AnotherGuy
Hero
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.
D&D 5E Let us "fix" Expertise!
Vaalingrade
Legend
Maybe just ban grappling then as that seems to be your real problem?
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
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.
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.
I'd suggest expertise starts at a +2 bonus and scales to a +3 bonus at level 11.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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
Legend
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
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.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
IMO. +2/+3 is dramatically better
Vaalingrade
Legend
In the same sense that no one ever gets dramatically better at skills ever without Expertise.
I say give everyone expertises.
Similar Threads
