The whole bit about Expertise and ceilings.
D&D 5E Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
- Thread starter DND_Reborn
- Start date
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
What kind of explanation are you looking for? An explanation of why somebody wants to change something is always their opinion. For many people RAW expertise works fine (yourself included from your statements), it doesn't for me for, again, the reasons I've stated. Even if I give you a mechanical reason for it (such as auto-successes at lower DCs and less meaningful higher DCs due to expertise increasing the probability of success so it is no longer as much of a challenge), the desire for the change would still be my own preference--my opinion. I hope you see why there really isn't a distinction.
Esker
Hero
Which part of my reasoning do you think doesn't hold up?
Ah, sealioning, not into it, thanks.
Esker
Hero
I would never say that you're not entitled to your opinion; I'm just trying to get a straightforward clarification about whether your dislike for the rogue's higher ceiling (as distinct from the higher floor) is driven purely by aesthetics/fluff connotations, or whether there's also a mechanical problem you see with it. It's clear to me now, despite the straightforward clarification I was looking for, that it's driven by aesthetics/fluff. It's still your opinion, and you're still entitled to it. But it muddies the search for a solution if we can't be clear on that.
You've expressed an opinion that a 75% success rates on stealth checks is too high. I disagree, but I accept your opinion, and worked to come up with a solution that would lower that number (which is reasonably seen as question of bounded accuracy as the concept generalizes to skill checks) without taking power away from the rogue. But as recently as this morning you are still claiming that your issue with the rogue's higher ceiling, which is a separate issue except insofar as we can't distinguish the two using fixed bonuses alone, is about bounded accuracy too, which is factually untrue. What bounded accuracy does is keep success chances strictly above 0% and strictly below 100%; so moving a success chance from 0 to something above zero is working with bounded accuracy, not against it.
Esker
Hero
I've not heard that term, but I just looked it up, and I'm definitely not trolling anyone. If I'm understanding the concept correctly (via Wikipedia), the last thing I want is to provoke an angry response from anyone, and I'm not disguising anything as an attempt to learn and communicate; I really just want to communicate.
I'm persisting because I'm irritated that you want to say that my argument is "dazzling but unpersuasive" without actually providing a critique of it. All you have to say is that you don't care about the reasoning and that you're going to continue holding your gut opinion regardless. Which is fine; it's just a game we're talking about, after all, and it's not like anyone is going to get hurt over it. But what's the point of engaging in a discussion thread about solving problems if you're just going to stick to your opinion and not engage with other people's reasoning?
Esker
Hero
You too! Like I said, no hard feelings, and I didn't mean to offend. I'm just passionate about internal consistency.
You too! Like I said, no hard feelings, and I didn't mean to offend. I'm just passionate about internal consistency.
Ha, baiting and flinging is not internal consistency, but nice try, with that last straw.
It's okay...go...
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
So, this is what I've decided I am going to pitch to our group on Saturday:
* Proficiency caps at +8 (no change for us)
* Ability caps at +4 (18 is the max, regardless of racial modifiers)
* Expertise grants advantage on skill checks for selected skills. (We stack sources of advantage and disadvantage, so this still makes things like Elven Accuracy and certain magical items valuable).
* For attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks, a natural 1 on the d20 always fails and a natural 20 always succeeds.
Class-wise:
* Bards will begin with 4 skills, not 3, for their class (not that it really matters to us, but just in case we ever have a bard again...
)
* Rogues will be allowed to select 2 additional skills for expertise at 11th level.
* Bards will be allowed to select 2 additional skills for expertise at 16th level.
I am adding a new Feat:
I am also doing a re-write of the Prodigy feat:
I like the change in prodigy to base it on ability score modifier instead of proficiency, since a prodigy is supposed to have a natural talent bend IMO. Also, anyone can be better with a selected skill, etc., but no one gets it for free as a class feature. All other sources (such as Knowledge Domain's "Blessings of Knowledge" for clerics) that double proficiency bonus will grant advantage instead.
This means, barring magic or some other boost, normal bonuses will not exceed +12, up to +16 via the Prodigy feat (which anyone can take now). If you invest in max ability score, Raising the Bar, and Prodigy, you could have a +18 max. That is a heavy investment, and even with expertise granting advantage has about a 30% to fail at a DC 30 check and even 9% against a DC 25.
For the people who play without feats, this won't work, but we do and I think it will work for us.
Now, there is still the issue of linear bonuses raising the floor. Other than the 1 always fails rule, I can't do much about that without changing the base d20 mechanic, which I am loathe to do. A rogue who is +8 on stealth with expertise against a passive perception of 14 will succeed over 90% of the time, but I doubt anyone else will argue against it. As others have suggested, higher passive DCs, more foes to check against at once, etc. will have to serve to level the playing field some.
* Proficiency caps at +8 (no change for us)
* Ability caps at +4 (18 is the max, regardless of racial modifiers)
* Expertise grants advantage on skill checks for selected skills. (We stack sources of advantage and disadvantage, so this still makes things like Elven Accuracy and certain magical items valuable).
* For attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks, a natural 1 on the d20 always fails and a natural 20 always succeeds.
Class-wise:
* Bards will begin with 4 skills, not 3, for their class (not that it really matters to us, but just in case we ever have a bard again...
)* Rogues will be allowed to select 2 additional skills for expertise at 11th level.
* Bards will be allowed to select 2 additional skills for expertise at 16th level.
I am adding a new Feat:
I am also doing a re-write of the Prodigy feat:
I like the change in prodigy to base it on ability score modifier instead of proficiency, since a prodigy is supposed to have a natural talent bend IMO. Also, anyone can be better with a selected skill, etc., but no one gets it for free as a class feature. All other sources (such as Knowledge Domain's "Blessings of Knowledge" for clerics) that double proficiency bonus will grant advantage instead.
This means, barring magic or some other boost, normal bonuses will not exceed +12, up to +16 via the Prodigy feat (which anyone can take now). If you invest in max ability score, Raising the Bar, and Prodigy, you could have a +18 max. That is a heavy investment, and even with expertise granting advantage has about a 30% to fail at a DC 30 check and even 9% against a DC 25.
For the people who play without feats, this won't work, but we do and I think it will work for us.
Now, there is still the issue of linear bonuses raising the floor. Other than the 1 always fails rule, I can't do much about that without changing the base d20 mechanic, which I am loathe to do. A rogue who is +8 on stealth with expertise against a passive perception of 14 will succeed over 90% of the time, but I doubt anyone else will argue against it. As others have suggested, higher passive DCs, more foes to check against at once, etc. will have to serve to level the playing field some.
Similar Threads
