D&D 5E Let us "fix" Expertise!

[jgsugden]

'Busting' bounded accuracy is an issue in my games. I'm not a fan of grapple rolls heading into the mid 20's.

But how does it break the game? If a player has invested in being really good at grappling, spending a feat, a rogue level, etc... to get to be abkle to do it well ... is it a problem that they are really good at it versus most foes?

Heroes are supposed to be effective. As a DM, we're better off celebrating when PCs are effective, right? That is what makes players feel like their PCs are heroes, not playthings in the DM's story.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Meanwhile, the wizard's been casting invisiblity since 3rd level - possibly with silence on top of it.

Costs a resource though

 

[AnotherGuy]

But how does it break the game? If a player has invested in being really good at grappling, spending a feat, a rogue level, etc... to get to be abkle to do it well ... is it a problem that they are really good at it versus most foes?

Ah but they will still be good against most foes.
They have a +10 on Athletics, with a minimum of 15 with my house-ruled Expertise. That equates to a 75% chance of getting higher than moderate difficulty (DC 15). Furthermore in social encounters, I don't want a PC having +15 on persuasion checks. And there are many more examples.

I generally like a healthy dose to a challenge. Furthermore I use success with consequence, fail forward...etc
So my issue is not the failed skill checks stop the story.

Heroes are supposed to be effective. As a DM, we're better off celebrating when PCs are effective, right? That is what makes players feel like their PCs are heroes, not playthings in the DM's story.

And they are effective at my table. The numbers above illustrate that they are not playthings.
But I personally don't see the fun in rolling to see if someone got a 1 or 2. If those are the chances - I say just go passive, auto success. Like I said my DC skill range is set 10-20.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

In my opinion, some DMs just need to accept that the PCs become really incredibly powerful at higher levels, and ordinary challenges that were difficult at the lower levels become trivial. A level >17 rogue is near god-like in its stealthing. Just accept that. A bard may convince anyone they want with a +17 on Deception or Persuasion.

At those levels, you need to build drastically different challenges. If you have a normal town as the setting, such a party practically owns the place as soon as they set foot in it. The rogue has access to every nook and cranny, and the bard will rally all the peasants.

 

[jgsugden]

In my opinion, some DMs just need to accept that the PCs become really incredibly powerful at higher levels, and ordinary challenges that were difficult at the lower levels become trivial. A level >17 rogue is near god-like in its stealthing. Just accept that. A bard may convince anyone they want with a +17 on Deception or Persuasion.

At those levels, you need to build drastically different challenges. If you have a normal town as the setting, such a party practically owns the place as soon as they set foot in it. The rogue has access to every nook and cranny, and the bard will rally all the peasants.

This. 100%. This can't be said enough.

A lot of DMs have an idea for D&D that is based around what PCs can do at levels 1 to 9. When PCs start to get to abilities that make the challenges of levels 1 to 9 trivial, the DMs think the game is broken. It is not. It has evolved. The DM needs to adapt the game to the PCs.

This is a bit of a challenge because players do not necessarily have the full spectrum of high power abilities and may have gaps in what they can do. It is on the players to come up with inventive solutions to solve those gaps. It is up to the DM to encourage those creative solutions and to help move the story forward in a positive AND sensible way.

A 1st level Human Rogue with a 16 strength and the Grappler feat can have a +7 to their grapple checks. Against a 10 strength enemy they win their grapple check 80% of the time. They give up an attack to establish the grapple, so they start off down one attack on the enemy, and they're giving up 2 handed damage to grapple - and they're restrained when the enemy is restrained. It makes them very good at what they do - but that is a heavy investment to get to that level of capability. They should be very effective at it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sometimes designers mess up and its not oh the DMs don't know what they doing after level 9.
Often times the higher levels are not play-tested thoroughly enough, but hey - lets lay the blame at the DM's who actually do playtest the game.

When monster revisions come out for both the current and last edition, I wonder if it was the DMs' fault for making PCs to powerful. When you break your own Bounded Accuracy concept, that is just bad design. You can disguise it all you want with let's celebrate PCs successes - this isn't what it is about. Here is a novel idea bad math can simply be bad math. It ain't about a whole group of people who all just don't know what they're doing...

 

[Vaalingrade]

When you break your own Bounded Accuracy concept, that is just bad design.

It was Bounded Accuracy itself that was the bad design. Expertise is the only way to actually get appreciably better at something and frankly the other bad design was class-locking that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It was Bounded Accuracy itself that was the bad design.

Interesting. You prefer the up-scaling as in the 4e system, right?

Expertise is the only way to actually get appreciably better at something and frankly the other bad design was class-locking that.

100% agree with the class-lock being poor design.
I'm happy with my version of Reliable Talent to replace Expertise.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Interesting. You prefer the up-scaling as in the 4e system, right?

Actually, I prefer 3e skill points for the job. My design values are both showing improvement by level, but also customizability. Sometimes you don't want to be the expert, just not a failure, so you should be able to not max a skill if you don't want.
3e's sin was waaaaay too few skill points in every class with a skill list that was over-speciated.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

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.