D&D 5E Is expertise badly designed?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

The question I would have is "too strong" or "just right" compared to... what? The players and their characters aren't in a competition and there's simply no competition between what the characters can dish out and what the DM can bring to bear. And in an RPG, what matters is spotlight in my view, and I haven't seen expertise really mess with that, particularly as the DM largely controls it.

I wouldn't worry about it, especially as a new DM. I recommend focusing on your vision for the game and preparing elements that speak to your adventure and campaign's theme, plus table management, pacing, and improvisation skills. That will take you a lot further than getting into the weeds of the game mechanics.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

Expertise allows one to consistently overcome certain types of challenges but generally skill checks don't derail the game like some magic can. Some DMs may be annoyed about removing uncertainty from things like disarming traps, picking locks, or spotting hidden things, but in my opinion expertise just allows the character to shine in their chosen area.

 

[BookBarbarian]

If you make sure you are only calling for checks on thins that are uncertain Expertise works just fine. It just makes some characters better at some things you were already OK with them succeeding at.

 

[cmad1977]

No.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I've had no trouble with Expertise - it's okay for characters to get to shine at Their Thing.

And heck, even with Expertise, I've whiffed so badly on some rolls that it didn't matter.

 

[cmad1977]

I am a fairly new DM. I have heard a couple of people argue, that rogue and bard expertise is a bad design choice due to its impact on the modifiers in the bounded accuracy system. Is it too strong or just right? I would be interested in hearing your opinions.

If you see people talking about how ‘broken’ a mechanic or feat or class is, you can be sure of one thing. They aren’t people whose feedback you want.

 

[iserith]

If you make sure you are only calling for checks on thins that are uncertain Expertise works just fine. It just makes some characters better at some things you were already OK with them succeeding at.

^ This. Make sure you, the DM, are the one calling for ability checks, not the players. The criteria for calling for ability checks is that what the player described has (1) an uncertain outcome and (2) a meaningful consequence for failure. If either of those requirements are not met, there is no ability check. You just narrate the result of the adventurer's success or failure.

 

[TwoSix]

Wow. That's ... hmm.

Those are certainly words. Do you have a source for that? Either one?

5e math for proficiency bonus is roughly 4e/2. 4e is Level/2, round down. 5e is 2+((Level-1)/4,) round down. The growth rate is two times higher, although the +2 means it's never actually twice as much within the level domain of 5e. (4e level 20 is at +10, 5e level 20 is at +6).

Likewise, stat bonuses in 4e tended to get in the +8-10 range, while 5e is limited to +5.

I think the assertion about "not using bounded accuracy" is that magic items are present in the game, but not accounted for in the challenge calculations of monsters. I think, anyway, MwaO would have to clarify.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am a fairly new DM. I have heard a couple of people argue, that rogue and bard expertise is a bad design choice due to its impact on the modifiers in the bounded accuracy system. Is it too strong or just right? I would be interested in hearing your opinions.

Our table has a few problems with expertise (not the concept, mind, but the results):

Only rogues and bards get it. So, by this, a rogue/bard will be better at any skill they have expertise than any other class. This makes no sense that a rogue or bard can be better just because they are "skill monkeys" and its "their thing."

The bonus is too much (for us) , especially at higher levels.

For instance, average passive perception is about 12-15 for most monsters. A 5th level rogue with expertise in stealth and DEX 18 would have a +10, making most stealth checks nearly automatic. At higher levels, with Reliable Talent, that makes it so the minimum stealth check beats nearly every monster's passive perception. In other words, a rogue becomes nearly undetectable when they can stealth. While for some people this is okay, it was too much for us and made things too easy that should have some degree of risk.

To balance this out, we've implemented two house-rules:

1. Any character can take expertise in one of their background skills at the expense of their other background skill. Ex. A soldier has Athletics and Intimidation. You could choose expertise in Athletics by giving up proficiency in Intimidation. Of course, you can still take proficiency in Intimidation as a class skill.

2. We changed expertise to advantage. We did this because we use an expanded proficiency that caps at +8 instead of +6. Using a flat +2 bonus or half proficiency is also a good idea. It makes expertise valuable without being too strong.

That is our table's take on it anyway.