned.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Wait, have we not already done this thread? Not a similar thread, this EXACT thread, with that EXACT complaint from Falling Ice? Or am I just experiencing deja vu'?

What are you talking about?