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).
Great! I have to work tomorrow (mandatory overtime, *yuck*), but let's make some magic happen! I'm sure together (and with the occasional idea from others) we can create something that works.
Goals:
1. Yes. My premise is that experience (and the "training") that goes along with it, reflected by proficiency, should be the largest factor. Initially, I was thinking roughly along a 50/25/25 split, so in theory expertise in a skill could match ability. My current idea is +8 max prof, +4 max ability (18 cap), and +4 max expertise. This is nearly the same potential as RAW at +17, and a slight boost over the +11 for non-expertise with a +12 potential.
2. Yes again. Although stealth has been my scapegoat in all this, as I said the same problem can exist with any of the skills. I have no issue with a rogue being as good as others, I just fail to see why they should have to potential to be better aside from a purely "let's give them something" idea.
Avoids:
Yeah, the all are good things to avoid. I don't want to detract from rogues/bards as skill monkeys, but would rather find some other way to represent the idea than just boosting their numbers.
A couple things: first, if I'm a stealthy character, there is no way I'm risking going off and scouting ahead if I have a 40% chance of being spotted. Even 25% is dicey. So I'd need to have expertise as is to even risk trying. I suspect this is a case of a common probability fallacy, which is conflating "less than even odds" with "very unlikely".
Second, if there is more than one monster around, the only one that matters is the one with the highest passive perception. So that increases the chances. As does any monster making active checks. Granted if there's more than one, they probably individually have lower CRs, but still, combine multiple monsters and active checks, and it actually gets really risky to sneak around, even with expertise as written. But we already covered that.
Third, if I did grant that these stealth rates are too high, why is that a problem with expertise and not a problem with passive perception?
Well, remember those numbers were without buffs, etc. against targets considered equal to you. Since more often than not your targets will be less than you in ability, etc. and when high risk is present you will probably have buffs of some nature. So, that 40% isn't "worst-case scenario", but it is close. True, multiple targets can make it more difficult, but unless it is active, once the rogue's roll beats the passive scores, he is in the clear.
Which brings #3, the problem with passive perception. Yeah, there is a problem IMO. I am not sure what to do with this one. I like the idea behind it, but not how it functions RAW. We make it really "passive" in that the DM uses it only when the player isn't specifying they are looking for something. I can explain it further if you want.
Anyway, ultimately I want to keep skill modifiers to +11 or 12, similar to attack rolls and saves. So, my current +8 prof and +4 ability works, but then removes expertise completely as a numbers boost. The idea of advantage gives better results, but keeps the max to the limit. Allowing expertise to function in other ways (make a check as a bonus action instead of an action, etc.). If the maxes are the same, then I am perfectly happy that a rogue expert in arcana can do as well as a wizard with max INT. Then I wouldn't have to grant expertise to other classes to get rid of the fluff idea of rogues simply potentially being "better" just because they can. This was one reason why i like expertise allowing a rogue to use the better of proficiency or ability, doubled. This works ok with RAW proficiency and ability, which would keep me from having to adjust things to my +8/+4 idea.
Well, that is it for now. I need to get to sleep since i have to leave for work at 7 AM. Sigh.. Looking forward to your thoughts.
