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

[Ovinomancer]

Because rules, man. That's the fluff explanation for the extra skill increase from expertise. Sense or no sense, it is what it is. You can take it or leave it, but it's not going away just because you bring up combat. Or you can just apply the combat portion to sneak attack and their other combat abilities that they get.

You do realize that a number of class descriptions talk about mastering things and they don't get expertise, right? Wizards have a whole callout section on being scholars of magic (The Lure of Knowledge), and they don't get expertise. So, your single, selectively bolded line is as much justification as a bunch of other classes have. It's weak, and it's special pleading -- it counts for the rogue, but not anywhere else. The only reason you're even trying to make it work here is because you, for some reason, felt the need to defend [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s argument that expertise has fixed fluff? You even admit this is barely any fluff, certainly not fixed. Again, saying my rogue is just a gifted hobbyist is sufficient for your quote and is completely supported by the lack of fluff of expertise.

Expertise is unanchored in the fiction. It the player that anchors it, if they choose to do so, with invented fluff for how they came to have this expertise. "Gods did it" is as applicable to this as "I've studied for decades under the greatest masters, and surpassed them all." Meanwhile, wizards, who have an actual entire section dedicated to pursuit of knowledge, have no mechanic support for their much more detailed fluff.

Heck, look at the prodigy feat, which grants expertise. There's nothing there, either, supporting a need for training or effort. You're just good at learnin' stuff.

Expertise is primarily a mechanic. It's not supported by fluff, or attempted to be plugged into a coherent narrative structure in the game. This is left to the individual players and DMs (as is much of 5e, to it's credit). Pointing out that this can cause oddities that have to be explained by the individual players and DMs shouldn't be this controversial. I have a feeling that there's a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of the game being taken as criticism of people who like the game, or didn't notice this oddity. It's not. It's discussion of where the potholes lie. I don't have a problem with this pothole in my play -- we steer around it or just take the bump and keep playing. But, when talking about how the game works, I don't ignore that potholes exist -- this way I'm not surprised by them.

And, this is a pretty dinky pothole.

 

[Maxperson]

You do realize that a number of class descriptions talk about mastering things and they don't get expertise, right? Wizards have a whole callout section on being scholars of magic (The Lure of Knowledge), and they don't get expertise.

Do you even read what I say? I myself mentioned wizards and their scholarship. Jeebus man. Pay attention!

So, your single, selectively bolded line is as much justification as a bunch of other classes have.

It's specifically the fluff for expertise. It uses the word in the section titled "Skill and Precision." That's where it talks about, you know, a rogues skills and precision.

It's weak, and it's special pleading -- it counts for the rogue, but not anywhere else.

Well, duh! It's in the rogue section. Why would it apply anywhere else?

The only reason you're even trying to make it work here is because you, for some reason, felt the need to defend @Saelorn's argument that expertise has fixed fluff?

Except not. Again, you didn't read what I posted. In response to @Fenris-77 I said, and I will selectively bold so you can actually see it, since apparently that's all you see of my posts, "Heck, all Saelorn's players have to feed him is one line, "I devote much effort into mastering all my skills." and they've matched the flavor and can just increase whatever they want. The fluff is so loose that it's not even worth monitoring." Regardless, though, it is in fact fluff dealing with that rogue ability.

Heck, look at the prodigy feat, which grants expertise. There's nothing there, either, supporting a need for training or effort. You're just good at learnin' stuff.

Yes it here is fluff or that feat. Words mean things. I'll selectively bold it for you. A prodigy is someone who is gifted and very good at something, often with little or no training. That's the fluff, which is why you don't need the support of "training or effort."

Expertise is primarily a mechanic. It's not supported by fluff, or attempted to be plugged into a coherent narrative structure in the game.

Right and wrong. You are correct that it is primarily a mechanic. You are wrong that it is not supported by fluff. It's very flimsy support, but the fluff support is right there in literal black and white.

 

[WaterRabbit]

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

Next time I am DM I will implement this, at least for opposed checks. For straight up target DCs, it will probably work as well, just have to make sure they aren't too crazy.

 

[Ratskinner]

Crazy thought, and I didn't read all the previous posts.

You could just switch to the old Basic modifier chart, and cap abilities at 18:

18: +3
16-17: +2
13-15: +1

::shrug::

 

[Garthanos]

I am fast coming to the conclusion everybody must get "expertise" - said with Bob Dylan emphasis.
Because it's flavor for me. (Heck a rogues flavor feels more versatile not more focus skilled to me)

 

[Esker]

Next time I am DM I will implement this, at least for opposed checks. For straight up target DCs, it will probably work as well, just have to make sure they aren't too crazy.

Yeah, it's easier to just decide to do for opposed checks since it affects both sides, and just makes it so that the person with the higher mod will win more often, which is the goal.

For checks vs a fixed DC it seems less necessary, but could be interesting. It would basically mean that at DCs around your "passive" score (which I would think about as your "zone of proximal development"; things that are moderately challenging for you), the marginal benefit of an increase in your skill modifier is higher. For tasks that are easy for you (DC well below your passive score), you get to succeed more reliably than you would with a d20 roll, and you have diminishing returns to further increases. And for hard tasks, you need a bigger increase before you start to see a real benefit. I like all of these implications, honestly. I think in the case of a roll at advantage or disadvantage, I'd leave it as is, using d20s, since advantage and disadvantage are already lower variance (and also so you can still just roll two dice and not have to do two separate rolls).

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Next time I am DM I will implement this, at least for opposed checks. For straight up target DCs, it will probably work as well, just have to make sure they aren't too crazy.

My current campaigns have been doing 2d10+mod for ability checks and I am much, much happier with the results. The appearance at the table of the highly skilled PCs coming up short against the unskilled ones just due to the standard swing of a single d20 roll is much less. With the odds of rolls more often falling in the 8-13 range, the bonuses from ability mod and proficiency have a much greater apparent affect. I can more evidentally tell when the high-bonus folks hit my DCs of 14/17/21. And that makes everyone happier.

 

[77IM]

My favorite house-rule for Expertise is this:

If your ability modifier is less than your proficiency bonus, you can use your proficiency bonus in place of your ability modifier. (Making it d20 + prof + prof instead of d20 + ability + prof.)

If your ability modifier is greater than or equal to your proficiency bonus, you get +1. (So you still get something for Expertise even if your maxxing your ability score.)​

A rule like this would have a couple of beneficial effects:

1. It maintains bounded accuracy, since the most it can put you out of bounds by a measly 1 point. This helps maintain the drama of uncertainty around ability checks.

2. It discourages super-specialization (a type of min-maxing) because the better your ability score the less you get from Expertise.

3. It reduces the importance of ability modifiers since you can compensate for low modifiers with Expertise.

4. Because it maintains bounded accuracy, you could actually apply this kind of Expertise rule to things like attack rolls and saving throws, keeping them on the same scale as ability checks. Currently, there PCs never get Expertise on attacks and saves, and if monsters get it, it's very rare (I haven't checked thoroughly; many creatures do get Expertise on skills, though). If you allowed this sort of Expertise on attack rolls, it would let you play-against-type to some degree (e.g., the 4E avenger who has low Str but wields a greatsword, or the heavy-crossbow fighter with a mediocre Dex). If you allow this sort of Expertise on saving throws, it lets you do things like skill vs. saving throw (e.g. Intimidation vs. Wisdom save or Athletics (grapple) vs. Str or Dex save), and also represent certain character concepts (such as the low-Wis character who is stubborn enough to have a good Wis save).

5. It requires almost zero monkeying with the math in the rest of the system. You don't need to rewrite monster stat blocks (monsters are weird so they can just keep using the old double-proficiency version). This in turn allows you to open up Expertise to other classes than just rogue and bard.

 

[Esker]

My favorite house-rule for Expertise is this:

If your ability modifier is less than your proficiency bonus, you can use your proficiency bonus in place of your ability modifier. (Making it d20 + prof + prof instead of d20 + ability + prof.)

If your ability modifier is greater than or equal to your proficiency bonus, you get +1. (So you still get something for Expertise even if your maxxing your ability score.)​

A rule like this would have a couple of beneficial effects:

1. It maintains bounded accuracy, since the most it can put you out of bounds by a measly 1 point. This helps maintain the drama of uncertainty around ability checks.

2. It discourages super-specialization (a type of min-maxing) because the better your ability score the less you get from Expertise.

3. It reduces the importance of ability modifiers since you can compensate for low modifiers with Expertise.

4. Because it maintains bounded accuracy, you could actually apply this kind of Expertise rule to things like attack rolls and saving throws, keeping them on the same scale as ability checks. Currently, there PCs never get Expertise on attacks and saves, and if monsters get it, it's very rare (I haven't checked thoroughly; many creatures do get Expertise on skills, though). If you allowed this sort of Expertise on attack rolls, it would let you play-against-type to some degree (e.g., the 4E avenger who has low Str but wields a greatsword, or the heavy-crossbow fighter with a mediocre Dex). If you allow this sort of Expertise on saving throws, it lets you do things like skill vs. saving throw (e.g. Intimidation vs. Wisdom save or Athletics (grapple) vs. Str or Dex save), and also represent certain character concepts (such as the low-Wis character who is stubborn enough to have a good Wis save).

5. It requires almost zero monkeying with the math in the rest of the system. You don't need to rewrite monster stat blocks (monsters are weird so they can just keep using the old double-proficiency version). This in turn allows you to open up Expertise to other classes than just rogue and bard.

The idea of applying expertise to attack rolls and saving throws is interesting, but in the ordinary case of skills I still don't like the implications. For one, why should we discourage a rogue to take expertise in stealth or lockpicking, or a bard to take expertise in persuasion or deception? I still haven't seen a convincing argument that high bonuses in these things breaks anything, except maybe that natural 1s ought to be treated as auto-fails in non-contested situations and exempted from reliable talent so the player still gets to make rolls that count. What's wrong with 90 or 95% success rates in things that a character has invested to be really really good at? And on the flip side, this just encourages different sorts of min-maxing, like dumping CHA and then taking expertise in deception, which is a bit odd.

And it still straight-up weakens the expertise feature, and therefore, unless you're compensating for that by giving them something in exchange, the classes that get it. Which throws off the game balance.

 

[Salthorae]

And, that said, to address expertise -there is no narrative associated with the expertise rule. There's nothing in the rogue general description or the Expertise class feature that says anything about advanced study or training.

Man...if only there was something in the Expertise feature that says anything about training in something...

expertise
noun ex·per·tiseˌek-(ˌ)spər-ˈtēz, -ˈtēs

1 : the skill of an expert

expert
adjectiveex·pertˈek-ˌspərt, ik-ˈspərt

2 : having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience