D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[FrogReaver]

I think this goes in part back to my comment about where we think about uncertainty and automatic success in the resolution process. Let's break it down.

1. The DM describes the environment. He or she describes something ahead that can detect PCs if they are not sufficiently stealthy.

2. The players describe what they want to do. The fighter and rogue want to sneak past and describe an approach to that goal.

3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. But before I can do that, I have to decide on certainty (auto-success or auto-fail) or uncertainty (roll). Because I have already established that there's something ahead that can detect PCs who are not sufficiently stealthy, I decide it's uncertain. I set a reasonable DC and call for a check. The players roll and the results determine the outcome I can then narrate.

Now, the determination of uncertainty is on the task or, as I would say, the approach to the goal - without reference to the PCs' abilities. Sneaking past this thing by the approach offered by the players is uncertain. It remains so until after the dice fall and a result is determined, regardless of whether the rogue ultimately taps the DC. Similarly, auto-success is when the DM determines that the approach to the goal offered to the players works with certainty, not after the DM has determined it's uncertain and the rogue taps the DC. Resolving the result for the rogue happens further downstream in the adjudication process than when certainty/uncertainty is determined.

In this way of thinking, I don't have to give even a single flumph about who I want to succeed or don't. It's the approach I'm judging and nothing else. Does that make sense?

Of course and I agree with most of that. The issue is that you the DM are declaring something is uncertain when the mechanics don't back up that declaration by having a DC lower than a characters +bonus. Whether you call for a roll or whether you don't the outcome is already certain in such situations.

Do you not think it would be better if rolls always had a small amount of uncertainty to them?

 

[Vis]

Limiting Expertise to a +2 would be limiting what makes those characters heroic. As the players increase in levels the DC checks should be increasing to add a bit of difficulty. Expertise allows those characters to shine in those skill required moments. Always a chance of failure. As a DM you can challenge these events with environment effects to impose disadvantage. Or exclude dipping into character classes for only one level. I like to roll with the character's shenanigans in the game. Makes for fun night of gaming.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Do you not think it would be better if rolls always had a small amount of uncertainty to them?

"Always"? No. If a PC performs an action that the player thinks might be uncertain, I generally have them roll a check even if in fact there is no risk of failure or no chance of success. E.g.: sneaking through an area where there are no enemies within earshot; searching for a secret door on a plain stone wall; trying to lie to a character who can read minds. If I waive the check, that tells the player that there is certainty where the PC might not realize it. So I'd only waive the check if I want to communicate that information for effect -- so far, I've mostly used this technique when the party was interacting with a god in disguise. (Okay, or to say, "you can stop wasting your time, let's move on".)

 

[Quartz]

Extra attack scales the fighting styles. There's no other scaling for skill checks.

Thus a +1 or +2 over 2-4 attacks is starting to feel pretty close to a +6 on a single attack which feels pretty close to a +6 on a single skill check since skill checks don't get repeated like attacks do.

Probability doesn't work that way and nothing's stopping you making multiple skill checks in a round.

There's something else that bothers me: Expertise is multiplicative rather than additive. I'm struggling to recall any other ability that similarly affects a modifier to the d20 roll.

 

[Yaarel]

There's something else that bothers me: Expertise is multiplicative rather than additive. I'm struggling to recall any other ability that similarly affects a modifier to the d20 roll.

Yeah.

 

[iserith]

Of course and I agree with most of that. The issue is that you the DM are declaring something is uncertain when the mechanics don't back up that declaration by having a DC lower than a characters +bonus. Whether you call for a roll or whether you don't the outcome is already certain in such situations.

Do you not think it would be better if rolls always had a small amount of uncertainty to them?

That's what I was trying to explain: In this way of thinking, the mechanics are not undermining the DM's call as to uncertainty. The DM is ruling the task uncertain. That the character taps the DC for that task resolves uncertainty no differently than someone who rolls and succeeds. It doesn't retroactively make the DM's ruling that the task is certain.

Consider: If you didn't know the character had Expertise and he or she just told you, after a roll, that the character succeeded in meeting or exceeding the DC, would you have an issue with it?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't believe it's a house rule; it's the proper application of the system given the mode of play. You aren't supposed to run overland travel round by round, for instance, though you can choose to do so if you're willing to deal with the consequences.

You moved your goalposts from a chase to overland movement. If your point is that bonus action dashes aren't accounted for in the simplified overland movement rules, we don't disagree, but that really isn't the point I'm making. Who can run a marathon fastest isn't something that often (or ever) comes up in my games. Who can move the fastest in combat or in tactically resolved chase scenes does, and overland movement isn't relevant to that point.

Unless your suggesting that all chases should be resolved using overland movement rules?

 

[Ristamar]

You moved your goalposts from a chase to overland movement. If your point is that bonus action dashes aren't accounted for in the simplified overland movement rules, we don't disagree, but that really isn't the point I'm making. Who can run a marathon fastest isn't something that often (or ever) comes up in my games. Who can move the fastest in combat or in tactically resolved chase scenes does, and overland movement isn't relevant to that point.

Unless your suggesting that all chases should be resolved using overland movement rules?

That is certainly not my suggestion. It was an example of using the wrong tool for the job.

First, going back to the last sentence of my original post...

Once an encounter becomes a matter of evasion and pursuit, the bonus Dash should not factor into the resolution mechanics.

...I will readily admit that bit is definitely my own opinion and should have been labeled as such. That's a failure on my part since I was in a rush while posting from my phone at the grocery store. Mea culpa. But I do stand by my belief that applying the same rules to a chase and to combat is a poor decision.

Round by round tactical movement is fine for small skirmishes (though still has plenty of glaring oddities, e.g. enhanced diagonal movement) but is far less useful beyond that narrow scope. When the game shifts away from combat, the application of the PC's abilities should also change. There are hard breaks hinted at in the official rules and the designers' respective thoughts on combat (you can't Ready an action outside of combat, attacks should not be made before initiative is rolled, etc).

Since you cited the overland travel example as moving the goalposts, let's look at the books for a more relevant example. In the DMG section outlining how a chase might be run (p. 252), there is subsection specifically addressing how the Dash action would be governed. Given those rules, it appears the Rogue might be able to Dash as a bonus action during a chase. However, there's also at least one break in the normal application of the Dash mechanic since it clearly limits the extended use of Dashing by applying a Constitution saving throw mechanic to avoid exhaustion. That limitation is not enforced during tactical combat.

The adjudication of any break in scope is the prerogative of the DM. I won't say that one absolutely has to run a chase per the official rules or that Rogues can never perform a bonus action Dash during a chase. However, the rules firmly imply some form of separation between what is applicable on the battlefield versus other modes of play.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Probability doesn't work that way and nothing's stopping you making multiple skill checks in a round.

There's something else that bothers me: Expertise is multiplicative rather than additive. I'm struggling to recall any other ability that similarly affects a modifier to the d20 roll.

Multiplicative in that at most it represents a +6 bonus at the highest level.

 

[5ekyu]

I agree with your point here. A skill check is all or nothing, which sometimes might mean life or death.

As a caveat, also keep in mind. Sometimes combat is all or nothing, like casting a Fireball spell, or failing a Stun save.

Moreover, at least in my style, many skill checks are happening during combat. So there is a sense of accumulating successes.



Just brainstorming here. Perhaps a skill challenge can routinely have in mind at least two skills. One athletics, an other nature, or one persuasion, an other history. Or so on. Then both challenges need to be overcome to fully resolve the challenge. Success in each skill check results in a partial success. One success and one failure results in a partial success with an odd outcome.

Fwiw any non-instant task in my games requires a three-wins check much like death saves and a failure can (in addition to asvancing towards 3 fails) give disad on subsequent rolls unless you change circumstances. I use it very freely and it tends to encourage multiple approaches and multipke characters on a task at different leg.

So, if you need to convince a guard to let you pass without an invite, you might use investigate before hand to get dirt (might get three there nut lets say two then fail) then switch to persuasion with the partial dirt to get to three successes.