D&D 5E Changing Expertise, Adding Double Proficiency

[Satyrn]

Thoughts?

If I had my way, the Proficiency bonus would be an unchanging +2.

 

[TallIan]

Our proficiency bonus progression ranges from +2 to +9. We are currently at 5th- or 6th-level and use +3 and +4, respectively.
RAW it would be +3 anyway, so only two characters at 6th-level get the extra +1 for now.

Probably not game breaking but you will have to consider balance vs monster issues. Monsters skills are already quite weak vs PCs. But when you combine this with your doubled proficiency later on I think that will be too much.

Expertise
You choose one skill in which you are proficient. You gain advantage when you use that skill.
If you roll a natural 20 on your check, you automatically succeed even if the DC is higher than the result of the check.

I really don't like this as a fix. How do you reflect situational changes that make the task easier? Such as help, or tracking across a muddy plain.

Double-Skill
By selecting a skill twice, you can apply double your proficiency bonus to checks made with that skill.

Why ad this in after taking it away. It certainly throws things way off balance when combined with your first proposed change.

3. What other options could exist to reflect a level of specialization above normal prof bonus for double-skills instead of simply doubling the prof bonus?

Thoughts?

Have you tried the proficiency dice optional rule? This makes rolls less swingy, but offers a greater difference across levels of play and everyone has the same maximum roll. Expertise can be reflected by granting "advantage" on the proficiency die, leaving the d20 to be rolled with or without advantage or disadvantage as the situation warrants.

You can then also add things like re-roll 1s/2s/under half max/etc. on the proficiency die to reflect other reasons for being good, like remarkable athlete.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Expertise
You choose one skill in which you are proficient. You gain advantage when you use that skill.
If you roll a natural 20 on your check, you automatically succeed even if the DC is higher than the result of the check.

I can see this as prone to abuse and shenanigans. After all, the only reason why you can't convince the king to abdicate the throne on the grounds that you are The Moon, is because that's a DC 90 check. The reason you can't knock down a solid adamantium door is because it's DC 70.

When the DM steps in and just says that something is impossible, it's supposed to be because they figured out the DC, and it's beyond the functional range of the d20. The secondary feature of your Expertise would remove that possibility. And as I'm sure we're all aware, "I rolled a natural 20, so something dumb happened," is the basis behind half of the most ridiculous stories about D&D. There's a good reason why natural 20 was never a thing on skill checks.

Personally, I love the new Expertise for my Rogue/Cleric/Wizard, but the other Rogue/Fighter player wasn't keen on it until the DM decided to try out "Double-Skill". I didn't select any, but he did for all four skills he has expertise in (cost him using a Skilled feat). Seems OP to me to have double proficiency with advantage!

For the most part, you don't have to worry about skills being OP, because the game doesn't break if you always succeed at normal checks. If you're using the rules in the book, then a high-level rogue can't fail to pick a DC 25 lock, and that's fine because the DM has already accounted for the possibility that the rogue would open any given lock.

The one exception to that is Athletics, because you can force an opposed skill check on someone in order to take them out of combat. Double Proficiency and Advantage can be abused to build an unbeatable grappler, which is bad, but it's only slightly worse than what a rogue with Reliable Talent can already do by using the rules in the book.

 

[DND_Reborn]

yes, a bit. But with +6 it is not too bad.
I have hoped that some skill point option would be available in a splat by now or better in the DMG. I don´t know if I´d use it, but that is ok.
In the other Thread I proposed proficiency increase at 3,6,9,12,15,18 to go up to 8 and I still believe this would be a good option. I could imagine that if you like expertise capping at +12, you could have it be x1.5 instead of x2.

When I spoke about skill points in my post above, you would not get any when yu level up, instead you are just able to have different kinf of proficiencies. I would love to have a default method to gain new proficiencies when you level up, and fortunately there is already one:
In the DMG under alternate treasure you can allow characters to train with someone who is exceptional at a skill to gain a new proficiency in a skill, which transfers to spend downtime in special circumstances. Difficult, but possible.

Our first increased proficiency bonus progression went to +8 and we just recently bumped it to +9. I can't see going any higher, though.

It is a good idea with Expertise increasing it by x1.5... It is like another idea I had that Expertise would add +1 bonus for each Tier of play. If we stayed with the +8 max proficiency bonus, Expertise would grant +12 total at the highest levels.

The only issue with downtime IMO is rarely in our games does everyone have a need for downtime at the same time, with the sole exception being not traveling in the winter months. But I can also understand the idea of how a character can suddenly learn a new skill just because they level up. Ideally, I would like to find a workable solution that is believable yet allows for improvement during normal adventuring as well.

I really don't like this as a fix. How do you reflect situational changes that make the task easier? Such as help, or tracking across a muddy plain.

We've decided advantages can stack. For example, a character with expertise in Stealth wearing Boots of Elvenkind would get to roll 3 d20s and take the best of all three. Additionally, if you have two sources of advantage and one of disadvantage, you still have advantage. You would need two sources of disadvantage to cancel both sources of advantage.

Probably not game breaking but you will have to consider balance vs monster issues. Monsters skills are already quite weak vs PCs. But when you combine this with your doubled proficiency later on I think that will be too much.

Why ad this in after taking it away. It certainly throws things way off balance when combined with your first proposed change.

The Double-Skill was not my suggestion, it was the DM's way to appeasing the other rogue player. With his +4 prof bonus doubled and added to Dex mod, he is +11. He wanted that over being only +7 with advantage.

One thing in retrospect I do like is the idea that Double-Skill could be a straight +2 to +4 one time bonus. If we did this, I could probably even talk the group into reverting to the RAW +6 max prof bonus. With Double-Skill, it could go as high as +10 (if a +4 one time bonus). I'll have to play around with the idea.

Have you tried the proficiency dice optional rule? This makes rolls less swingy, but offers a greater difference across levels of play and everyone has the same maximum roll. Expertise can be reflected by granting "advantage" on the proficiency die, leaving the d20 to be rolled with or without advantage or disadvantage as the situation warrants.

You can then also add things like re-roll 1s/2s/under half max/etc. on the proficiency die to reflect other reasons for being good, like remarkable athlete.

I'll look into this too. You're talking about the system in the DMG right? I've glanced at it, but originally rejected it because it would involve more dice rolling.

If I had my way, the Proficiency bonus would be an unchanging +2.

So how would people get better than?

I can see this as prone to abuse and shenanigans. After all, the only reason why you can't convince the king to abdicate the throne on the grounds that you are The Moon, is because that's a DC 90 check. The reason you can't knock down a solid adamantium door is because it's DC 70.

When the DM steps in and just says that something is impossible, it's supposed to be because they figured out the DC, and it's beyond the functional range of the d20. The secondary feature of your Expertise would remove that possibility. And as I'm sure we're all aware, "I rolled a natural 20, so something dumb happened," is the basis behind half of the most ridiculous stories about D&D. There's a good reason why natural 20 was never a thing on skill checks.
For the most part, you don't have to worry about skills being OP, because the game doesn't break if you always succeed at normal checks. If you're using the rules in the book, then a high-level rogue can't fail to pick a DC 25 lock, and that's fine because the DM has already accounted for the possibility that the rogue would open any given lock.

The one exception to that is Athletics, because you can force an opposed skill check on someone in order to take them out of combat. Double Proficiency and Advantage can be abused to build an unbeatable grappler, which is bad, but it's only slightly worse than what a rogue with Reliable Talent can already do by using the rules in the book.

When I DM if I decide a check is ridiculous or literally has no chance of success, I wouldn't even allow a role. No matter what you role, the king won't "abdicate his throne on the grounds that you are The Moon."

Contested rolls so far have been the greatest source of frustration when I discuss this with the DM. The aforementioned rogue character typically makes Stealth rolls high enough that even if the DM rolls a natural 20, the creatures Perception is too low to ever notice him. I mean, many times there is not even a chance at all! The character might as well be magically silent and invisible quite a bit of the time.

Another example was with a rogue/paladin who did specialize in Athletics and used it to shove creatures and knock them prone with impunity... It was ridiculous really.

 

[S'mon]

Another example was with a rogue/paladin who did specialize in Athletics and used it to shove creatures and knock them prone with impunity... It was ridiculous really.

This sounds like you have a pretty low bar for ridiculous.

I do generally give Large creatures advantage to not be shoved around by Medium creatures, unless the Medium is a Bear Totem barbarian, Goliath or similar. But generally I'm happy for shove-based PCs to be good at shoving.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This sounds like you have a pretty low bar for ridiculous.

I do generally give Large creatures advantage to not be shoved around by Medium creatures, unless the Medium is a Bear Totem barbarian, Goliath or similar. But generally I'm happy for shove-based PCs to be good at shoving.

There is a vast difference between being "good" and succeeding "with impunity". It would have been nice if the DM had given the large creature advantage, especially since it was a quadruped, but he didn't because the character "has expertise."

When you watch a man-sized PC knocking gorgons (probably 1500 lbs or more...) on their butts over and over, I think he failed once out of a dozen times in the battle, yeah... I call it ridiculous.

 

[jasper]

How many advantages would I have to stack to get 9000 on the result? Bluntly. Looks like you want an easy win in some rolls. Just do what my high school players did to the dm... Give them a wedige.

 

[S'mon]

There is a vast difference between being "good" and succeeding "with impunity". It would have been nice if the DM had given the large creature advantage, especially since it was a quadruped, but he didn't because the character "has expertise."

When you watch a man-sized PC knocking gorgons (probably 1500 lbs or more...) on their butts over and over, I think he failed once out of a dozen times in the battle, yeah... I call it ridiculous.

I guess this is why you don't alter the Expertise and Prof Bonus rules!

Yeah I'd give the 4 legged Large critter Advantage to resist, plus the grappler likely Disadvantage unless they used both hands to grab its horns for the wrasslin'...

 

[5ekyu]

There is a vast difference between being "good" and succeeding "with impunity". It would have been nice if the DM had given the large creature advantage, especially since it was a quadruped, but he didn't because the character "has expertise."

When you watch a man-sized PC knocking gorgons (probably 1500 lbs or more...) on their butts over and over, I think he failed once out of a dozen times in the battle, yeah... I call it ridiculous.

If I go with d20+11 vs d20+5 it looks like your definition of "with impunity" is a tad under 3 out of 4. That does assume doubled prof at +3 getting +6 and 20 in stat for the pally.

Or was to there more magic and superheroic stats stuff involved? Or was this with the house rule?

Cuz normally, 11 out of 12 is a bit on the unlikely side at the normal odds.

Also, the MM has traits (was it sure footed or some other name) which does give creatures the advantage against shoves snd the like, so, if in your game you felt it was appropriate for the gorgon to have it, why didnt you give it to them?

 

[Satyrn]

I can see this as prone to abuse and shenanigans. After all, the only reason why you can't convince the king to abdicate the throne on the grounds that you are The Moon, is because that's a DC 90 check. The reason you can't knock down a solid adamantium door is because it's DC 70.

When the DM steps in and just says that something is impossible, it's supposed to be because they figured out the DC, and it's beyond the functional range of the d20. The secondary feature of your Expertise would remove that possibility. And as I'm sure we're all aware, "I rolled a natural 20, so something dumb happened," is the basis behind half of the most ridiculous stories about D&D. There's a good reason why natural 20 was never a thing on skill checks.

It gets crazier when you consider the Diviner using his Portents on skill checks. Every time he gets a 20, someone in the party is gonna do something craaaaazy! And the odds of that are what, once every ten days or so?