Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gardens &amp; Goblins" data-source="post: 7372031" data-attributes="member: 6846794">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.</blockquote>

Verification