But you haven't explained why it matters that the rogue's ceiling is higher. What game problem does that cause? Particularly if the ceiling is higher for only 1% of rolls or something, and corresponds to DCs that never come up (and therefore has literally no practical impact)? Or is it not really about the mechanics at all for you, and just about a strong visceral aversion to what you see as the in-fiction connotation of this particular mechanic?
I just thought of another idea, in the spirit of infinite patience with your vendetta against rogues: make proficiency a die (1d4 at levels 1-4), etc., and let expertise be you skip rolling the proficiency die and just get the maximum. Then both have the same ceiling, but the expert has an easier time hitting it. There. Done. Can we all go home now?
I
have explained why it matters. There is NO reasonable explanation for it other than a "This is what these classes get." The only class I could in any way understand
possibly being better (i.e. the highest possible numbers) at a skill
might be Bards due to their nature of gathering knowledge and being well-traveled. One could argue that not only do the pick up a little of everything (Jack of all trades) but have learned things others have rarely been exposed to (thus, possibly higher numbers...). It is a stretch in some ways, but at least has a basis in the idea other than "sure, let's give them awesome skills to make them stand out."
Another possible idea, and it might be a good one. I'll think it over. You can go home now.
Maybe it's just the fact that it makes too many things cakewalks; grapple checks, Stealth checks, Perception checks (and passive) what-have-you. Artificially inflating DCs to keep the Expertise person challenged is not a solution. Also seems to fly in the face of BA, and the world building implications: Bards and Rogues are the masters of Arcana, Religion, Nature, Wrestling, you name it, like Bond: "...nobody does it better".
...Okay, the 007 comparison was a bad idea, as he is cool and should be the best at everything, but that is because he is James (Cha 20 and such), like a unique NPC.
That is a key issue in bold. Thank you for your support in understanding that.
Personally I wouldn't want a class to have a monopoly on higher skill-ceilings than all others, I'm all for a higher floor, hence my idea about a passive base when one has expertise and you choose the higher of the passive or the roll.
I certainly do not agree with dnd4vr about bards.
To be honest, I think more than enough options/solutions have been provides in this thread to make this very much a non-issue.
Higher floors (to a point) don't bother me either. Maybe when I summarized your idea I got something wrong. The more I look at it, I am starting to think the issue is in the DCs more than anything else...
Wait, what did I say about bards you don't agree with?
Maybe a form of Expertise could be added to all classes, and something else for the Rogue to pull off when it comes to his schtick; to be honest, Expertise seems like lazy design.
"...uh, well, yeah, just double proficiency bonus, that sounds good..."
I really love 5th Ed, I am a huge fan, but the universal proficiency bonus reminds me a little bit of the +1/2 level to everything of 4th Ed (which I excised to much success).
I would prefer a bit more gradation, not as much as 3rd Ed, but some. I do not dig a 20th-level Wizard being equally competent at striking enemies as a 20th-level Fighter (Extra Attack is neither here nor there).
It is interesting. I don't know if it is so much about lazy design as their effort to keep everything as simple as possible. Yeah, I would prefer more gradation over a simplified mechanic, but 5E is all about simple.
But something becoming a cakewalk is by definition *not* about the ceiling. Bounded accuracy is about not letting the floor be too high, or the ceiling *too low*.
I disagree. Due to the nature of rolling, if the ceiling is potentially higher, the floor is raised as well (at least in RAW). Bounded accuracy is ALL about the ceiling and keeping numbers under control. Expertise (especially combined with other features in the game) flies in the face of this. If 30 is supposed to be the theoretical cap, we are getting in the realm of numbers beyond that. At +17 RAW, the average roll is 27 (approaching nearly impossible). I could go the other direction with passive perception; 20th level, WIS 20, expertise, observant = passive perception score: 32. So, "nearly impossible"
is automatic. Sure, this is an extreme example, but very possible with three levels of bard or a single level of rogue. Take out the +6 for expertise, and at least we are just tipping over the difficult DC at 26, keeping things more "bounded".
Fine. Propose a menu of other things for the rogue to pull off with options for every rogue skill which is balanced against expertise. I made an attempt a couple pages back; you could even use my list as a jumping off point. We agree that something along those lines would be a reasonable trade for a rogue to make. But until you provide the details of what the designers should have done if only they weren't so lazy, maybe hold off on the "lazy design" angle.
While others are working on it, I am more in favor of a simpler approach. Granting advantage on expert skill checks does a lot of what I want. Keeps the potential the same (20 is still max), and moves the success rate for higher checks up (allowing experts to "get there more easily". Either way, as I wrote before, I am starting to think the issue is in the DC...
I mean, there have been a lot of suggestions, but none that simultaneously satisfy the conflicting constraints of (1) removing near-auto-successes, (2) keeping the ceiling matched, and (3) giving the rogue something of equal skill-monkey value to expertise. I don't know why we care about (2), and I don’t think @
dnd4vr really cares about (3) (though I bet his rogue players do, as evidenced by their revolt against the attempt to replace expertise with advantage)
We care about 2 for all the reasons myself and others have mentioned. And I am one of the rogue players, FWIW. I was fine with advantage, the other player in the group resisted the idea because it would decrease his potential (even though he was already ahead of the others...). IIRC, at the time I was +8 (+3 prof x2, +2 DEX) and he was +10 (+4 DEX), while the ranger was only +6. He didn't want to lose that +4 edge over the ranger and feel less competitive. Honestly, it seemed petty to me since he would still have been +7 with his DEX 18, and with advantage would have done better than the ranger most of the time anyway.
But again, I think the DCs are the issue as you have mentioned before, at least concerning stealth and passive perception. I mean, a DC 15 is supposed to be "moderate", yet most creatures have a passive perception score below that. With the +10 bonus our rogue had before, he was beating that 75% of the time, pushing it more towards the realms of what I would consider more easy than moderate. Take away the +15% from expertise, and 60% is more "moderate" IMO.
Or, here's another idea: have the expertise bonus scale more slowly (say, hitting +3 at level 8 and +4 at level 15) but give the rogue expertise in more skills. Say three skills (or two plus thieves' tools) at level 1 and another three at level 6. Maybe grant one extra proficiency at level 6 too.
LOL, in case you never noticed, this is what I wrote upthread we are currently doing. Expertise is +2, +3 at 7th, +4 at 14th. The other rogue player accepted this at least, over advantage, but no one really felt adding more skills or expertise selections was necessary.
You keep repeating this ceiling thing, means nothing to me. Maybe I am maths stupid, I am just trying to illustrate that 2 classes being better at Arcana than a Wizard is, is weird (sorry for the alliteration).
Yep. Seems weird to me, too. Remove the number inflation for expertise, and it isn't an issue. Or, as several people have mentioned, if the higher numbers alone don't bother you (they bother me, but that might be
my issue LOL), just allow every class one skill to have expertise in; rogue and bards would just have more. To me, this is a band-aid solution but might work for you.
