D&D 5E Let us "fix" Expertise!

Without commenting on the skill system directly, yes Expertise allows for some high modifiers to a skill roll, but at high levels that competes with high level spells, which can do super crazy things. A min 15 on a roll is, in comparison, kinda weak in my opinion. Your experience may vary I suppose.
That is true. I find that our martials more than make up for it with damage to be honest, they don't need to be grappling/ restraining Kytons (chain devils) like its a goat at a rodeo though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Reviving an old thread.
My idea - thoughts? problems?

Untrained = 1d20 + Ability Mod
Trained = 1d20 + Proficiency Mod + Ability Mod
Expertise = 1d20 + Proficiency Mod + Ability Mod (minimum 10 + Ability Mod)

Replace Reliable Talent with some other class feature from some of the splatbooks.
The simplest solution for Expertise breaking bounded accuracy is to turn it into advantage on the check. This way, you are more likely going to get a better result, but you aren't raising the ceiling any, and it is still possible, but unlikely, for the expertise-skill check to roll really low.
 

jgsugden

Legend
People are not considering that the breaking of bounded accuracy is absolutely intentional, and is not inherently problematic.

Characters that invest heavily in doing something should be insanely good at it, and the game should be able to work despite the assumption that the PCs will succeed on those checks virtually all the time. It takes the ability from, "You need to roll reasonably well to do it and might fail" to "you'll rarely, if ever fail" - but we see that happen all of the time in other ways in D&D without it being problematic.
Characters want to sneak up on someone. At low levels, they're mostly reliant upon stealth. At higher levels, they get invisibility, silence, teleportation, modify memory, and other ways to do it that are more powerful. When a high level party teleports directly in front of a monster and launches a sneak attack when the monster had no reason to expect them, I can't imagine it not being a surprise - and that there may be no roll involved.

The inclusion of expertise wasn't some sneaky and hard to predict impact on the game - it is a very blatant issue and the ramifications of it were obvious from the start. They knew what they were doing, they intended to do it, and it works as intended.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Allowing a Rogue or Bard to be as good or better at any skill than any other class is the problem with expertise. It's spotlight stealing.

I'd suggest expertise starts at a +2 bonus and scales to a +3 bonus at level 11.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Allowing a Rogue or Bard to be as good or better at any skill than any other class is the problem with expertise. It's spotlight stealing.

I'd suggest expertise starts at a +2 bonus and scales to a +3 bonus at level 11.
Why shouldn’t the expert character be dramatically better at that thing than other characters?

The only issue I can see here is that each class should have gotten auto proficiency in a skill, and automatically upgrade it to expertise at level 11.

Preferably each class has a skill and a tool, but tools are a whole aspect of the game that could use beefing up.

But Rogues and bards absolutely should have more expertise.

And Jack of all trades should belong to either the rogue or Ranger, not the bard, while I’m at it.
 

Horwath

Hero
Allowing a Rogue or Bard to be as good or better at any skill than any other class is the problem with expertise. It's spotlight stealing.

I'd suggest expertise starts at a +2 bonus and scales to a +3 bonus at level 11.
Now, rangers gets an expertise.

Also, everyone can get it via Skill expert feat. Might be good if that feat can be taken more than once or be an option that you get +2 skills and +2 expertise instead of standard +1 ASI. Then we can throw away Skilled feat into dumpster where it belongs.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Now, rangers gets an expertise.

Also, everyone can get it via Skill expert feat. Might be good if that feat can be taken more than once or be an option that you get +2 skills and +2 expertise instead of standard +1 ASI. Then we can throw away Skilled feat into dumpster where it belongs.
They already have feats to steal features from other classes, so that would be a good rewrite for Skill Expert: You gain expertise in two skills of your choice. Now PCs could get expertise without doing a Rogue dip.
 



Mort

Legend
Supporter
In the same sense that no one ever gets dramatically better at skills ever without Expertise.

I say give everyone expertises.

Everyone can get expertise, there's just a cost for everyone but the rogue (well and bard).

If everyone gets expertise, the rogue needs to get something extra to compensate - they're supposed to be better at skills.
 




What I would do is completely remove the bonuses from Expertise. The Expertise abilty does not increase your bonus on any skill it is applied to. Instead what it does is it adds another 'tier' of capability to the skill. So you now have Unproficient, Proficient, and Expertise as tiers of skill knowledge.

When you are performing an action that may require a use of a skill, the DM can use the tiers when determining how to adjudicate it. Expertise would allow use of a skill in situations where it may otherwise not warrant it or even allow a character to succeed without needing a roll. This gives the DM the ability to take into account the level of skill a character has in determining if a roll is needed and provide a context for increasing depth of capability based on Expertise.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
IMO. +2/+3 is dramatically better
At high levels?

Because by level 5 you’re losing +1, and then it stacks up to missing out on +4, compared to the existing mechanic.

IMO, being the expert sneak should put you far ahead at epic tier, reaching the “you should only ask this character to roll stealth when the DC is Very Hard or higher.”

And while I do think every character should get 1 expertise skill from their class, and Ranger should get 2 at the Bard progression, I think it’s right for the rogue to get 4 ultimately plus reliable talent.

I’d be fine with dropping Reliable talent and giving the rogue a feature that lets them attack as a bonus action, regardless of what action they take in a given turn, or ready an action as a bonus, or something.

Hell, bump SA dice up to a higher die size, there’s plenty of room on the combat side for the rogue, and they get plenty on the skill side.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
What are some ways to "fix" Expertise?
  1. Get rid of it all together?
  2. Roll a 1d4 with all Checks that have Expertise?
  3. A flat bonus or +2, for example?
  4. Advantage on all Checks that have Expertise?
  5. Advantage that can be used Once a Short Rest on all Checks that have Expertise per Skill?
  6. Advantage that can be used a number of times equal to your Proficiency modifier on all Checks that have Expertise per Skill?
  7. Some other idea?
Hmm. Well, if I thought that Expertise was broken, my preferred way to fix it would be with Option #3, a flat +2 bonus. Simple and elegant.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
At high levels?

Because by level 5 you’re losing +1, and then it stacks up to missing out on +4, compared to the existing mechanic.

IMO, being the expert sneak should put you far ahead at epic tier, reaching the “you should only ask this character to roll stealth when the DC is Very Hard or higher.”
I think some perspective is good. A +14 vs a +17. Grand pronouncements about the effects of the difference between a +14 and a +17 are way overblown.

And while I do think every character should get 1 expertise skill from their class, and Ranger should get 2 at the Bard progression, I think it’s right for the rogue to get 4 ultimately plus reliable talent.
I don't. I find less bonus bloat preferable because it tends to open up more skills checks for more characters than just the specialist.

If I had to segway from a +bonus for expertise, i'd suggest to treat it like mini reliable talent. You can treat rolls of 4 or less as a 5.
 


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
The mighty d20 itself is a bigger threat to bounded accuracy. Even a level 20 with +5 attribute and expertise can potentially contribute less than the mighty d20, and the d20 is available at 1st level!
Yes, and this IMO is one of the biggest issues with d20 systems.

For myself, I feel experience (and ability) should account (potentially) for more than the die that is rolled. But, like many things, I seem to be in the minority on this issue. 🤷‍♂️
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top