D&D 5E Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise

[Doug McCrae]

In the same vein, I also dislike the fact that Ability factors so much. Your god ugly terrifying level 13 warrior with 8 in Cha has the same modifier in Intimidation than the level 1 Bard with 18 in Cha? Get ouuuut.

I don't see a problem here, the bard has vastly more talent at acting scary than the warrior.

Actual physical threat is a different thing to presenting oneself as dangerous. A precariously balanced boulder is scary enough to get people to go the other way and yet it has 0 Charisma and no proficiency in Intimidation.

A 13th level character is incredibly dangerous to average people, but that's so even if they jump around in a glittery rabbit costume crying "I bring eggy goodness for all the little children." It's something separate from the Intimidate skill which is all about presentation, not reality.

 

[5ekyu]

As DM you may give the level 13 warrior Advantage on the roll depending on HOW he goes about it. You may give a minimum passive and you may even swap out Cha for Str. Both giving Advantage on a roll and replacing one ability with another are options specified within the DMG.

For the Bard, well it depends who/what he is trying to intimidate and HOW he goes about it. As DM you may rule the intimidate fails before it gets off the ground especially if he is your colourful, polite and unarmed bard.

Yeah when I see a post like the one you quoted - ignoring advantage or disadvantage, ignoring variant ability scores - when strength for intimidate is the case in point **and** the case explicitly called out in the PHB rule, I wonder how much of the protest is from in-play vs just fishing for props.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Has anyone else had issue with the +6 vs. +5 vs. +6 system? Do you think it should be weighed differently?

The fact that the ability modifier can be so much greater than the proficiency bonus, especially at low levels, was one of the first things that seemed really off with this edition. I mean, if someone goes out of their way to become proficient in an obscure skill, then they should definitely be the go-to person for using that skill when it comes up, regardless of natural talent. If the paladin with proficiency in Religion is less-knowledgeable about it than the wizard who isn't, then what was the point in even writing down that proficiency?

In my game, I increased the magnitude of the proficiency bonus by +4 across the board. If you're trained in something, then you're at +6 next to anyone who isn't, and that goes up to +10 by high levels. Expertise just lets you substitute your proficiency bonus in place of your stat modifier, whenever that's better. (Stat bonuses are also increased by +5 across the board, so they go from +4 to +10 instead of going from -1 to +5.)

 

[Esker]

Even with expertise a flat +2, the will be likely as good or better than the non-rogues at things that are important to them. Our current +2 to +4 expertise rule works okay, I was thinking more of a flat bonus to keep it simple. I toyed with half proficiency but if I boost proficiency to +11, then expertise would max at +5... I am not sure about that.

They won't, though. Suppose you want to build a lightfoot halfling rogue that specializes in talking and noticing things (in particular, focusing on Persuasion, Deception, Insight, and Perception), but also wants to be capable in combat. They've got to invest in DEX and CON to survive and do damage, and they want some WIS and CHA to support their skills. So maybe their starting array after racial bonuses is 9,16,14,8,14,14. Then there's a sorcerer in the party, with persuasion and deception, and a cleric with perception and insight. All of them bump their main stat at levels 4 and 8, so now the sorcerer has 20 CHA and the cleric has 20 WIS.

With a flat +2 for expertise, the rogue is always going to be slightly behind the sorcerer at talking, and slightly behind the cleric at noticing, unless they put ASIs into CHA and WIS (and how often have you seen a character put ASIs into abilities that have no impact on their combat ability?). And that's with a pretty hefty investment into those ability scores on the rogue's part! A more typical case would be having 10s or 12s in tertiary stats. Yes, neither one of those will be as good at all four at the same time as the rogue, but it would be kind of deflating to pick a skill monkey class and not be the best in the party at the skills you choose to specialize in.

The other reason I don't like a flat bonus is that it means that the distinction between non-proficiency and proficiency becomes more meaningful as you level, but the distinction between proficiency and expertise becomes relatively less meaningful. It seems weird to me to say that getting more experience doing the thing you are considered an "expert" in doesn't let you further distinguish yourself from those who are merely trained in that thing.

 

[Esker]

The fact that the ability modifier can be so much greater than the proficiency bonus, especially at low levels, was one of the first things that seemed really off with this edition. I mean, if someone goes out of their way to become proficient in an obscure skill, then they should definitely be the go-to person for using that skill when it comes up, regardless of natural talent. If the paladin with proficiency in Religion is less-knowledgeable about it than the wizard who isn't, then what was the point in even writing down that proficiency?

I don't know, I think this seems reasonable too, if you keep in mind that ability scores aren't just about innate ability. A wizard with high INT is like someone with an advanced academic degree, well read on a variety of topics, whereas a Level 1 Paladin with religion proficiency but average INT is like someone who just graduated from a mid-tier college with a religion major. At first the Paladin is a little behind the wizard, and will stay a little behind for awhile they continue to dedicate themselves to the study of their specialty while the wizard continues to become more generally well read (a smaller share of the wizard's reading time is about religion, but they're spending a lot more time reading overall, and are more capable at drawing connections between areas of study), but eventually, with time and dedication the specialist will surpass the generalist.

That said, if you adopted my suggested house rule to give every class expertise in one class skill at character level 1, then you'd have room to say your Paladin is a super dedicated savant of religion even if they're not that widely read in other areas.

 

[WaterRabbit]

IMHO, the problem with the skill system is that it use a single die instead of two dice added together. It naturally means that someone that isn't very proficient still has a good chance of beating someone that is exceedingly proficient. I observed it again in the game I played last night where the dragonborn with an 8 INT was consistently beating the character with amazing stats in the party on INT skills because one was rolling 15 or better and the other was rolling 9 or less, even though there was a +5 advantage to the one character.

This is why opposed contests in 5e work so poorly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That said, if you adopted my suggested house rule to give every class expertise in one class skill at character level 1, then you'd have room to say your Paladin is a super dedicated savant of religion even if they're not that widely read in other areas.

Even without the house rule, you could make a Paladin that was a super-dedicated specialist in a given skill, by giving them a high Intelligence score. Your suggestion would let them specialize without having to dedicate important resources to it, which is better, but still not ideal.

My real issue is about efficiency and redundancy in game design. We have a core game mechanic which is supposed to reflect how one character is much more skilled in a specific area than other characters. That's supposed to be what proficiency means. But it doesn't actually do that, because the magnitude of the bonus is so small, so we have to find other mechanics to distinguish this trait. Tacking on an extra bonus does not fix that problem - proficiency still doesn't distinguish anyone as a specialist - while it also adds complexity. Increasing the magnitude of the proficiency bonus is a simple solution which solves the problem at hand without introducing additional complexity.

 

[Esker]

IMHO, the problem with the skill system is that it use a single die instead of two dice added together. It naturally means that someone that isn't very proficient still has a good chance of beating someone that is exceedingly proficient. I observed it again in the game I played last night where the dragonborn with an 8 INT was consistently beating the character with amazing stats in the party on INT skills because one was rolling 15 or better and the other was rolling 9 or less, even though there was a +5 advantage to the one character.

This is why opposed contests in 5e work so poorly.

Yeah, I agree with this. Have you experimented with leaving everything as is but making all skill rolls 2d10+mod?

 

[Shiroiken]

I would rather they have used the BECMI ability score modifiers that cap at +3, or at least cap ability scores at 18 for +4 if they kept the 3E system. I think that proficiency is just fine, with low level characters being better with natural ability and higher level characters benefiting more from training. I kinda wish that expertise was 1.5 Proficiency modifier, rather than double, but IME it works with the current system. The reality is that the system works as is, and changing it to my liking would require changing a lot of monsters to reflect it.

 

[Esker]

Even without the house rule, you could make a Paladin that was a super-dedicated specialist in a given skill, by giving them a high Intelligence score.

You can invest in INT, but you're not really making them a super-dedicated specialist; you're making them generally better at knowledge stuff, which has the side effect of also making them better at their specialty.

My real issue is about efficiency and redundancy in game design. We have a core game mechanic which is supposed to reflect how one character is much more skilled in a specific area than other characters. That's supposed to be what proficiency means. But it doesn't actually do that, because the magnitude of the bonus is so small, so we have to find other mechanics to distinguish this trait. Tacking on an extra bonus does not fix that problem - proficiency still doesn't distinguish anyone as a specialist - while it also adds complexity. Increasing the magnitude of the proficiency bonus is a simple solution which solves the problem at hand without introducing additional complexity.

Increasing the proficiency bonus is simple but it screws up game balance across a whole bunch of stuff. I like the notion that competence at a task is a mix of general-purpose and special purpose skill/ability, and that they matter about equally until late in your career, when characters become more differentiated by areas of focus.

(I realize that the full range of ability modifiers is a difference of 6, which is where proficiency caps out, so that proficiency only matches the most extreme ability difference by the highest levels, but I think the more appropriate comparison between a generalist and a specialist isn't proficient with 8 in the stat vs non-proficient with 20; it's more like proficient with a 12 vs non-proficient with a 16 to start, increasing to 20 over time. That means the generalist and the regular specialist are on roughly equal footing. assuming the generalist prioritizes stat bumps over feats, until mid-levels, when the specialist starts to pull away.)

Super-specialists (i.e., characters with expertise and a middling stat of 12 or so) get to accelerate the differentiation process, getting about a +2 edge over the untrained generalist (starting 16 in the stat and devoting ASIs to it) in Tier 1 (+5 vs +3), which increases gradually to +3 then +4 in Tier 2 (+7 vs +4, then +9 vs +5). Then, just when the ordinary specialist is pulling away from the generalist, the growth in the expert's edge accelerates, allowing them to also overtake the character who is both a generalist and a regular specialist. But this doesn't happen until level 13.