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

[DND_Reborn]

Very cool, we have done something similar, but with a 3-tiered (low, medium, high) Proficiency bonus system (the High bonus caps at +8, so, with abilities capping at +4, a total of +12).
I like your Expertise deal, we're still playing with ideas for Expertise, nothing is quite satisfying yet (so many ways to go).

Yeah, I remember commenting on how one of your proficiency tiers was similar to our progression. It reminds me of the different BAB in SWSE.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, I remember commenting on how one of your proficiency tiers was similar to our progression. It reminds me of the different BAB in SWSE.

Fantastic game, but we get a much better experience when omitting BAB and +Heroic level from Defences in SWSE. Classes get an attack bonus (+1 to +4), in the same way they get class defence bonuses.
While I really like 5th Ed's proficiency bonus, it works great, I just prefer a bit of granularity for weapon attacks, and saving throws.

 

[Esker]

LOL, oh yeah! Gotcha. Well, that isn't a big deal, just shifts the linear RAW line one point. But it does put the new method slightly lower than RAW for expertise, so that is good at least.

Yes, exactly. It lowers the success rates with expertise that you perceive as too high, but in a way that preserves its value, since for some difficulty levels, non-experts are lowered a bit more. All the problematic examples you've given of expertise making things less fun (like stealth) have to do with the floor being too high, not the ceiling. So why are you proposing or endorsing solutions (like your yellow curve, or the reliable talent variants in your summary list) that actually raise the floor while lowering the ceiling? You haven't given any examples where the existing ceiling being higher is a problem.

 

[Esker]

Here's another proposal I've been working on that may be more to your liking. The idea is to grant skill-specific features for the skills that the rogue or bard chooses expertise in. In some cases where the skill is already fairly niche, I left double proficiency alone. Some of these are borrowed from your proposals. In addition, certain subclasses would get additional features for free, whether or not they chose the skill as one of their expertise picks.

Acrobatics:
* Whenever a condition or ability that restricts your movement allows you to use an action to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to escape, you can choose to make the check as a bonus action instead.
* Whenever you are required to make a Strength (Athletics) check, you may choose to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check instead.

Athletics:
* Whenever a condition or ability that restricts your movement allows you to use an action to make a Strength (Athletics) check to escape, you can choose to make the check as a bonus action instead.
* Whenever you are required to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, you may choose to make a Strength (Athletics) check instead.

Deception:
* When you attempt to deceive another creature using a Deception check contested by another creature's Insight, creatures proficient in Insight do not get the benefit of proficiency when contesting your check, and creatures not proficient in insight have disadvantage on their check.
* (Assassin, Mastermind, 3rd level): Gain proficiency in deception. If you are already proficient in deception, your proficiency bonus is doubled whenever you make a deception check to present a disguise or a forgery as genuine, or when passing yourself off as someone else.
* (Mastermind, 17th): When you make a Deception check as part of your Soul of Deceit feature, double your proficiency bonus for that check.
* (Whispers Bard, 6th): When you make a Deception check using your Mantle of Whispers feature to pass off your shadow disguise, double your proficiency bonus for the check (this is in addition to the +5 bonus already granted by Mantle of Whispers)

Insight:
* When you attempt to detect another creature's deception using an Insight check, if that creature is proficient in deception, they do not get the benefit of that proficiency when contesting your check, and creatures not proficient in deception have disadvantage on their check.
* (Inquisitive, 3rd): Whenever you make an insight check that qualifies for your ear for deceit or insightful fighting features, your proficiency bonus is doubled for that check.

Perception:
* Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any Wisdom (Perception) check you make to detect the presence of secret doors or traps.
* If an illusion allows you to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine the nature of the illusion, you can choose to make a Wisdom (Perception) check instead. If you are already proficient in investigation, your proficiency bonus is doubled when you do so.
* Creatures proficient in stealth do not get the benefit of that proficiency when trying to hide from you.

Performance:
* Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any Performance check you make.

Persuasion/Intimidation:
* If you spend at least one minute observing a creature, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any persuasion (intimidation) check you make to influence the creature.
* When making a persuasion (intimidation) check to convince another creature of something, if you succeed on a Wisdom (Insight) check with a DC of 10 plus the creature's Charisma modifier, you gain advantage on the check. Alternatively, one of your allies can make the Insight check on your behalf to grant you advantage, provided they can communicate their insights with you before you make your persuasion (intimidation) attempt.
* (Swashbuckler, 3rd): You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative equal to your Charisma modifier plus your proficiency bonus.
* (Swashbuckler, 9th): Gain proficiency in Persuasion. If you are already proficient in Persuasion, when you make a Charisma (Persuasion) check as part of your Panache feature, your proficiency bonus is doubled for that check.

Sleight of Hand:
* Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any Sleight of Hand check that you make.
* (Arcane Trickster, 3rd gets this for free on checks that use their mage hand if they have SoH proficiency. If not they get SoH proficiency at 3rd.)

Stealth:
* You have advantage on stealth checks when in dim light or darkness. You get this benefit even if you are in dim light and creatures you are hiding from have darkvision.
* If you are successfully hidden from a creature, you can attempt to make another stealth check to stay hidden while you approach them.
* Creatures proficient in perception do not get the benefit of that proficiency when determining whether they detect you.

 

[Esker]

Oops, left out investigation. Had some ideas for that but need to run, so will revisit later.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, exactly. It lowers the success rates with expertise that you perceive as too high, but in a way that preserves its value, since for some difficulty levels, non-experts are lowered a bit more. All the problematic examples you've given of expertise making things less fun (like stealth) have to do with the floor being too high, not the ceiling. So why are you proposing or endorsing solutions (like your yellow curve, or the reliable talent variants in your summary list) that actually raise the floor while lowering the ceiling? You haven't given any examples where the existing ceiling being higher is a problem.

Well, stealth versus NPC perceptions (passive or not) is an example where inflated numbers due to expertise make the game less fun or challenging for us. RAW expertise also can put numbers high enough that others have little to no chance to challenge it.

I suppose part of it is because bounded accuracy was supposed to keep things reigned in enough so even at higher levels, weaker challenges could still be a challenge. We just aren't seeing that with skills with expertise, and we are only a level 9.

I have to look at your other post now and then probably head to bed soon. We'll chat more tomorrow.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here's another proposal I've been working on that may be more to your liking. The idea is to grant skill-specific features for the skills that the rogue or bard chooses expertise in. In some cases where the skill is already fairly niche, I left double proficiency alone. Some of these are borrowed from your proposals. In addition, certain subclasses would get additional features for free, whether or not they chose the skill as one of their expertise picks.

{snip}

Ok, so really quick. Some I like, some I don't.

Removing your target's proficiency in opposed checks basically gives you an edge equal to their bonus. For instance, if you have expertise in Stealth (no bonus for expertise) and have a +7 (4 prof, 3 DEX) against a target with Perception +5 (3 prof, 2 WIS). If I understand it, you are removing the 3 proficiency, reducing them to only WIS +2. This gives you a +7 vs. +2 edge (5 difference) instead of +7 vs. +5 (only 2 difference). Thus, the end benefit for "expertise" would be a 3 point swing. I don't think this is moving in the direction I want to go since it basically gives you a similar boost to the RAW. Now, if the target lacks proficiency to oppose you, you are just as "good" as if they did. I am not sure how the logic of that is supposed to work.

While it is not as "exciting", limiting the ceiling is one reason why I like advantage. While it increases the average result, a nat 20 is still the best you can get.

I like ideas like hiding even from creatures with darkvision (akin to Skulker feat IIRC). Also moving while hidden, and even maybe attacking and remaining undiscovered.

Anyway, tomorrow.

 

[Esker]

Well, stealth versus NPC perceptions (passive or not) is an example where inflated numbers due to expertise make the game less fun or challenging for us. RAW expertise also can put numbers high enough that others have little to no chance to challenge it.

I suppose part of it is because bounded accuracy was supposed to keep things reigned in enough so even at higher levels, weaker challenges could still be a challenge. We just aren't seeing that with skills with expertise, and we are only a level 9.

Right, but all of that is about the floor being too high, not the ceiling. That's exactly what the new system I proposed fixes: it keeps weaker challenges from becoming certainties, but instead of weakening expertise straight up, it shifts its benefits away from said weaker challenges and toward the bigger challenges. In contrast, several of the fixes you say you're receptive to (the variations on reliable talent, the extra proficiency die on low rolls instead of high ones, etc.) would make the problem you just described worse, while needlessly (as far as I can tell, since you haven't explained otherwise) lowering the ability of rogues and bards to occasionally roll really high.

 

[Esker]

Removing your target's proficiency in opposed checks basically gives you an edge equal to their bonus. For instance, if you have expertise in Stealth (no bonus for expertise) and have a +7 (4 prof, 3 DEX) against a target with Perception +5 (3 prof, 2 WIS). If I understand it, you are removing the 3 proficiency, reducing them to only WIS +2. This gives you a +7 vs. +2 edge (5 difference) instead of +7 vs. +5 (only 2 difference). Thus, the end benefit for "expertise" would be a 3 point swing. I don't think this is moving in the direction I want to go since it basically gives you a similar boost to the RAW. Now, if the target lacks proficiency to oppose you, you are just as "good" as if they did. I am not sure how the logic of that is supposed to work.

The logic is that the benefits weighted toward the bigger challenges (creatures with perception proficiency). One of the problems you noted is that so few creatures have proficiency in perception. So let's make expertise grant static benefits vs those creatures (i.e., that don't scale as you level), but scale vs the minority that do. So you get more or less the RAW benefit only against the most perceptive creatures, and something else against the rest.

 

[Ashrym]

For a while, since I've been into 5E really, I have been annoyed by the contributions relatively of proficiency bonus, ability modifiers, and expertise. To me, proficiency should trump ability and expertise in the long run, but RAW we see proficiency barely beat out ability score modifiers (+6 max vs. +5 max). And expertise, available only to two classes with some archetype exceptions, equal to proficiency makes it too good IMO.

We currently play with the house-rule that proficiency caps out at +8, ability scores at +5 (was also +4 but we reversed it for simplicity since monsters and such are based on +5 progression), and expertise at +4 (+2 at low levels, +3 a mid, and +4 at higher). The potential maximum is still +17, so it works with the current system. I would like to see proficiency progress up to +11 or 12 even, lower ability scores to +4, and maybe make expertise a flat +2 bonus, and I might do this but I wonder if it would mess things up...

Now sure, the game plays fine RAW and with a practical cap at 30. So, I understand the purpose for bounded accuracy and all, but it makes me wonder if they bounded it too much?

Has anyone else had issue with the +6 vs. +5 vs. +6 system? Do you think it should be weighed differently? I am sure a lot of people haven't, and that is great for you, so I am more interested in people who do have issues with it.

I'm happy with natural ability being about as important as skill (+5 vs+6). I prefer keeping the bonuses lower because it tones down the "don't even try if you don't have the bonus" mentality, which was the intent.

This is actually important regarding checks and monsters, who don't usually have proficiency bonuses and specifically rely on ability score modifiers.

I would point out rangers get expertise simulated regarding favored stuff and is also available via the prodigy feat.

QQ: Have you tried the proficiency dice method? That gives potential proficiency bonuses higher than standard proficiency. Using expertise to roll twice and take the better of the two rolls allows the feature to still have a benefit but reduces it's effectiveness relative to just proficiency.