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

[Maxperson]

Sure.
My idea would be that the PC would have to beat the Ogre's roll and/or the passive (whichever was higher), so as not to make Luck play such a large factor in circumstances where Luck appears to be the only possible factor for what would be an obvious outcome.

That could work.

 

[Garthanos]

So roleplay it.

Fighter: "If my muscles weren't still sore from the last fight, you wouldn't have had a chance to beat me at arm wrestling, cleric."

Just because D&D doesn't have a mechanic for sore muscles, doesn't mean that sore muscles can't happen as a reason to explain the result of the contest. There are other explanations you can come up with as well.

There certainly should be visualized reasons behind the die rolls however it looks like someone who feels (subjective word) that the variation in performance caused by d20 exceeds what feels good/believable and or seems too much to emphasize fluke occurrences too much when one has a more steady controlled performance context. Allowing players to optionally make careful checks seems entirely low impact house rule to me like 3d6 or even 7 +d6 or 6+d8, 5+ d10, or similar if the circumstance seems reasonable (you could allow 3d6 to have a crit chance).

Also, even with a d20, skill trumps dice is the norm. +1 will lose to +8 most of the time, which makes the skilled individual winning the norm.

How often does purely random chance determine the results is the complaint and that isnt found by computing a mean/median, it is how often the die rolls vary more than determined factors however that too isnt good enough as arguably it only feels strange when random chance doesnt agree with a more deterministic result which makes it slightly different here is the formula for opposed d20s

n(n+1)/2 * 1/400

for a range where n = 11,+1 vs +8 = 16.5 percent
for a range of where n = 12, +1 vs +7 = 78 out of 400 (19.5 percent )

this is how often extraneous factors are assumed to interject.

Admitting my math might be bad this morning...

 

[WaterRabbit]

So roleplay it.

We did. It looks to be you are the one making assumptions.

You were the one incorrectly accusing me earlier of rollplay. Why give up roleplay for rollplay? Also, even with a d20, skill trumps dice is the norm. +1 will lose to +8 most of the time, which makes the skilled individual winning the norm.

Again here you are making assumptions on how we played. A bit defensive are we? I cannot help your lack of reading comprehension.

 

[DND_Reborn]

n(n+1)/2 * 1/400

for a range where n = 11,+1 vs +8 = 16.5 percent
for a range of where n = 12, +1 vs +7 = 78 out of 400 (19.5 percent )

this is how often extraneous factors are assumed to interject.

Admitting my math might be bad this morning...

I think you might be or maybe I am misunderstanding your post. How can n = 11 if it is +1 vs. +8? Wouldn't that be a difference of +7? With a difference of +7, I got a "lose" percentage of 19.5% and ties only 3.25%.

------------

Anyway, for those how feel something like I do, I want to focus on the issue of expertise (our stealthy rogue) and passive perception, so let's look at some actual numbers.

Did you know that the typical rogue with expertise in RAW (assuming some reasonable boosts to DEX over his career) needs only an average of 5.6 (4.6 ties) on his check to beat foes with a CR equal to his level (or in the case of CRs 21+, when he is level 20)? Let's round that up to an even 6, so there is only a 25% chance the rogue will be noticed. This is looking at over 2000 foes, by the way.

Now, you might think, "Well, that's fine, he has expertise, after all." True, but for any rogue who plans on being stealthy, he will most likely have expertise in it, meaning more likely than not he won't be spotted at all. And of course, against the majority of foes that won't be considered hard or deadly (CR equal to the rogue), the number he needs is lower.

Oh, and this assumes we grant every foe proficiency in perception... which is incredibly generous since many creatures and NPCs don't have proficiency in perception. So, really, his needed average roll is even lower...

This is also assuming no buffs or advantages of any kind, which is hardly likely, especially against a "high perception" target! So, his number is even lower still...

Now, take away expertise, and that number increases to an average of 8.4 to beat passive perceptions against equal CR targets (with the same assumptions of every foe getting proficiency in perception AND no buffs, etc.). Rounding up to 9, there is a 40% chance to notice the rogue.

Considering the assumptions, that is more reasonable to me, especially when you consider his odds will be even better against most foes in most circumstances.

At our table, we see it time and again that our rogue bypasses nearly everything via his expertise in stealth. When I am DMing I don't want this. Expertise is TOO good under most circumstances. It is great RAW when it is really needed, but it seems like it offers too much benefit over all. The same can be seen for expertise and just about any skill. Take my own character, with expertise in Arcana (she is a rogue/wizard). When it comes to arcana checks, she makes just about everything, especially when given buffs or advantage due to the sorcerer (with arcana proficiency) in the group "helping".

Our chances would be pretty good under most conditions even without expertise, and expertise is taking too many things that should be a challenge to some degree and making them practically pointless.

I cry out again, "DOWN WITH EXPERTISE!" LOL

 

[Garthanos]

I think you might be or maybe I am misunderstanding your post. How can n = 11 if it is +1 vs. +8? Wouldn't that be a difference of +7? With a difference of +7, I got a "lose" percentage of 19.5% and ties only 3.25%.

Yup that might be me having an off by 1 error. Even though I was considering only low beats high instead of fends them off.

 

[Esker]

the thread is getting to the point of people discussing why it shouldn't be done, i.e. weighed differently between proficiency, ability, and expertise.

...

unless you post something which furthers my goal, I probably won't reply.

Alright, fair enough. In the spirit of talking more about changes that might better achieve your stated goals, rather than the spirit of criticizing the need for the change in the first place, let me see if I can accurately characterize what you want to get out of these changes, and also summarize, as a rogue fan, and a fan of maintaining game balance more generally, what side effects I would want to avoid. And then I'll see if I can offer any suggestions that manage both.

The Goals:
1. Make skill proficiency a bigger factor compared to ability mods, when rolling skill checks.
2. Maintain uncertainty in outcomes, avoiding foregone conclusions resulting from modifiers that get too big

Side Effects to Avoid:
1. Ripple effects that cause aspects of the game unrelated to skill checks, to require major rebalancing
2. Substantially changing the relative frequency with which skill checks in general succeed or fail
3. Cutting into the rogue and bard's distinctiveness as skill monkeys

Before I suggest other solutions, is this a fair characterization of the priorities here? I get the sense that you may not be fully on board with my #3, so if you have an active goal of reducing rogues' and bards' ability to stand out from other classes in the skill domain, then we probably indeed have nothing further to discuss, since I'm not interested in ideas that make rogues just different kinds of fighters, or bards just different kinds of sorcerers. But if you are receptive to ideas that both achieve your goals and avoid my pitfalls, then I'm interested in continuing to think about it (I have an idea brewing already, but want to do some math with it before presenting it to see whether it does what I think).

 

[Esker]

I cry out again, "DOWN WITH EXPERTISE!" LOL

#MakeAdventuringGreatAgain

 

[5ekyu]

There certainly should be visualized reasons behind the die rolls however it looks like someone who feels (subjective word) that the variation in performance caused by d20 exceeds what feels good/believable and or seems too much to emphasize fluke occurrences too much when one has a more steady controlled performance context. Allowing players to optionally make careful checks seems entirely low impact house rule to me like 3d6 or even 7 +d6 or 6+d8, 5+ d10, or similar if the circumstance seems reasonable (you could allow 3d6 to have a crit chance).


How often does purely random chance determine the results is the complaint and that isnt found by computing a mean/median, it is how often the die rolls vary more than determined factors however that too isnt good enough as arguably it only feels strange when random chance doesnt agree with a more deterministic result which makes it slightly different here is the formula for opposed d20s

n(n+1)/2 * 1/400

for a range where n = 11,+1 vs +8 = 16.5 percent
for a range of where n = 12, +1 vs +7 = 78 out of 400 (19.5 percent )

this is how often extraneous factors are assumed to interject.

Admitting my math might be bad this morning...

"Too much", "too much"

The case expressed earlier seemed to be a series of tests setup by the gm, results where the two skilled two opponents never rolled higher than 10 on die and the unskilled never rolled under 18.

I think its safe to say that for most campaign,lengths those are once-in-campaign odds, right? If we assume five tests, the 10s under alone add up to 1 in 1024. Combine that with five consecutive passes on an 85% odds to roll under 18... yeah... "Too much".

As i said in my response, this would be roleplaying gold at my table.

And, it coulda happened on 3d6 or 2d10 too - different odds but we are already at once a campaign rarity outlier.

Me? I work more on the day to day resolutions and treat the once in a campaign swings as opportunities, not horrors.

 

[Esker]

Me? I work more on the day to day resolutions and treat the once in a campaign swings as opportunities, not horrors.

I mean, yes, I agree. And the particular example [MENTION=2445]WaterRabbit[/MENTION] gave of one character consistently rolling 10s and below and the other rolling consecutive 18s is really extreme as you point out, and would not have been fixed by using 2d10. But 1d20 opposed checks produces weird results really often, not just in these extreme edge cases. Check out my post (#149 in this thread, p 15) with the percentages. A character with a +9 will lose to a character with a +0 about one time in six. Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me.

 

[5ekyu]

I mean, yes, I agree. And the particular example [MENTION=2445]WaterRabbit[/MENTION] gave of one character consistently rolling 10s and below and the other rolling consecutive 18s is really extreme as you point out, and would not have been fixed by using 2d10. But 1d20 opposed checks produces weird results really often, not just in these extreme edge cases. Check out my post (#149 in this thread, p 15) with the percentages. A character with a +9 will lose to a character with a +0 about one time in six. Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me.

Does it seem right to me?

Sure, if that is the resolution set by the GM. Who am i to sit here and tell a GM that for this unknown to me task being resolved in his game that giving the underdog a 1 in 6 chance to win is too high?

If a GM thought it was too high, he woulda had different resolutions involved, possibly involving multiple rolls not just one. 5e does not require a single die throw to resolve contests or challenges - look at chase rules, for instance.

The GM has lotsa ways to resolve situations in 5e - if he gives it a 1 in 6, is it your place totell him "no"?

If so, why?