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

[Maxperson]

However, I have to remember this is coming from someone that thinks Medicine is a critical skill.

I never said that.

What I said was that it was a commonly used skill, not that it was critical. Big difference there.

It is not an assumption, as you stated it yourself that you believe that a 5% of always succeeding makes for a better game.

I never said that either.

What I said was that when there was a 5% chance of succeeding, the players get excited and gather around to watch the roll, hoping that the 20 will be rolled. Never did I say that there should always be a 5% chance of success.

Your complaint about 2d10 was that a DC 30 was only possible 1% of the time instead of 5% of the time and therefore impossible.

And the hat trick of things that I never said.

What I said was that the players don't get excited over a 1% chance like they do for 5%, not that it was impossible.

Perhaps you aren't assuming things and it's just a reading comprehension issue. Either way you should ask me since you seem incapable of getting anything I say correct.

Or perhaps you should debate ideas instead of the person so you don't come off like the back end of a donkey?

You initiated this. I just give what I get, so if you don't like how I'm responding to you, look in the mirror and actually give me some civil(and accurate for a change) discourse, and you will find that I respond in kind.

 

[Esker]

Uh...they don't? In the rules as written?

Guessing [MENTION=7005485]Mycroft[/MENTION] means after using cunning action to hide. But even so, it doesn't really make sense that it would be harder to surprise someone who is distracted if you're farther away. And again, what is with all of this sentiment lately about people thinking rogue features as they're written are too strong? Gah...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hah, well I meant that it seemed like you and I were coming to something we could agree on.

Well, we might still.

Not meaning to sound like a jerk here, I promise, but it's not really a matter of opinion: You're effectively taking away certain options for rogues and bards (taking expertise in stealth or persuasion, for example), and making expertise worse in any skill associated with an ability where they have a positive modifier, without affecting the other classes at all (in fact, if you couple that with increasing the proficiency bonus across the board it's a double whammy to the rogue and bard). If you think those classes are too strong and need nerfing, that's an opinion, but the fact that this rule in isolation makes them worse is just objective fact (unless you think the ability to take an 8 in a stat and get expertise in an associated skill without suffering the -1 is worth a tremendous amount, but I'm pretty sure that's not where you're coming from).

Now, if you're not doing this in isolation, maybe you can make up for it. You already described some nice additional cunning action options, which is something. But bonus actions are only relevant in combat or combat-like settings, andfor me at least, a big part of the reason to play a rogue is to excel in some parts of the other pillars. So I would feel better about the change if you were offsetting the nerf to expertise with something else to those classes that would benefit them out of combat.

No problem. I am fine with people challenging my ideas with creative and suggestive content. And you bring up valid points, so I am happy to continue the discussion.

They sure do! That's part of their class identity!

Again, the only classes that can exceed that RAW are rogues and bards, so this change would weaken those classes relative to the others.

Why? Why!? WHY!?! This is one of the issues that bugs me the most. Can't they come up with something other than making rogues (and partially bards) skill monkeys to give them an identity? The already start with more skills than other classes, with bards having unlimited skill choices. There is no justifiable reason why these classes should have a feature that will put them above other classes, especially in areas those classes traditionally would excel at. Even without an ability modifier at all, at maximum expertise allows +12 while no other classes can exceed +11 without a archetype feature or magic.

Other than a pure game mechanic reason (Hey, let's make is so these classes can be awesome at skills!) there is no reason for expertise to work this way. I would rather it simply grant advantage or something else. Even with my idea (taken from whoever suggested it first LOL), expertise can make a big difference in weaker skills and still offer an edge to something they are great at.

The bottom line for me is that I think there are ways to address the problems you perceive exist with expertise that don't single out skill monkey classes, or at least narrowly address certain edge cases. For example, changing the way passive perception works across the board, treating natural 1s as automatic failures on skill checks, restricting expertise to class skills, finding some class-neutral tweaks to a 2d10 skill system, etc.

And if we can find something we agree on that would be great!

But consider this, a ranger and a rogue, both with DEX 18 (let's not get crazy) and proficiency +4, but the rogue has expertise. Why is he so much better than the ranger? Must the ranger dip into rogue for expertise simply to be as good at stealth? I mean, I could give expertise to all the other classes (you spend two proficiencies on one skill to gain expertise in that skill), and basically rogues get "bonus" expertises.

While that would remove some of the issue, it doesn't take care of the rest of the balance of power, so to speak, between proficiency, ability, and expertise...

I mean that's a fine and defensible position, but those classes are balanced around expertise as written, so if you want to weaken or eliminate the feature, you've got to give those classes something comparable in value to compensate; preferably something of comparable value in the skill sphere. That's all I'm saying.

True, and I agree with that, but simply granting a bonus that in a fashion can make them hands-down better than most others to the point of ridiculousness is also an issue (as I have expressed numerous times LOL!).

 

[Esker]

But consider this, a ranger and a rogue, both with DEX 18 (let's not get crazy) and proficiency +4, but the rogue has expertise. Why is he so much better than the ranger? Must the ranger dip into rogue for expertise simply to be as good at stealth?

No, they just have to cast Pass Without Trace... If you give everyone skill boosts, will you give everyone spellcasting too?

 

[Esker]

And if we can find something we agree on that would be great!

How about this? Buff the prodigy feat a little bit and open it up to any race.

 

[Esker]

There is no justifiable reason why these classes should have a feature that will put them above other classes, especially in areas those classes traditionally would excel at. Even without an ability modifier at all, at maximum expertise allows +12 while no other classes can exceed +11 without a archetype feature or magic.

Look at the rogue's list of class skills:

Acrobatics: Who should be better than the rogue at balancing and landing on your feet?
Athletics: Who should be as good as the rogue at climbing and jumping?
Deception: Who should be as good as the rogue at lying (besides the bard)?
Insight: Who should be as good as the rogue at reading people?
Intimidation: Who should be as good as the rogue at making people offers they can't refuse?
Investigation: Who should be as good as the rogue at surveying the scene and figuring out what went down?
Perception: Who should be as good as the rogue at being in tune with their surroundings?
Performance: Who should be as good as the rogue at selling snake oil (see above re: bard)?
Persuasion: Who should be as good as the rogue at convincing people to do things (again, bard)?
Sleight of Hand: Who should be as good as the rogue at picking pockets?
Stealth: Who should be as good as the rogue at evading pursuers? (Rangers, maybe, but they're more the pursuer, which is why they get survival and tracking features... but they also get Pass Without Trace, so when they need to be they're way better than the expert rogue at this anyway)

Why shouldn't a certain kind of rogue (or bard) be better than anyone else at any given one of these things? The Arcana case has an easy fix that I already suggested. Same for Survival and Rangers. Etc.

 

[Mycroft]

Guessing @Mycroft means after using cunning action to hide.

"You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

 

[DND_Reborn]

No, they just have to cast Pass Without Trace... If you give everyone skill boosts, will you give everyone spellcasting too?

So they have to resort to magic to do better what rogues can do naturally?

How about this? Buff the prodigy feat a little bit and open it up to any race.

That's an idea we've considered as well, but already house-rule players can select one of their background skills to have expertise in, at the expense of their other background skill.

Look at the rogue's list of class skills:

Acrobatics: Who should be better than the rogue at balancing and landing on your feet? MONKS
Athletics: Who should be as good as the rogue at climbing and jumping? FIGHTERS, BARBARIANS, RANGERS (heck, why not? even PALADINS considering their exploits in tales like Le Morte D'Arthur)
Deception: Who should be as good as the rogue at lying (besides the bard)?
Insight: Who should be as good as the rogue at reading people? CLERICS (priest understand people and provide council), MONKS (same reason)
Intimidation: Who should be as good as the rogue at making people offers they can't refuse? FIGHTERS (via STR), BARBARIANS (likewise), SORCERERS, WARLOCKS, even a WIZARD if played right
Investigation: Who should be as good as the rogue at surveying the scene and figuring out what went down? Or researching things and figuring out clues? WIZARDS
Perception: Who should be as good as the rogue at being in tune with their surroundings? BARBARIANS (Danger Sense, after all), RANGERS
Performance: Who should be as good as the rogue at selling snake oil (see above re: bard)?
Persuasion: Who should be as good as the rogue at convincing people to do things (again, bard)? CLERICS, maybe even SORCERERS and who knows... WARLOCKS?
Sleight of Hand: Who should be as good as the rogue at picking pockets?
Stealth: Who should be as good as the rogue at evading pursuers? (Rangers, maybe, but they're more the pursuer, which is why they get survival and tracking features... but they also get Pass Without Trace, so when they need to be they're way better than the expert rogue at this anyway) BARBARIANS, RANGERS, MONKS (well, that is a bite of a stretch I guess... )

Why shouldn't a certain kind of rogue (or bard) be better than anyone else at any given one of these things? The Arcana case has an easy fix that I already suggested. Same for Survival and Rangers. Etc.

Because all those classes I just answered with, and probably others besides if I thought about it (there's plenty of justification why they should be just as good or even better than a rogue/bard).

I don't see expertise (at least not all the time) as the solution. Last night I thought of some other things that more are in the flavor of rogues:

You like Free Movement, but I thought about it and would just make it a feature of rogues and not part of their cunning action.

Free Movement. Beginning at 2nd level, you can pick the best path through difficult and hazardous terrain. If you make a DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check, you can ignore difficult terrain while you are in it. If the terrain changes type, a new check is required. You can continue to make a check each round until you are successful.

Here is another new feature:

Scanning the Mark. If you spend 1 minute observing a creature (maybe require an Wisdom (Insight) check?), you double your proficiency bonus for the next skill check you make against that creature.

The idea here is the rogue scanning crowd to pick pockets in the bizaar, the rogue eyeing the noblewoman at the dance before he makes his move to con her of her fortune, etc.

Or, quite literally...

Wait a Minute. If you spend 1 minute observing a situation, you double your proficiency bonus for the next skill check you make in that situation.

Similar idea, but instead is more of a "Hold on, I got this, just give me a minute." and the rogue deciphers the clue, solves the puzzle, climbs the wall, or whatever.

I am sure I can come up with other "skill-related" features that would enhance the rogue without inflating bonuses via expertise. Sure, "scanning the mark/ wait a minute" is in the same manner, but requires a minute and also can apply to multiple skills and situations.

 

[Esker]

"You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

For sneak attack. Not advantage.

 

[Esker]

So they have to resort to magic to do better what rogues can do naturally?

I mean, yes? That's the design of the class: they get spells that enhance their other abilities. And if you want an especially sneaky ranger, you have Gloomstalker, who become invisible in darkness. I could easily say, "Why should rangers have spells? That doesn't really make sense." But if you weaken the ranger's spellcasting ability, you're blowing a big hole in the class.

That's an idea we've considered as well, but already house-rule players can select one of their background skills to have expertise in, at the expense of their other background skill.

Well, ok, then you no longer have the perceived problem that wizards have no way to be as good at arcana as rogues who pick arcana, etc. Right? Why also mess with expertise itself?

Because all those classes I just answered with, and probably others besides if I thought about it (there's plenty of justification why they should be just as good or even better than a rogue/bard).

A lot of those are a stretch and/or the classes you mention have features that enhance their abilities in those kinds of things that aren't bonuses to skill checks. Monks have slow fall and increased speed, for example; barbarians have advantage on strength checks while raging; warlocks and sorcerers (and wizards) have the friends cantrip and various spells with charm and fear effects; warlocks also have access to Mask of Many Faces; Clerics have Zone of Truth; wizards have divination spells; Barbarians already have Danger Sense (as you yourself pointed out).

Look, if you are going to redesign the classes from the ground up because you think there should be a tight connection between skill bonuses and the fiction, more power to you. But it's not fair to the rogue to single them out for their access to higher skill bonuses compared to other classes when other classes have different ways to get at similar results. And, you know what, any class is free to take a level of rogue for expertise if they think it's that great! It doesn't mean they have to become a scoundrel; it just means they're focusing on their skills at the expense of progressing in their other features.

Scanning the Mark. If you spend 1 minute observing a creature (maybe require an Wisdom (Insight) check?), you double your proficiency bonus for the next skill check you make against that creature.

Wait a Minute. If you spend 1 minute observing a situation, you double your proficiency bonus for the next skill check you make in that situation.

So let's think about the tradeoffs here compared to the expertise feature. On the plus side for the rogue, they can gain expertise in any skill check -- not just those they picked for their character -- if they have the time to analyze the situation. One down side is they can no longer be experts at hiding in combat, which is pretty rough for certain builds, who basically require they be able to hide nearly at will, at least when the terrain supports it. Rogues can no longer be experts in acrobatics really, either, but you gave them the ability to make acrobatics checks as a bonus action, so I'm ok with that. Certain subclasses have features that allow them to do certain things using skill checks in combat: The Inquisitive's Insightful Fighting, the Swashbuckler's Panache, the Thief's Fast Hands, the Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain. But you could just give those subclasses (at least situational) expertise in their particular skills.

From a balance perspective, I think this comes close if you do something to address the hiding issue, and let subclasses get double proficiency in their sphere without needing a minute. But from a character design perspective, I don't like it as much as RAW, because it makes it harder to make one rogue distinct from another. In my regular home game, I play a rogue/wizard who is painfully awkward in social situations, but is really good at staying unnoticed, noticing things, figuring out situations, and knowing stuff about magic (she has expertise in Stealth, Perception, Investigation, and Arcana). That character doesn't make skill checks against particular creatures, really, so Scanning the Mark doesn't fit her -- and indeed it would be out of character for her to suddenly be really persuasive even after observing somebody for a minute; it's not about knowing what to say, exactly, but she gets flustered and trips over her words. As the designated scout, her high stealth and passive perception are big parts of her identity, so I'm not sure how Wait a Minute would work with that. By making the skill features more skill-generic (or in the case of Scanning the Mark, specifically interpersonal), you remove the capacity to tailor your particular rogue to a particular area of expertise, which is one of the fun things about playing a rogue (and in fact, one of the things that can make playing two different rogues a radically different experience).