D&D 5E (2014) Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise

[Maxperson]

Sigh, thought so. You really need to get out more. Your "objective fact" isn't objective nor a fact. Try some FATE, or a Powered by the Apocalypse game sometime (I recommend Blades in the Dark). These games are very much RPGs, but don't even try to model the reality with their rulesets. You're locked into a process-sim mindset -- there's more out there. You don't have to like it -- I'm super-cool with you just enjoying how you play right now, that's groovy, baby! But, at least acknowledge there's more out there? The existence of other games doesn't reduce your choices at all -- it's not zero-sum.

My favorite was when he accused me of horrible, horrible metagaming and had no problem doing that, but when I pointed out that something he did was also metagaming, he got all insulted that someone would say he metagames and blocked me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My favorite was when he accused me of horrible, horrible metagaming and had no problem doing that, but when I pointed out that something he did was also metagaming, he got all insulted that someone would say he metagames and blocked me.

Well, blocking should be removed from the forum. It's silly. If you don't want to read someone's posts, don't read them. Only the mods should be able to block people from posting, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, blocking should be removed from the forum. It's silly. If you don't want to read someone's posts, don't read them. Only the mods should be able to block people from posting, etc.

I actually don't mind if someone blocks me. They shouldn't have to see my posts if they don't want to. What I do mind is that I can't see their posts. Everyone has good ideas at least some of the time and I want to be able to see them. Responses also aren't generally just to the person you are quoting, but to everyone in the forum, as evidenced by your response to my last post quoting someone else.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In view of some of the suggestions about using 2d10 or 3d6 instead of a d20, I wonder if expertise might work to all the player to roll something like 4d6 instead of 3d6?

Since 3d6 avg is 10.5 and 4d6 avg is 14, it ends up being about a 3.5 point boost which is helpful but not a guaranteed static increase of +4 or more.

I don't know, it is late, but maybe something like that would work well.

 

[lall]

I think in 3.5, a sorcerer could be as good as a bard or a rogue in a couple of skills. What made the latter skill monkeys was that they were also good in many other skills. The 3.5 sorcerer could be “the best” (albeit tied for the best) in his two favorite skills and take solace in that. The 5e sorcerer is just a chump (when it comes to ability checks) like any other non-lore bard. It’s not just Expertise, it’s Peerless Skill and potentially Cutting Words that set the Lore Bard apart.

 

[Maxperson]

In view of some of the suggestions about using 2d10 or 3d6 instead of a d20, I wonder if expertise might work to all the player to roll something like 4d6 instead of 3d6?

Since 3d6 avg is 10.5 and 4d6 avg is 14, it ends up being about a 3.5 point boost which is helpful but not a guaranteed static increase of +4 or more.

I don't know, it is late, but maybe something like that would work well.

The only thing I don't like about using something other than a d20, is that it really messes with DCs. A very easy 5 DC might as well not be rolled for any longer, and an easy 10 becomes very easy. But the ease is only on the low end. The upper end becomes harder to reach.

 

[Esker]

The only thing I don't like about using something other than a d20, is that it really messes with DCs. A very easy 5 DC might as well not be rolled for any longer, and an easy 10 becomes very easy. But the ease is only on the low end. The upper end becomes harder to reach.

Yeah, the really low DCs get a bit off, partly because the variance is reduced, but also because 2d10 is not quite centered properly. I could definitely see adding 1 to all DCs 10 and under. If you do that, DCs that RAW you'd need a natural 5 to meet give you an 90% success chance with 2d10 (assuming you now need a 6), instead of 80% with 1d20. On the flip side, DCs that require a natural 17 have a 20% success chance with 1d20, and a 10% success chance with 2d10. So what were the outer 40% of outcomes are moved out to the outer 20%, making the modifier mean more by virtue of really good or bad luck both being less common, without actually changing it.

Consider 4 characters at level 5: A is an average Joe, with a +1 mod and no proficiency in a skill. B is skilled, with either a +1 mod and proficiency or a +4 mod and no proficiency. C is a specialist, with either a +1 mod and expertise or a +4 mod and proficiency. D is a master, with a +4 mod and expertise.

At level 5, with a 2d10 system and a DC 15 check (so, somewhat difficult but not crazy), A has 28% chance of success, B has a 55% chance, C has a 79% chance, and D has a 94% chance. Essentially for this fairly difficult but not crazy task (at the difficulty where you'd expect a non-proficient character to be challenged and proficiency to be a significant boost), proficiency is worth nearly twice as much as it is RAW. Meanwhile, expertise not in your ability score wheelhouse isn't adding quite as much as proficiency at this difficulty level, but it's close -- whereas expertise in a skill that uses your main stat yields diminishing returns, and is worth only about half as much as proficiency was. So this looks about like [MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION] wants: proficiency is rewarded, but being "overqualified" is not worth as much more as being qualified in the first place.

But take these same characters with a DC 20 check, and the picture is different: Now A has almost no chance of success (3%), B has a 15% chance, C has a 36% chance, and D has a 64% chance. So now just plain proficiency helps a bit, but it doesn't really cut it: you either need proficiency and a good ability mod or an average ability mod and expertise to have a reasonable chance, and if you're a master, it's still a challenge (you still fail more than one time in three) but you've got a good shot.

This all looks right to me: something that is very difficult is very difficult even for proficient characters, still fairly difficult for specialists, and semi-reliable success is only attained by those who invest both in the ability and in expertise.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, the really low DCs get a bit off, partly because the variance is reduced, but also because 2d10 is not quite centered properly. I could definitely see adding 1 to all DCs 10 and under. If you do that, DCs that RAW you'd need a natural 5 to meet give you an 90% success chance with 2d10 (assuming you now need a 6), instead of 80% with 1d20. On the flip side, DCs that require a natural 17 have a 20% success chance with 1d20, and a 10% success chance with 2d10. So what were the outer 40% of outcomes are moved out to the outer 20%, making the modifier mean more by virtue of really good or bad luck both being less common, without actually changing it.

Consider 4 characters at level 5: A is an average Joe, with a +1 mod and no proficiency in a skill. B is skilled, with either a +1 mod and proficiency or a +4 mod and no proficiency. C is a specialist, with either a +1 mod and expertise or a +4 mod and proficiency. D is a master, with a +4 mod and expertise.

At level 5, with a 2d10 system and a DC 15 check (so, somewhat difficult but not crazy), A has 28% chance of success, B has a 55% chance, C has a 79% chance, and D has a 94% chance. Essentially for this fairly difficult but not crazy task (at the difficulty where you'd expect a non-proficient character to be challenged and proficiency to be a significant boost), proficiency is worth nearly twice as much as it is RAW. Meanwhile, expertise not in your ability score wheelhouse isn't adding quite as much as proficiency at this difficulty level, but it's close -- whereas expertise in a skill that uses your main stat yields diminishing returns, and is worth only about half as much as proficiency was. So this looks about like @dnd4vr wants: proficiency is rewarded, but being "overqualified" is not worth as much more as being qualified in the first place.

But take these same characters with a DC 20 check, and the picture is different: Now A has almost no chance of success (3%), B has a 15% chance, C has a 36% chance, and D has a 64% chance. So now just plain proficiency helps a bit, but it doesn't really cut it: you either need proficiency and a good ability mod or an average ability mod and expertise to have a reasonable chance, and if you're a master, it's still a challenge (you still fail more than one time in three) but you've got a good shot.

This all looks right to me: something that is very difficult is very difficult even for proficient characters, still fairly difficult for specialists, and semi-reliable success is only attained by those who invest both in the ability and in expertise.

Thanks for running some of the numbers! LOL I was going to do it this morning before work.

That does sound a lot more like what I want. Now, what bonus were you adding for expertise? Double proficiency or a flat bonus? If the math works out well using the RAW values for proficiency, ability, and expertise, that would be great! I'll probably still spend some time looking it over this morning...

 

[Esker]

Thanks for running some of the numbers! LOL I was going to do it this morning before work.

That does sound a lot more like what I want. Now, what bonus were you adding for expertise? Double proficiency or a flat bonus? If the math works out well using the RAW values for proficiency, ability, and expertise, that would be great! I'll probably still spend some time looking it over this morning...

I was just using the RAW bonuses. The only change was the random component.

 

[Maxperson]

Consider 4 characters at level 5: A is an average Joe, with a +1 mod and no proficiency in a skill. B is skilled, with either a +1 mod and proficiency or a +4 mod and no proficiency. C is a specialist, with either a +1 mod and expertise or a +4 mod and proficiency. D is a master, with a +4 mod and expertise.

At level 5, with a 2d10 system and a DC 15 check (so, somewhat difficult but not crazy), A has 28% chance of success, B has a 55% chance, C has a 79% chance, and D has a 94% chance. Essentially for this fairly difficult but not crazy task (at the difficulty where you'd expect a non-proficient character to be challenged and proficiency to be a significant boost), proficiency is worth nearly twice as much as it is RAW. Meanwhile, expertise not in your ability score wheelhouse isn't adding quite as much as proficiency at this difficulty level, but it's close -- whereas expertise in a skill that uses your main stat yields diminishing returns, and is worth only about half as much as proficiency was. So this looks about like @dnd4vr wants: proficiency is rewarded, but being "overqualified" is not worth as much more as being qualified in the first place.

With a D20, though, the numbers are as follows. A has a 35% chance, be has a 50% chance, C has a 65% chance, and D has 80% chance. You're dropping the low guy a bit, and raising the others quite a bit, and that's for a moderate challenge. You aren't just boosting proficiency, but you're boosting success rates. At least in the low and middle ranges. At the high ranges they drop considerably.

That master with his +4 modifier and +6 from proficiency/expertise has only a 1% chance to hit the DC 30 nearly impossible task, instead of the 5% the game would normally give him. During game play when I tell a player that he needs a natural 20 to succeed, he and the other players get excited and gather around to watch, because we've all seen the long shot happen. If I were to change to, "You need a natural 100(2 consecutive 10's) to succeed, they wouldn't get that way, because there's almost no chance of success.

I get the desire to remove some of the swinginess from the game, but it also comes at the expense of some of the fun in my opinion. Most DCs that will be encountered become easier for those with proficiency and expertise, reducing the challenge level of the game, while removing much of the chance of success from the dabbler, who then can't really participate in most challenges that they aren't proficient in or fall into their main stats. And the long shot success roll is pretty much kaput until high level.