D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[variant]

If there is one thing in 5e I will say I hate with a passion, it's Expertise. That crap should never have made it through any playtest.

 

[iserith]

If there is one thing in 5e I will say I hate with a passion, it's Expertise. That crap should never have made it through any playtest.

Why though? I don't even notice when characters have it in my games. I wouldn't notice it if they took it out of the rules. So I have no strong opinion either way. I just wonder why others do and what they're doing in their games that makes Expertise both noticeable and problematic?

 

[variant]

Why though? I don't even notice when characters have it in my games. I wouldn't notice it if they took it out of the rules. So I have no strong opinion either way. I just wonder why others do and what they're doing in their games that makes Expertise both noticeable and problematic?

The bonus is largely unnoticeable at low level, but once you get to mid-level and into high level, it becomes broken. You have to create skill check situations to challenge a Rogue with it that will most likely guarantees a failure for any other player character. When it comes to traps, or life or death situations, that almost always means death for anyone else. It's a massive stake to the heart of bounded accuracy. I've never seen more multiclass characters than characters that multiclass into Rogue just to get Exerptise in a skill. One level, and it benefits them throughout their adventuring career more than anything they would lose.

 

[Yaarel]

Grappling is a combat use of a skill. Adding expertise to it clearly violates combat math.

But I use all kinds of skills during combat. It is problem when violating bounded accuracy, requires the DM to inflate the challenge classes.



I am comfortable with ‘autowins’. If a player comes up with a situationally effective idea, it simply succeeds, without a need to roll.

If the design goal for the rogue is to autowin stealth, then just say the rogue autowins. Dont mess with the math.

It feels wrong when the rogue is also autowinning grappling checks because of wacky math.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why though? I don't even notice when characters have it in my games. I wouldn't notice it if they took it out of the rules. So I have no strong opinion either way. I just wonder why others do and what they're doing in their games that makes Expertise both noticeable and problematic?

I’m scratching my head at this perceived “problem”, too. The rogue (assassin) at our home table took experitsise in Thieves’ tools and Stealth to start. Then I allowed him to take it in only in Investigation at 6th level, at which he formerly was not proficient. Far from breaking the game, it just made him really good at the things he should be really good at. And the other members of the party were happy for the choices. If he had taken it in Acrobatics and Perception instead, I could see those being beneficial to the party as well.

Why would a monk player fault the rogue for being extra acrobatic? The monk has enough different abilities that they won’t be outshone in all aspects of the game. Shouldn’t you want your fellow party members to succeed? Also, what full rogue in their right mind is going to select Religion for expertise? I mean, that would be flavorful, but if you already have a cleric in the party... why? Let’s say they insist... what is the big deal if that’s how the player wants to play their character? Again, the cleric has enough going for it as a class that the rare religion check going to the rogue is not going to cause sour grapes... and if it does then I would suggest the problem is something deeper than Expertise.

At high levels where proficiency bonus is +5 or +6, the rogue should be virtually auto succeeding on certain things. That makes the player feel badass and the table can move on to other fun tasks.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The bonus is largely unnoticeable at low level, but once you get to mid-level and into high level, it becomes broken. You have to create skill check situations to challenge a Rogue with it that will most likely guarantees a failure for any other player character. When it comes to traps, or life or death situations, that almost always means death for anyone else. It's a massive stake to the heart of bounded accuracy. I've never seen more multiclass characters than characters that multiclass into Rogue just to get Exerptise in a skill.

Do you mean levels where PCs are meant to be highly competent heroes and among the most skilled adventurers in the world?

 

[iserith]

You have to create skill check situations to challenge a Rogue with it that will most likely guarantees a failure for any other player character.

Why do you believe you need to do that? How do you define "challenge?" Do you see it as a different concept from "difficulty?"

Also, in your games, who decides they are making an ability check, the DMs or the players? Or do the players ask with the expectation the answer will be "Yes?" Out of curiosity, as I'm trying to figure out how others play to see if certain ways of playing are more likely than others to lead to an objection to Expertise.

 

[Yaarel]

Any modifier that would make me cringe if in combat, makes me cringe if in skills.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Any modifier that would make me cringe if in combat, makes me cringe if in skills.

Combat is typically made up of multiple rolls for overall success, ie an opponent must be struck several times for their HP to run out. A task is typically a one-shot deal, success or fail. In combat you get many tries, in skills you often just get one. I think that's a substantive difference from a game design perspective.

 

[Yaarel]

Combat is typically made up of multiple rolls for overall success, ie an opponent must be struck several times for their HP to run out. A task is typically a one-shot deal, success or fail. In combat you get many tries, in skills you often just get one. I think that's a substantive difference from a game design perspective.

Trying many times is the way it is when the obstacle to overcome is passive.

But the activity or passivity of the obstacle is irrelevant to the math of bounded accuracy.

Grapple works this way too, you can try to grapple several times. Autowin grapples are broken.