D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[Quartz]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

So, is Expertise too good? What if Expertise were limited to a plain +2? That's still the same as doubling for a beginning PC, but doesn't go into the stratosphere for high-level PCs. It would mean that rogues have an advantage sure, but no more than the fighter in combat. And it would significantly nerf dipping the Rogue for multi-classing.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Comparing Fighting Style to Expertise is...

...ok. So we have a bunch of different bonuses applied to various parts of the system: Off hand damage, AC, damage of a one handed weapon, chance to hit AC with a ranged weapon, minimum damage of a two handed weapon. Then there's the bonuses which apply to stuff such as movement (Mariner) and the 'bonus' of Protection, allowing folks to impose Disadvantage.

As we can see, we have a number of different bonuses that apply to many aspects of the system. Armour Class. Average/Max/Min damage. Chance to hit.

To compare Expertise, which only applies to skill check DCs, is tricky, and honestly, poor design thinking. Find some apples, compare it to 'dem apples. Sure we could try comparing AC with Skill Checks, tho only the Archery style grants a bonus to hit AC out of the Fighting Styles. And even then, while AC in the Monstrous Manual caps out at around 30, Skill checks can be higher (though the example table stops at 30). Then we ask ourselves, is it more likely we encounter AC 30 monsters? Or, armed with a hefty skill check bonus, attempt to perform near-impossible feats of skill? And.. already we're really trying to squish these various fruits into something vaguely resembling Apples..... eugh!

Let's just forget comparing Expertise to Fighting Style.

So, to the crux of the question: What if Expertise was limited to +2? Experts would be less assured of success, not be able to succeed at near-impossible tasks as often and their general level of competence would be lower. Is this a bad thing? It depends on the game you're trying to play, your table and the expectations of those at it. Honestly, test it for yourself. However, unless its been a problem I personally wouldn't fix it until it becomes an actual play-based problem rather than a theoretical problem.

 

[GreyLord]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

So, is Expertise too good? What if Expertise were limited to a plain +2? That's still the same as doubling for a beginning PC, but doesn't go into the stratosphere for high-level PCs. It would mean that rogues have an advantage sure, but no more than the fighter in combat. And it would significantly nerf dipping the Rogue for multi-classing.

With 5e being open to houseruling, you can actually give Fighters Expertise with weapons if you want to. You can change an archetype ability (for example, a fighting style grants them able to double their proficiency bonus...which is NOT actually a straight up +6 extra. It starts as a +2 and only if they get to level 17 can they get an extra +6 on their proficiency bonus), or you could say with Battlemasters when they use their superiority dice when they get bonuses to hit, it is static instead of rolled so it would be the average rounded up (so +5 at first, then +6, then +7 at the top).

There are myriad ways to houserule it if one wants to.

I know when I made my OD&D document I put in a houseruling for OD&D fighters that they basically got this expertise when fighting (their proficiency bonus was doubled). Of course, they also LOST many of the other abilities fighters get in 5e (as the OD&D fighter is basically just very vanilla). But it was something I included in their base package. Just one example of how a houseruling could be utilized to give fighters "expertise" with fighting proficiencies the same a Rogue gets it with skills.

 

[Aldarc]

A popular houserule I have seen about Expertise is that it just confers Advantage rather than a flat bonus.

 

[5ekyu]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

So, is Expertise too good? What if Expertise were limited to a plain +2? That's still the same as doubling for a beginning PC, but doesn't go into the stratosphere for high-level PCs. It would mean that rogues have an advantage sure, but no more than the fighter in combat. And it would significantly nerf dipping the Rogue for multi-classing.

Expertise is a bonus which scales upward with the character level. It applies to the chance ofcsuccess/fail but the outcomes remain the same.

Bonuses to hit from say archery applues to chance of success fail. The bonus does not scale **however** the outcome (damage) usually does increase (over time bonuses and gear) as well as the attacks per turn.

So, both scale as you level. One from success-fail perspective and the other from yield perspective.

Since the gain is determined in most basic sense by success-times-yield, i see no reason to think they are imbalanced.

 

[Quartz]

A popular houserule I have seen about Expertise is that it just confers Advantage rather than a flat bonus.

I thought about that, but it then denies the possibility of adding Advantage or Disadvantage. I also thought about Expertise denying Disadvantage, but that didn't fit for me.

Expertise is a bonus which scales upward with the character level. It applies to the chance ofcsuccess/fail but the outcomes remain the same.

Bonuses to hit from say archery applues to chance of success fail. The bonus does not scale **however** the outcome (damage) usually does increase (over time bonuses and gear) as well as the attacks per turn.

I disagree. One only has to look at the recently posted version of Achilles to see how damage need not scale.

 

[5ekyu]

I thought about that, but it then denies the possibility of adding Advantage or Disadvantage. I also thought about Expertise denying Disadvantage, but that didn't fit for me.



I disagree. One only has to look at the recently posted version of Achilles to see how damage need not scale.

In my experience, most of the characters built using foghtimg style *either* increase damage per hit over time *or* increase attacks per turn over time or both... And that raises the output over time as they level.

Can someone make a build where they choose to not raise either, sure. But analysis should not be based off intentionall counter builds.

Edit to add after looking at Achilles...

At the 4th tier level he is presented, Achilles has three attacks per attack action which fits with the fighter standard.

So, if we take it as an example and postulate an archery style choice (instead of presumably the defense one?)... at first tier he gains that +2 on one attack per attack action (barring bonus action finagling), at tier-2 he gains that bonus to two attack per attack action (barring bonus action finagling) and at tie-r3 he gains it for three attacker per attack etc.

Add in the potential action surge gains and i think anybody would see that the yield side of the success-x-yield keeps escalating most assuredly.

*most* of the time, chances to roll skills do *not* go up as you level up. You don't get to make more perception checks or more insight checks and thus gain your bonus more often - nor does a successful insight roll at level 12 do more than it did at level 3.

So, again, in terms of gain as (success chance)-x-(yield) expertise takes things that dont scale the yield side and improves the (success chance) side **with a scaling modifier** while archery takes things where the **yield does scale** and improves the success side with a flat modifier.

So both have scaling on exactly one side of that equation.

Removing scaling from expertise or adding scaling to archery would be unwise.

Now, an argument can be made that perhaps there are some fighting styles that scale and some that don't and so there are imbalances there - but those are problems between fighting styles and not related to expertise. perhaps Defense and Protection should gain a tier-2 and tier-3 etc increase to keep par with Archery.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I like it as is. One effect I've taken advantage of is it's allowed me to take characters that have relatively low stat bonuses and make them passable at skills that they would normally not be good at.

 

[schnee]

Expertise seems to me to be the equivalent of the Fighter's Fighting Styles. Those are limited to +1 or +2. Yet Expertise gives up to +6.

So, is Expertise too good? What if Expertise were limited to a plain +2? That's still the same as doubling for a beginning PC, but doesn't go into the stratosphere for high-level PCs. It would mean that rogues have an advantage sure, but no more than the fighter in combat. And it would significantly nerf dipping the Rogue for multi-classing.

Because skills and combat are different systems, and a +1 is not necessarily the same thing when it interacts with different systems?

Because a Rogue's skills have to mean something at high levels when Wizards just *snap* change reality on a moment's notice, and the idea that the class who's literal domain is skills should only be 10% better than anyone else at the very top is a total kick in the nards?

 

[iserith]

What is it about your play experience that tells you it's "too good?" Is there anything you or your DM is doing in running the game that makes expertise better than it may be at other tables? For example, do players in your games ask to make ability checks or roll without asking and, if so, do some players choose expertise in proficiencies that are quite valuable in the given game?