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

[Grognerd]

And any DM who can’t handle their players succeeding at the thing they’ve been building towards THE ENTIRE TIME THEY’VE BEEN PLAYING THAT CHARACTER... well...
Not a system issue. As usual.

This. Exactly this.
I also find it interesting that part of the argument that is repeatedly raised in this thread against Expertise includes the Rogue's ability when buffed with multiple magic sources. If I make a master thief, I expect him to be a master without having to be buffed up by his friends.

 

[Leatherhead]

given that most DCs are 15-20.

That's the problem!
Most DCs should be from 10-15, due to most characters not having expertise, and being in the 1-8 level range.
DC 20 should be rare, dc 25 exceptionally rare, and dc 30 the stuff of legends.

But thanks to expertise, all these other bonuses (there are way too many bonuses now), and the sacred cow of niche protection: The "hard" Dc is considered "normal" now.

 

[Yunru]

What if expertise was 1.5x (rounded up)?

 

[5ekyu]

...11 to a skill is sufficient to contribute most times.... given that most DCs are 15-20.

Yeah. Non-issue.
And any DM who can’t handle their players succeeding at the thing they’ve been building towards THE ENTIRE TIME THEY’VE BEEN PLAYING THAT CHARACTER... well...
Not a system issue. As usual.

There is no "system rule" that prevents one character from stepping on the others toes... never has been.

The rule that makes it unlikely that every fighter is frozen out by every rogue is the limited number os skills that reliable talent and/or expertise applies to on any given rogue which in most games would allow both characters to have avenues of "non-combat focus" open to them.

 

[5ekyu]

That's the problem!
Most DCs should be from 10-15, due to most characters not having expertise, and being in the 1-8 level range.
DC 20 should be rare, dc 25 exceptionally rare, and dc 30 the stuff of legends.

But thanks to expertise, all these other bonuses (there are way to many bonuses now), and the sacred cow of niche protection: The "hard" Dc is considered "normal" now.

Unless on is playing in limited content - maybe AL modules under no-changes rules - dcs are set by the gm based on his campaign standards and phb/dmg guidelines.

The DMG says explicitly if all you ever use are easy-medium-hard for GM assigned DC its fine.

In my games i use the EMH derived from the same DMG guidelines plus or minus 5 for things that show advantage or disadvantage applies (-5 if the traits show rundown or unattended zecurity and support, +5 if it shows excessive or heavy investment) and those DC standards apply at 1st just as much as at 11th and 17th.

But then, i have zero problem with a tavern door lock being "not an obstacle" for a 11th level thier any,more than i have a problem with a slow developing disease being not,much worry after the cures for those get slots.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

1) I agree 80% doesn't feel much different, there is a sweet spot between 60% and 70% I think where skills are most fun for all involved.

For a d20-based game, the absolute minimum degree of granularity is 5%. I really don't know how you could possibly hit a target range between 60% and 70%, unless you went back to Basic and removed Dexterity from the equation.

It's a serious problem in d20 game design. You either have to remove the ability for characters to specialize at all, or else you have to accept that anyone who specializes will eventually break the upper limit.

2) If I have a party which heavily invests in out of combat skills and abilities, I don't think the proper answer to challenge them is to have more combat. I should be able to challenge them out of combat.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. D&D is good at allowing people to opt out of certain challenges by specializing in overcoming them, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for challenging specialists within their area of expertise.

4) Teleport is incredibly risky unless you are going someplace you have gone before. Having a 40% chance of damage and re-rolls which could potentially lead to a TPK is really bad. You are far better off getting mounts and traveling anyways unless things are bad enough to risk the teleport anyways.

Except, as previously mentioned, damage is meaningless. No matter how badly you splinch yourself, you'll be fine in the morning. Unless everyone is dead, I guess, in which case you move on to the next campaign.

In my experience, high-level parties have ways of reducing the failure chance to an acceptable level, but that is admittedly something that the DM could deny them if they were so inclined.

Players metagame, especially when they are trying to coordinate and work as a team to solve a problem you've presented to the group. They'll go around and ask who is good at a skill before trying to utilize it in a dungeon.

I really, really don't think that counts as meta-gaming. Everyone should know what their own strengths are, and discussing how to best progress as a team is a very normal thing to do.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

technically, for skills or ability checks in 5e it is not binary at all -

there are three outcomes at least - four in contests tho that might just be a different three.

for a basic task and ability check -
meet/beat the dc for success
less than dc for failure to make progress.
less than dc for make some progress with setback set by gm

I don't interpret the rules in such a way. The listed DC is for pass/failure, with progress and setbacks being adjudicated by the DM as situations permit.

If there's something that says the DM should set different DCs for progress and setbacks, I must have missed it.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't interpret the rules in such a way. The listed DC is for pass/failure, with progress and setbacks being adjudicated by the DM as situations permit.

If there's something that says the DM should set different DCs for progress and setbacks, I must have missed it.

Thats fine if thats how you choose to parse it.

The way i see it as not binary is they provide three to four distinct types of results for ability checks including contests... Progess, some progress with setback and no progress for std, adding in status quo for contests.

The DC for success fail are set by either the opposition or by the GM, so there is definitely the possibility and room for the GM to set different DCs based on whether he sees the "uncertainty" as "setback" or "success".

Consider the following case... An area might be rather rich in game making foraging even easy DC 10. But for areas around waterways where the game is still just as or more plentiful (would be DC 5) but certain aquatic threats attack humanoids. There the DC could be set at 15 or even 20 because the GM determines its the threat (setback) that is being rolled against.

Thats why i see it as trinary - the decision of is it rolling against the "setback" or rolling against the "progress" is really what defines and informs the DC choice.

A similar case could be a ruined room with stuff and possible treasure scattered about but maybe some unstable floor or structures at play. Depending on the setup, maybe the roll is "finding loot among the rubbke" or maybe its "finding loot pretty much given but do you do it without instability and collapse based setbacks"?

That decision by the GM should or at least could cause him to asdign different DC for the task and approach given.

So, in my games, its not a blind or binary DC check with setbacks as an option or factor only after the roll, but a trinary choice made before assessing DC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

...11 to a skill is sufficient to contribute most times.... given that most DCs are 15-20.

Yeah. Non-issue.
And any DM who can’t handle their players succeeding at the thing they’ve been building towards THE ENTIRE TIME THEY’VE BEEN PLAYING THAT CHARACTER... well...
Not a system issue. As usual.

How, exactly, is something that DMs are expected to workaround not a system issue?

 

[cmad1977]

How, exactly, is something that DMs are expected to workaround not a system issue?

Any half way competent DM knows this is a feature not a bug. So the issues that arise are not failures of the system. I know there’s a certain subset of DMs that don’t think they should be responsible for their games.

Edit: the real failure here is the idea that a DM must ‘work around’ their players strengths. Those strengths are something to work with.