D&D (2024) Expertise too good?

[Lojaan]

Now that we are going to be seeing a lot more of it, I think we should look at Expertise.

I think 'double proficiency' is too strong. It throws the 'bounded accuracy' of skills right out. The Alexandrian goes into it in more detail here;

1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad

One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:

thealexandrian.net

I think it would be better if it was just a flat +2 to those skill checks on top of other mods. Expert classes would still be really good at their skills because they most likely align with their ever increasing attributes, but they wouldn't be game breaking good.

What do you think? Is this an issue for anyone else?

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know. I'll have to ponder that one. Lot of competing interests there between PCs wanting to feel special in mostly out of combat situations, and the issues you raised about bounded accuracy and upward pressure it may have on DCs which would make those who don't have expertise unable to achieve that same task.

 

[Shiroiken]

Expertise works perfectly fine in apprentice and heroic tier, where most campaigns take place. It becomes a problematic after level 13, and is insane by level 17. However, with a "1" always being a failure to mitigate the issue, an expert is likely only failing 5% of the time after level 12, which is something I can live with.

 

[Horwath]

Non issue with expertise,

experts should be experts in their field.
those few good skills will not break anything.
13th level ranger should not have a problem gathering food and water in normal circumstances. Ever.

and rogue should open simple locks by then if they have expertise a 100% of the time.

I hope that this "idea" of nat 1 always fail an ability check gets axed ASAP in playtest.

if we would use 3d6 instead of d20, then roll of 3 could be autofail as it happens 1/216 attempts and not 1/20 attempts

 

[Minigiant]

Bounded Accuracy is for Attack rolls and Armor Class and Spells and DCs.

A PC having +8 in Medicine isn't "game breakingly good" because D&D's skill system is barely defined and has few core consequences and rewards for failure and success. The DM decides the consequences and rewards 90% of the time so the game only breaks if they choose it too.

 

[Raith5]

Yes. I think expertise is way too strong and undermines bounded accuracy. I had a rogue in my last campaign that was +9 in stealth at 4th level.

The idea of seeing it in other classes make we really wonder about the maths of the exploration and social pillars.

I think there should be a rework of skills where untrained people need a full action to do a skill, trained need a bonus action and expertise allows for free actions - or something like that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Now that we are going to be seeing a lot more of it, I think we should look at Expertise.

I think 'double proficiency' is too strong. It throws the 'bounded accuracy' of skills right out. The Alexandrian goes into it in more detail here;

1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad

One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:

thealexandrian.net

I think it would be better if it was just a flat +2 to those skill checks on top of other mods. Expert classes would still be really good at their skills because they most likely align with their ever increasing attributes, but they wouldn't be game breaking good.

What do you think? Is this an issue for anyone else?

I agree with everything in the linked Alexandrian post except for the backwards compatibility bit* expertise even destroys the new suggested DC range chart.

the chart for suggested DC needs to go beyond 30 with a 35 or 35&40. I say that because +5 from an attribute +8/10/12 from expertise is +13/+15/+17 to a roll & we have not even added magic items or any sorts of circumstance type bonuses yet.

"nearly impossible" doesn't seem so impossible when you need an 18 from 2d20k1+1d4+?? with advantage guidance & some kind of magic item/potion/hypothetical circumstance boost(circumstance from who knows mechanic/magic item). Already the help action & guidance alone brings that down to 14-17on a d20 roll made with advantage. If the help action & the guidance cantrip can bring "nearly impossible" down to just shy of medium or hard it's not exactly "nearly impossible". I don't mind overriding the DCs but I'd like a little headroom even if it's the addition of a "31+ improbable/35+ extremely improbable" or something

*screw backwards compatibility, just put out a "this is how to convert from/to old stuff"

 

[John R Davis]

I think it's fine.

They are an expert, and the numbers are never super silly out of control.

 

[FrogReaver]

Now that we are going to be seeing a lot more of it, I think we should look at Expertise.

I think 'double proficiency' is too strong. It throws the 'bounded accuracy' of skills right out. The Alexandrian goes into it in more detail here;

1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad

One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:

thealexandrian.net

I think it would be better if it was just a flat +2 to those skill checks on top of other mods. Expert classes would still be really good at their skills because they most likely align with their ever increasing attributes, but they wouldn't be game breaking good.

What do you think? Is this an issue for anyone else?

IMO. Expertise by itself doesn't make any skill game breaking good.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. I think expertise is way too strong and undermines bounded accuracy. I had a rogue in my last campaign that was +9 in stealth at 4th level.

Without expertise it would have still been +7. Expertise at level 4 is only adding +2. If +9 is such a problem, it's hard to imagine +7 not being one.

That rogue still would fail stealth checks at that level. Low chance but not guaranteed success. That same trend continues as the rogue levels because higher tier enemies tend to have higher passive perception scores.