D&D 5E Is expertise badly designed?

[ad_hoc]

It would probably make for better gameplay, but I would caution that the shoving/grappling system is one of the rules I have to explain to people most often (nearly every time it comes up), and that's without them then having to know this "grapple save DC" which unlike a comparable spell save DC is not used for a lot of things. The main problem is that most people (at least most not playing barbarians) shove or grapple once in a blue moon and rarely used rules are the hardest to remember.

Then again nearly every table I've played at had or has someone who can never quite keep straight exactly how bonus actions work and those happen every damned turn.

If they are shoving/grappling all the dm needs to do is ask for str mod and proficiency bonus.

If the player is being shoved/grappled all they need to do is make a strength or dexterity saving throw.

It is actually easier for the player and I think neutral complexity for the dm.

 

[miggyG777]

..hmm...? ...what? did somebody say something? ...shrug...


I think the key thing missing is consistency, and that's kinda the fault of the d20 and it's linear distribution. A master and even a talented novice should perform very differently, but the talented novice might have the occasional stunning success, while the master will have stunning successes so often, they're not stunning at all, and occasionally turn in only an ordinary success, with failure only a rare fluke due to some uncontrollable external factor.

Dice pool systems can capture those sort of things better than d20, if they're done well. But they can be moderately complicated.

One compromise is to roll more dice, but still have a binary success, replace d20 with 2d10 or 3d6, for instance, which have similar averages, but normal distributions.
Conversely, another reasonably compromise is to simply narrate success frequently for trained and expert characters, and call for checks most of the time with untrained ones.

How about this system

Unskilled: disadvantage ( d20 + Ability Mod )
Novice: d20 + Ability Mod
Proficient: d20 + Ability Mod + Proficiency Mod
Expert: advantage ( d20 + Ability Mod + Proficiency Mod)

Emphasizes the difference between no training and some training. Proficiency means that someone actually is well trained in something and expertise just means he is even more reliable in achieving the results.
Also prevents the players being able to crack very high DCs too early without expertise giving 2x proficiency.

Additionally the varying levels of consistency can be further utilized by using degrees of success.

 

[Don Durito]

In my mind expertise is for thieves trying to pick locks or remove traps or for stealth like in 1E/2E where those things really need to be near perfect chance of succeed at high levels for those of us that still run games with lots and lots of traps with bad saving throws. I wouldn’t recommend a fighter even trying it in one of my games. The penalty for failing are pretty bad. And it normally means clerics are burning spell slots when they fail. But I am sure the game has changed for many people. I pity not having a trap remover in some games.

I think I'd probably tend to limit Expertise to a range of classical Rogue things. Say any of:

Stealth
Sleight of Hand
Thieves Tools
Disguise Kit
Poisoner's Kit
Acrobatics

 

[Tony Vargas]

How about this system

Unskilled: disadvantage ( d20 + Ability Mod )
Novice: d20 + Ability Mod
Proficient: d20 + Ability Mod + Proficiency Mod
Expert: advantage ( d20 + Ability Mod + Proficiency Mod)

Emphasizes the difference between no training and some training. Proficiency means that someone actually is well trained in something and expertise just means he is even more reliable in achieving the results.
Also gets rid of the weird double proficiency progression.

Sensible. I like the Unskilled/Novice distinction.

The last part (Expertise grants Advantage) has been brought up before. The downside is it removes Advantage as a circumstance modifier. For instance, it never helps to Help an Expert (which may explain the attitudes some of 'em have, I guess). That kinda thing. Certainly doesn't kill the idea, but it's a consideration.

 

[miggyG777]

Sensible. I like the Unskilled/Novice distinction.

The last part (Expertise grants Advantage) has been brought up before. The downside is it removes Advantage as a circumstance modifier. For instance, it never helps to Help an Expert (which may explain the attitudes some of 'em have, I guess). That kinda thing. Certainly doesn't kill the idea, but it's a consideration.

Yep, have thought about that as well. It adds a bit of complexity but in the case of skill checks I could see that allowing to stack this special "unskilled or expert" disadvantage / advantage with a common RAW advantage / disadvantage. Perhaps one would just have to name it differently.
I believe there even are instances in RAW, where people can throw 3 x d20, such as the "lucky" or "elven accuracy" feat.

 

[Todd Roybark]

[QUOTE="lowkey13, post: 7893329,
*By the way, saying that something has a design principle in mind without stating the design principle in the object itself is hardly ... groundbreaking. Here, let's try it.

"Did you know that U.S. Constitution never, not even once, says anything about separation of powers ... or checks and balances! How you like dem apples????"
[/QUOTE]

Or cynincaly one could say it allows others to posit other design principles not intended, but can not be refutted due to lack of designer notes.

John Marshall was a thief, yo!

 

[Anoth]

I think I'd probably tend to limit Expertise to a range of classical Rogue things. Say any of:

Stealth
Sleight of Hand
Thieves Tools
Disguise Kit
Poisoner's Kit
Acrobatics

Yup. Add perception to that list. Possibly investigate.

 

[Don Durito]

Yup. Add perception to that list. Possibly investigate.

Investigate yeah. Makes sense. Perception I'm more wary of - everyone wants it and if it's traditionally anyone's niche it's the Ranger's.

I feel like Athletics should be on that list (because of climbing) but then that would eventually make them better at a whole lot of other things than the Fighter or Barbarian.

 

[Anoth]

Investigate yeah. Makes sense. Perception I'm more wary of - everyone wants it and if it's traditionally anyone's niche it's the Ranger's.

I feel like Athletics should be on that list (because of climbing) but then that would eventually make them better at a whole lot of other things than the Fighter or Barbarian.

Eh. Detect noise was a thief skill in ad&d. So i like perception.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure what to do with it - I don't think it's broken - because skills are ultimately a subsystem that it's best to avoid using as much as you can

How is that not broken?

Heh.... I'm sorry, it just sounded funny... "it's not broken, but don't use it" … er… OK?

But it's not wrong. The "play loop" works very smoothly when the DM judges & narrates success/failure and only calls for checks when it's best for the game. Which, yeah, is using it as little as possible.

'Persuasion' for example, because that just incentivises one person to become the party 'face' while everyone else sits back and stays schtump. (But this is in many ways an issue with the skill itself - nevertheless, where there are issues, Expertise confounds them).

Sure, always been an issue right down to reaction adjustments back in the day. Skill Challenges tried to address it by bringing the whole party into it. A vestige of that remains in the handy Group Check (everyone rolls, if half of 'em pass the DC, success) you can afford to set a less-than-challenging-to-the-Expert DC, since his auto-success won't succeed by itself, the test then turns on rolls of the just-OK folks.