D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[FrogReaver]

There is no uncertainty for any roll where a PC wouldn't have a high enough skill mod to meet the DC. The whole point of your introducing an auto-success-on-20 rule is to create uncertainty where there otherwise wouldn't be. So the question becomes: when is it appropriate to create that uncertainty and when not?

The skill bonus you have vs the DC check isn't what creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is a DM call. It's part of how the game is played. The DM, not some numbers decide when something is uncertain.

 

[Yaarel]

When 5e playtests were first coming out with the idea of ‘expertise’, I instinctively disliked it because it deviated from combat math. It was impossible for it to not cause problems. That dislike of expertise remains.

 

[FrogReaver]

When 5e playtests were first coming out with the idea of ‘expertise’, I instinctively disliked it because it deviated from combat math. It was impossible for it to not cause problems. That dislike of expertise remains.

The only thing I find problematic with expertise is auto success and failure which can be eliminated by adopting the critical success and failure rules of combat and by having a DM learn to actually abjucate scenarios instead of just calling for skill checks. When I try to push the sturdy castle wall over with my bare hands I roll isn't called. Instead I just fail. When I try to pick up a coin on the ground no check is required, instead it's auto success.

If the DM rules something is uncertain then the roll afterwards needs to allow for uncertainty. Eliminating expertise isn't the only way to allow for such uncertainty and in fact does a worse job as even with no expertise you can auto succeed on DC 12 and lower checks.

 

[Quickleaf]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

So, is Expertise too good? What if Expertise were limited to a plain +2? That's still the same as doubling for a beginning PC, but doesn't go into the stratosphere for high-level PCs. It would mean that rogues have an advantage sure, but no more than the fighter in combat. And it would significantly nerf dipping the Rogue for multi-classing.

It depends on your DM style when it comes to skill check frequency & whether skill checks tend to completely resolve a conflict or just contribute toward the path of conflict resolution (as part of clever thinking, spells, role-playing, etc.).

IME as a DM who probably calls for skill checks not as often as other DMs (I prefer to roll only when there's doubt & minimize rolling while maximizing consequence), and who treats skill checks as one part of organic conflict resolution... Expertise is just fine.

 

[Yaarel]

For those DMs and players who feel expertise needs to remain within bounded accuracy, what is the best fix.

One solution, expertise unlocks skill feats. For example, if gaining athletic expertise, maybe climb speed can be one of choices of athletic feats to choose from. Ambidexterity (Drow-like second of two-weapon attack uses flourish instead of bonus action?) could be a sleight of hand expertise choice. Or so on. PF2 seems to have skill feats, and might be a source of inspiration for 5e skill feats.

This thread has offered good ideas to replace expertise, including advantage (roll two d20s), elven accuracy feat (if advantage can reroll one of the two), rogue reliable talent (d20 increases to at least 10), add d6 bonus, maybe some others suggestions that I dont remember. All of these are good ideas, respect bounded accuracy, moreorless, and seem fair in exchange for the expertise number porn.

My difficulty is, all of these ideas would still make cringe if applied in combat. For example, if advantage always happens every attack, it is disruptive. In fact some classes (rogue) do connive a way to optimize advantage for virtually every attack. It doesnt seem to have ruined the game. So maybe expertise as advantage isnt too aggreving.

Maybe I could live with expertise as advantage, and opening up skill feats as fun design space. The rogue of course would get things like access to stealth feats or so on as part of expertise.

Any ideas?

 

[FrogReaver]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

So, is Expertise too good? What if Expertise were limited to a plain +2? That's still the same as doubling for a beginning PC, but doesn't go into the stratosphere for high-level PCs. It would mean that rogues have an advantage sure, but no more than the fighter in combat. And it would significantly nerf dipping the Rogue for multi-classing.

Extra attack scales the fighting styles. There's no other scaling for skill checks.

Thus a +1 or +2 over 2-4 attacks is starting to feel pretty close to a +6 on a single attack which feels pretty close to a +6 on a single skill check since skill checks don't get repeated like attacks do.

 

[Ristamar]

That's a nice house rule, but if doesn't follow the rules. And rogues are still the fastest in combat even if they strangely slow down in other situations.

My fix for that feature is that rogues can't use their bonus action to dash if they use their action to dash. This way rogues go from the fastest class to the class that can run while doing something else.

I don't believe it's a house rule; it's the proper application of the system given the mode of play. You aren't supposed to run overland travel round by round, for instance, though you can choose to do so if you're willing to deal with the consequences.

 

[Yaarel]

The only thing I find problematic with expertise is auto success and failure which can be eliminated by adopting the critical success and failure rules of combat and by having a DM learn to actually abjucate scenarios instead of just calling for skill checks. When I try to push the sturdy castle wall over with my bare hands I roll isn't called. Instead I just fail. When I try to pick up a coin on the ground no check is required, instead it's auto success.

If the DM rules something is uncertain then the roll afterwards needs to allow for uncertainty. Eliminating expertise isn't the only way to allow for such uncertainty and in fact does a worse job as even with no expertise you can auto succeed on DC 12 and lower checks.

Im going to use skill crits (critical successes) and skill fumbles anyway, for everyone. I like the alignment with combat math.

The reason I have been hesitant is, there is a tradition of gauging the ‘amount’ of success or failure, by whether the total skill roll was 0, 5, or 10 above or below the required DC. This was interesting. But I think the advantages of simply using combat math for skills, including crits and fumbles, by far out way any advantage of a convoluted system.

There is value in apply the consistent standards of combat math and bounded accuracy for all challenges.

 

[FrogReaver]

For those DMs and players who feel expertise needs to remain within bounded accuracy, what is the best fix.

One solution, expertise unlocks skill feats. For example, if gaining athletic expertise, maybe climb speed can be one of choices of athletic feats to choose from. Ambidexterity (Drow-like second of two-weapon attack uses flourish instead of bonus action?) could be a sleight of hand expertise choice. Or so on. PF2 seems to have skill feats, and might be a source of inspiration for 5e skill feats.

This thread has offered good ideas to replace expertise, including advantage (roll two d20s), elven accuracy feat (if advantage can reroll one of the two), rogue reliable talent (d20 increases to at least 10), add d6 bonus, maybe some others suggestions that I dont remember. All of these are good ideas, respect bounded accuracy, moreorless, and seem fair in exchange for the expertise number porn.

My difficulty is, all of these ideas would still make cringe if applied in combat. For example, if advantage always happens every attack, it is disruptive. In fact some classes (rogue) do connive a way to optimize advantage for virtually every attack. It doesnt seem to have ruined the game. So maybe expertise as advantage isnt too aggreving.

Maybe I could live with expertise as advantage, and opening up skill feats as fun design space. The rogue of course would get things like access to stealth feats or so on as part of expertise.

Any ideas?

I'd have no objections if expertise allowed you to roll an extra d20 and it stacked with advantage. Heck it would make it a lot better early which is something I would personally like to see.

It does respect bounded accuracy more but most of your explained issues haven't been about bounded accuracy but auto success and failure which will continue to happen without expertise adding +6. It's just it will no longer happen on "hard" skill checks.

I'm afraid your solutions are confusing which is the problem to be solved with which is the symptom of the problem.

For example, in combat with archery style you get a +13. If it wasn't for the miss on a 1 then there would be many enemies you would auto hit in combat with a basic archer. Not all enemies. And not typically at level enemies, but still there are quite a few things you auto hit at that point. Without critical success and failure combat would allow auto hit and auto miss on the lower DC's you can face in combat.

In other words, combat doesn't "respect" bounded accuracy either. But combat respects it more than skill checks as there are fewer times when this will come up and when they do a mechanism has already been added to curb it. No auto-hits and No auto misses.

 

[Yaarel]

I'd have no objections if expertise allowed you to roll an extra d20 and it stacked with advantage. Heck it would make it a lot better early which is something I would personally like to see.

It does respect bounded accuracy more but most of your explained issues haven't been about bounded accuracy but auto success and failure which will continue to happen without expertise adding +6. It's just it will no longer happen on "hard" skill checks.

I'm afraid your solutions are confusing which is the problem to be solved with which is the symptom of the problem.

For example, in combat with archery style you get a +13. If it wasn't for the miss on a 1 then there would be many enemies you would auto hit in combat with a basic archer. Not all enemies. And not typically at level enemies, but still there are quite a few things you auto hit at that point. Without critical success and failure combat would allow auto hit and auto miss on the lower DC's you can face in combat.

In other words, combat doesn't "respect" bounded accuracy either. But combat respects it more than skill checks as there are fewer times when this will come up and when they do a mechanism has already been added to curb it. No auto-hits and No auto misses.

As we speak, there are many who are complaining about the archery bonuses obsoleting melee combat.

The fact that archery violates bounded accuracy has already disrupted the game.