D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[5ekyu]

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.

Only if one sees those skills as leashed to classes instead of characters.

should rogue not get sneak attack because it gives them more damage on a hit than a fighter?

a ranger is far more than "best at the survival skill checks"

but thats how i see it. not everyone may agree.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Only if one sees those skills as leashed to classes instead of characters.

should rogue not get sneak attack because it gives them more damage on a hit than a fighter?

a ranger is far more than "best at the survival skill checks"

but thats how i see it. not everyone may agree.

Yes. The ranger is the "explorer of the wilds" and is also a decent combatant (the rogue is also a decent combatant, by the way). Being the explorer of the wilds means having several high skill checks, all of which the rogue with Expertise and the right starting ability scores has the ability to eclipse the ranger with (except when the ranger is in his/her favored terrain, which probably won't be more than 20% of the time).

 

[5ekyu]

I have another question: Is the DM inclined to inflate DCs to "challenge" or even thwart the character with Expertise?

So, speaking from my PoV... strip out the "thwart" crap and a degree of this will occur in a consistent setting by its very nature and IMO **should not** be something done intentioally "for a character" but rather as the nature of the beast.

In the DMG, it describes assigning Dc and at one point gives what is frankly very close to how i have run "DC" in system after system after system for ages.

it boils down to setting a common pattern based on "who set the challenge up" or "who could be expected to beat it."

the way they describe it -
if neither skill nor aptitude was involved or needed DC10 easy. (A typical inn locks, a typical guy keeping watch, etc.) Average ability scores, no training (proficiency)
If **either* aptitude or training is involved/required - Dc15 moderate. (Innkeeper where they know a thing or two about locks or have had problems that made the hire someone, a "sentry" on watch who has done this job for a while, etc.)
If *both* aptitude and training are involved DC20 hard. (Now if the innkeeper is a former thief or the sentry a skilled hunter as well as exceptional...)

To this i add "resources" that can raise it by 5 for (spent a lot of time or money or has multiple folks doing it) or lower it by 5 for (hard times, not paying guards, not keeping maintenance up on locked rooms or window seals etc)

Now, i suggest that at low levels the nature of campaigns are going to be throwing a lot of "less resourceful" and "less exceptional" and "less well trained and experienced" types of adversaries (as a general rule) and so the DCs produced by the system of "consistent thresholds" will tend to skew low... but as they characters wind up encountering more and more skilled and resourceful and exceptional adversaries as things go on the Dcs will tend more often to be high just because the folks they are opposing have more wherewithal and more resources to apply... parabus etcetera.

Obviously, this will vary with specifics... a giant ogre may not be better at hiding pit traps than a goblin... maybe even worse if the gonblins have more manpower to put to the task. but the general principle can serve as a guide.

The catch is, if the PCs ran up against well-funded, well-skilled inkeeper locks at level 3, it would still be DC20ish. So it is not actually changing the DC to match the party level as much as it is having a consistent way to represent skill, aptitude and resources of adversaries and the challnege they create.

At 11th level, the common inkeeper locks will still be 10s... just there is not much in there "worth having" --- that he knows at least.

 

[Satyrn]

So, speaking from my PoV... strip out the "thwart" crap . . .

That was my advice to myself, too.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes. The ranger is the "explorer of the wilds" and is also a decent combatant (the rogue is also a decent combatant, by the way). Being the explorer of the wilds means having several high skill checks, all of which the rogue with Expertise and the right starting ability scores has the ability to eclipse the ranger with (except when the ranger is in his/her favored terrain, which probably won't be more than 20% of the time).

i am not going to defend the ranger class as well built and such... but the obvious intention was that the class gains its strength at wilderness by the number of special features from its favored terrain and from its other capabilities like the stride and finding folks.

*if* the campaign takes a significant element of its strength at wilderness stuff and relegates it to 20% as you suggest, then that will produce a substandard class - just like if sneak attack was only applied to 20% of the combats the rogue was i that class would under-perform.

its the assumption that the ranger is "out of his element" 80% of the time that is the problem, both in the perception and to a degree the design.

So again, we both seem to agree that *if* the ranger is in his favored terrain, he is better at the woodsy stuff than the rogue's "extra proficiency" bonus. As for how often that will be the case - we may be in disagreement.

personally, if i were going to provide a more "consistent range" approach i would borrow the EG Hunter concept which allows the favored terrain to apply to "whatever terrain you have been in for an hour" making it more "getting the lay of the land" as opposed to "learns a specific terrain."

But if i am running a game with a ranger as a PC, then i would make sure their "favored terrain" was a possible factor more than 20% in my campaign planning - a lot more - but thats me. i could easily run things so it dropped to 205 or set things up so rogue only got sneaks in about 20% too... but that would be a - less than good - way for me to run my game.

YMMV

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

i am not going to defend the ranger class as well built and such... but the obvious intention was that the class gains its strength at wilderness by the number of special features from its favored terrain and from its other capabilities like the stride and finding folks.

*if* the campaign takes a significant element of its strength at wilderness stuff and relegates it to 20% as you suggest, then that will produce a substandard class - just like if sneak attack was only applied to 20% of the combats the rogue was i that class would under-perform.

its the assumption that the ranger is "out of his element" 80% of the time that is the problem, both in the perception and to a degree the design.

So again, we both seem to agree that *if* the ranger is in his favored terrain, he is better at the woodsy stuff than the rogue's "extra proficiency" bonus. As for how often that will be the case - we may be in disagreement.

personally, if i were going to provide a more "consistent range" approach i would borrow the EG Hunter concept which allows the favored terrain to apply to "whatever terrain you have been in for an hour" making it more "getting the lay of the land" as opposed to "learns a specific terrain."

But if i am running a game with a ranger as a PC, then i would make sure their "favored terrain" was a possible factor more than 20% in my campaign planning - a lot more - but thats me. i could easily run things so it dropped to 205 or set things up so rogue only got sneaks in about 20% too... but that would be a - less than good - way for me to run my game.

YMMV

Sounds like we run games differently. My world has already been designed before the PCs enter play. What they decide to do with it is their decision. That usually means they won't be spending the entire games in the ranger's favored terrain, but in a number of different environments they decide to explore. Or it could mean they spend the entire time in the ranger's favored terrain. It all depends on the characters' actions.

Same thing with sneak attack. It's not the DM's job to set up sneak attacks. That's the rogue's player's job.

The problem isn't only the ranger, though. The rogue can be better at Arcana than the Wizard; better at Acrobatics than the Monk; better at Religion than the Cleric or Paladin; better at Nature than the Druid; better at Athletics than the Barbarian; better at Persuasion than the Warlock, etc. The rogue can't do it all at once, but something seems seriously wrong with those statements.

The cleric should not be learning about his/her own faith from the rogue. Something about that strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

 

[5ekyu]

Sounds like we run games differently. My world has already been designed before the PCs enter play. What they decide to do with it is their decision. That usually means they won't be spending the entire games in the ranger's favored terrain, but in a number of different environments they decide to explore. Or it could mean they spend the entire time in the ranger's favored terrain. It all depends on the characters' actions.

Same thing with sneak attack. It's not the DM's job to set up sneak attacks. That's the rogue's player's job.

The problem isn't only the ranger, though. The rogue can be better at Arcana than the Wizard; better at Acrobatics than the Monk; better at Religion than the Cleric or Paladin; better at Nature than the Druid; better at Athletics than the Barbarian; better at Persuasion than the Warlock, etc. The rogue can't do it all at once, but something seems seriously wrong with those statements.

The cleric should not be learning about his/her own faith from the rogue. Something about that strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

Again, better at a skill to me is not the same as better at a class's focus since classes reflect that focus in many ways.

So, hey, i can see where is one sees class-skills as marriages rather than relationships it could be seen as a problem.

To me class is not anything close to character and if a fighter wanted to be strong at arcana or history etc and bught a decent int plus used some of his bonus ASI or backgrounds on "skilled feat" or a rogue decided to use ecpetise to be religious history nut guy... I applaud that as interesting character not condemn it as a broken thing deserving a rules chg.

Now, that said, if two players both wanted to play "great at arcana" characters in the same game, we would sort that out -regardless of class.

But i let go of "class define character" long ago for my games.

 

[iserith]

I hate Expertise with a burning passion. Simply put, it breaks bounded accuracy. Common problems with it that I've actually seen in game play:

• Stealth Expertise rapidly renders stealth an auto-success for the rogue, and chancy for everyone else. It doesn't help that MM monsters rarely have passive Perception much above 12 or so.
• Athletics Expertise can make rogues bizarrely good at grappling. Conversely, Acrobatics expertise makes them ungrapplable.
• Perception Expertise means nothing can be hidden, ever.

Are there was for the DM to work around these problems? Yes, but they take a bunch of extra work. That takes away time from everyone else at the table.

Expertise just warps the math in a bad way. Why have bounded accuracy and then bust it? I'll tell you why: because the skill system is pass/fail with no degrees of success or variations in success. In combat, everybody has roughly the same chance to hit, but they do different things when they hit. That doesn't happen with skill checks because there's such a diversity of skill checks that coming up with different success effects for different characters was too difficult of a design challenge -- and implementing it in play also sounds slower than pass/fail.

I don't have a solution to this problem. I just hate the solution 5E adopted. It's probably the number one thing I would change about 5E if I could change just one thing.

I know a lot of this comes down to preference, but I often look at these sorts of examples and objections and think "Why don't I have these same issues?" For my part, I don't particularly care that the rogue is almost always successful when trying to sneak around, nor do I feel like being good at grappling "belongs" to some other class. And I certainly don't think that nothing can be hidden "ever," because you don't have a chance to notice things if you're not looking in the right place, per the rules, regardless of your expertise.

Is it just the exception to bounded accuracy that bugs you? Like an unbalanced equation or remainder of sorts, the thought of which keeps someone up at night? I'm just trying to see the source of this objection as it's not clear we're at the heart of it. The examples you provided fall really short of explaining it for me because, to me, those all seem like reasonable outcomes (save the last). Please take this as an effort to understand where this is coming from and not a criticism.

 

[Ristamar]

Sounds like we run games differently. My world has already been designed before the PCs enter play. What they decide to do with it is their decision. That usually means they won't be spending the entire games in the ranger's favored terrain, but in a number of different environments they decide to explore. Or it could mean they spend the entire time in the ranger's favored terrain. It all depends on the characters' actions.

The revised Ranger fixes a lot of those issues. Favored Terrain is bad design. Favored Enemy is still arguably problematic, but I have a feeling the design team wasn't willing to go that far in eliminating a legacy feature.

Same thing with sneak attack. It's not the DM's job to set up sneak attacks. That's the rogue's player's job.

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing it's consistently easier for a Rogue to obtain advantage or have an ally adjacent to an enemy versus the ranger attempting to consistently traverse and fight on a specific type of terrain against a particular type of enemy.

The problem isn't only the ranger, though. The rogue can be better at Arcana than the Wizard; better at Acrobatics than the Monk; better at Religion than the Cleric or Paladin; better at Nature than the Druid; better at Athletics than the Barbarian; better at Persuasion than the Warlock, etc. The rogue can't do it all at once, but something seems seriously wrong with those statements.

A lot of those issues seem to be indicative of the issue of the broad application of skills within the 5e skill system rather than a problem with Expertise. Those issues can pop up even if there is no Rogue or Bard in the party.

DM adjudication is the easiest way to handle those cases. Clerics shouldn't often need to be rolling for knowledge checks specific to their religion, it should likely be an auto successs. Alternatively, grant the cleric advantage on the roll. Or provide a different contextual level of information or success based on the class or background of the PC making the check.

Throwing all that aside, even if the Rogue is far more book smart regarding scripture and history relative to the party's cleric, the cleric is still the one channeling the power and will of a deity and that should factor into resolving challenges outside of combat.

The cleric not be learning about his/her own faith from the rogue. Something about that strikes me as fundamentally wrong.

There were many men of the cloth in the fuedal era that were not well versed in their own religion. If a layman had the time and opportunity to educate himself in theology, he could easily be more knowledgeable than many priests.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The revised Ranger fixes a lot of those issues. Favored Terrain is bad design. Favored Enemy is still arguably problematic, but I have a feeling the design team wasn't willing to go that far in eliminating a legacy feature.

A lot of those issues seem to be indicative of the issue of the broad application of skills within the 5e skill system rather than a problem with Expertise. Those issues can pop up even if there is no Rogue or Bard in the party.

DM adjudication is the easiest way to handle those cases. Clerics shouldn't often need to be rolling for knowledge checks specific to their religion, it should likely be an auto successs. Alternatively, grant the cleric advantage on the roll. Or provide a different contextual level of information or success based on the class or background of the PC making the check.

Throwing all that aside, even if the Rogue is far more book smart regarding scripture and history relative to the party's cleric, the cleric is still the one channeling the power and will of a deity and that should factor into resolving challenges outside of combat.



There were many men of the cloth in the fuedal era that were not well versed in their own religion. If a layman had the time and opportunity to educate himself in theology, he could easily be more knowledgeable than many priests.

The revised ranger is from Unearthed Arcana, which isn't even official material. I could have been printed in XGtE, but wasn't deemed worthy (for whatever reason), just like skill feats. They are a non-issue and irrelevant to our discussion. They are even less of an issue that completely optional rules, like feats and multi-classing.

As for skills and classes, the problem isn't necessarily that this specific rogue knows the cleric's specific religion better than he does.

The problem is that going by the PHB and standard point-buy, a 20th level rogue with 8 intelligence and just so happens to specialize in religion (+11 Religion) will know just as much about the part cleric's religion as the 20th level cleric with 20 intelligence (+11 Religion) ever can.

Yes, the DM can hand-wave skills for the part cleric, or grant the cleric advantage or whatever, but that seem wishy-washy. Regardless, the rogue has the Reliable Talent and does need to play mother-may-I with the DM to know even relative obscure (DC 21) facts about the cleric's religion without any chance of failure.

Personally, I find that pretty lame.