D&D 5E [5E] A Rogue "unnerf" - Extra Attack

[CapnZapp]

@dnd4vr - The only problem, that someone pointed out to me, was that it conflicts with how the Enhance Ability spell works.

In our games, that spell has never been cast in combat situations (where the Concentration slot competes for attention), it's only ever been cast in role-play situations between encounters.

So if you must change Expertise to advantage, the (to me) obvious buff to a spell not competitive enough would be to switch Enhance Ability to giving proficiency as it's bonus!

 

[Ashrym]

In our games, that spell has never been cast in combat situations (where the Concentration slot competes for attention), it's only ever been cast in role-play situations between encounters.

So if you must change Expertise to advantage, the (to me) obvious buff to a spell not competitive enough would be to switch Enhance Ability to giving proficiency as it's bonus!

Enhance ability is generally more useful for combat. Out of combat normally allows for retries without time constraints or the help action for advantage already. Enhance ability grants advantage with grappling or shoving attacks (strength); or initiative, resisting grappling or shove (dexterity).

Out of combat enhance ability can be useful if the help action isn't available or feasible.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@dnd4vr - The only problem, that someone pointed out to me, was that it conflicts with how the Enhance Ability spell works. Since Expertise now simply gives advantage, now anyone with the spell can give themselves Expertise in whatever category they want, rather than it being two separate bonuses that could potentially stack.

Sorry, I thought it came up earlier in the thread, but it might have been in my other thread: we stack sources of advantage and disadvantage.

So, if you play a rogue with expertise in stealth, and someone casts Enhance Ability for DEX, or you were wearing Boots/Cloak of Elvenkind, etc. you would roll more than 2 d20's and take the best of all the d20's. So, expertise, enhance ability, boots of elvenkind = 4 d20's.

Obviously, adding more d20s will help, but it is diminishing returns. 3 dice work well to help, 4 starts not to make as big a boost, etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In our games, that spell has never been cast in combat situations (where the Concentration slot competes for attention), it's only ever been cast in role-play situations between encounters.

So if you must change Expertise to advantage, the (to me) obvious buff to a spell not competitive enough would be to switch Enhance Ability to giving proficiency as it's bonus!

Actually, we have modified Prodigy so that instead of double your proficiency bonus, it doubles your ability score modifier. Enhance ability could do the same thing... I'll have to bring that up at the table today.

 

[Esker]

You should think about what it accomplishes. It makes expertise more valuable at lower levels since advantage is worth more than a flat bonus when proficiency is lower. It makes expertise not as useful at the highest levels because advantage is worse than a flat +6 bonus.

Yeah, I noted that as a benefit in the other thread. I've made my peace with the change in the context of advantage being able to stack. I just think, apart from that aspect, there's a mismatch between the solution and the examples you gave for why you think a high modifier is a problem.

Also, since it doesn't inflate floors and ceilings, it at least gives a chance for success against it, as where before a nat 20 + perception simply couldn't reach his total if he rolled well.

I don't think it makes sense to think about the chances of an outcome when you've conditioned on one of the rolls being high (or low). I think you should only be considering the overall chances of being noticed.

If you assume the rogue rolls well, for a suitable definition of well, then a nat 20+perception is not enough to notice them unless the perception mod is nearly as high as the stealth mod. For a stealth mod of +7 and a perception mod of +2, say, the rogue makes the perception roll irrelevant if they roll a 16 or higher. If the rogue's mod were +10 they'd need only a 13 to render the perception roll irrelevant... but 16+ with advantage is more likely than 13+ without.

But that's a silly way to analyze the situation. It doesn't matter how often one side's roll is rendered meaningless; all that matters is how often the rogue is noticed. You should think of the opposed check as a single random event.

I am okay with a lower level character not having a chance to hit DC 30 quiet yet.

That's fine, but isn't a question of bounded accuracy

Now, I REALLY have to get to sleep before our 12+ hour session tomorrow.

Oh man, 12 hours? That sounds pretty great. I'm guessing nobody in your group has kids of ages that require babysitters. My group is three couples, all of whom have kids, ranging from 0 to 7. Makes for an expensive hobby.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh man, 12 hours? That sounds pretty great. I'm guessing nobody in your group has kids of ages that require babysitters. My group is three couples, all of whom have kids, ranging from 0 to 7. Makes for an expensive hobby.

Yeah, the other players are in their 20's, me and the DM are 40+. We all met at work nearly a year ago and have been playing twice a month since last November. We do 12-hour sessions because we only meet every other Saturday. Personally, I hardly see a point in playing under 6 hours, you don't get much accomplished.

I think our shortest session has been about 8 hours, and our longest is just under 18 hours! (11 AM start to 5 AM the next morning... talk about gaining levels of exhaustion LOL!)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, I noted that as a benefit in the other thread. I've made my peace with the change in the context of advantage being able to stack. I just think, apart from that aspect, there's a mismatch between the solution and the examples you gave for why you think a high modifier is a problem.

I don't think it makes sense to think about the chances of an outcome when you've conditioned on one of the rolls being high (or low). I think you should only be considering the overall chances of being noticed.

If you assume the rogue rolls well, for a suitable definition of well, then a nat 20+perception is not enough to notice them unless the perception mod is nearly as high as the stealth mod. For a stealth mod of +7 and a perception mod of +2, say, the rogue makes the perception roll irrelevant if they roll a 16 or higher. If the rogue's mod were +10 they'd need only a 13 to render the perception roll irrelevant... but 16+ with advantage is more likely than 13+ without.

But that's a silly way to analyze the situation. It doesn't matter how often one side's roll is rendered meaningless; all that matters is how often the rogue is noticed. You should think of the opposed check as a single random event,

If you keep the same progression of proficiency bonus as RAW, the benefit of expertise as advantage over RAW expertise is:

+2​	d20 rolls 4 to 18 (78.75%)
+3​	d20 rolls 5 to 17 (68.25%)
+4​	d20 rolls 7 to 15 (47.25%)
+5​	never (they tie on a roll of 11)
+6​	never ​

So, yes, in many ways our expertise rule works to the player's advantage (no pun intended), but since it keeps the floors and ceilings lower that RAW, it accomplishes the balance I was shooting for.

In the example you wrote, yes the advantage over RAW is 43.75% to 40%, slightly better but hardly a big factor. When you get to something like a DC 25, the RAW still has a 30% chance to hit it, the +7 is still close (just under 28%).

What IS a big factor IMO is the +10 has the potential to reach 30, making it nearly impossible for most monsters to every notice them (the ceiling) and also making his minimum of 11 beat many monsters with passive scores of only 10 or lower. At 4th level, it is too much to have automatic success. With only +7, there is a chance, however small, that monsters with passive scores might notice him if he rolls low enough.

The goal with the advantage house-rule is also to make it so rogues (yeah, and bards...) cannot inherently hit higher DC than other classes. I am fine with them getting a chance to do better (it is a class feature after all), but not get high enough that others have no chance to even compete.

Anyway, the gang will arrive soon. As I have said before, if things don't work out with it, we'll go back and try a different approach, but last session it worked well IMO. And, as you said before, I don't see much point in going over ALL the math again!

 

[Esker]

​
​
​

What IS a big factor IMO is the +10 has the potential to reach 30, making it nearly impossible for most monsters to every notice them (the ceiling) and also making his minimum of 11 beat many monsters with passive scores of only 10 or lower.

The minimum issue is easily addressed by house ruling that 1s are auto fails.

As for the possible 30, do you get my point about it being odd to look at the success chance after factoring in the rogue's roll, though? Is your worry that if the rogue rolls stealth and then gets to make decisions about how far ahead to scout based on the outcome of the roll, knowing they won't have to make another one, then knowing they're invincible would lead to them taking unreasonable risks? This is a metagaming issue specific to stealth, not a mechanical one. And not removed by reducing bonuses: rolling a nat 20 makes you undetectable by anyone who doesn't have a bonus matching yours.

I might have the DM make stealth checks behind a screen so a player can't decide what to do after seeing a roll that affects how that goes.

In most cases, opposed checks are like a single roll with different probabilities, not something where one side rolls first and then decisions get made before the other side rolls, so I don’t see why focusing on what happens when you know one side's roll means anything.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you to change your rule, just trying to make sure the implications are properly understood.