I get the issue with expertise, trust me.
As for DC's being too low...the way I see it is as characters rise in levels they will deal less and less with the mundane wall climbs, the easy pick pockets, the sneaking past natural guards. They're supposed to be scaling cliffs in the middle of stormy weather, lifting the magical bauble of an efreeti and sneaking past a chimera...etc
Do not feel compelled to use the stats as written in MM. If you believe that guard dog should have a higher passive perception score, have at it, but be fair.
Also you probably did read it correctly, but just in case - the passive scores I'm suggesting are x (which ever you use as your base) + Proficiency, NOT the ability modifier.
(a) This ensures a reasonable passive base; and
(b) Ensures proficiency (training) and by extension expertise, is more important than natural ability, which I believe was one of the issues listed initially.
I think you said you didn't rate the bard highly. I disagree. But that is ok, we all have opinions on stuffs.
Okay, +17, sans other bits. Look, in the end I have no problem with people lowering or heightening ceilings (hard to do in certain flats), but why are areas of knowledge not as attainable unless you take one of two classes?
Basically, great for a 1-shot, crap for continuity.
"...no, you must not seek an Archmage for wizardly knowledge...but this thief I know..."
1) Well not the +17 but the 37 that's possible when you have a +17. Or the 32 that's possible when you have a +12, etc.
2) The Arcana case is easily handled if need be without taking apart expertise wholesale.
I have explained why it matters. There is NO reasonable explanation for it other than a "This is what these classes get."
I disagree. Due to the nature of rolling, if the ceiling is potentially higher, the floor is raised as well (at least in RAW).
Bounded accuracy is ALL about the ceiling and keeping numbers under control.
If 30 is supposed to be the theoretical cap, we are getting in the realm of numbers beyond that. At +17 RAW, the average roll is 27 (approaching nearly impossible). I could go the other direction with passive perception; 20th level, WIS 20, expertise, observant = passive perception score: 32. So, "nearly impossible" is automatic.
We care about 2 for all the reasons myself and others have mentioned.
LOL, in case you never noticed, this is what I wrote upthread we are currently doing. Expertise is +2, +3 at 7th, +4 at 14th. The other rogue player accepted this at least, over advantage, but no one really felt adding more skills or expertise selections was necessary.
Cool, appreciate the effort, but don't dig.
Are you saying you don't dig the suggestions? That's fine, obviously, but I'm curious what it is you don't like. In the case of arcana, if you limit rogues' expertise picks to their class skills, with exceptions for particular subclasses, then the unnaturalness of the rogue being the best at the thing in question goes away, IMO.
Replacing the d20 with 2d10, etc. is a tougher pill to swallow, admittedly, since the d20 is so core to the game. But just recognize that a lot of the pathologies with the way skill checks end up working RAW are a direct consequence of using a luck die that gives equal probabilities to extremes as it does to moderate values: regular proficiency feels a bit lackluster, because a +3 only increases checks vs fixed DC by 15% across the board (instead of increasing checks "at your skill level" by a bunch, but having little effect on checks well above or below that, as the 2d10 would do), and gives non-proficient characters unreasonably high chances to prevail in contested checks vs proficient characters. And because the effect of bonuses is pretty small, a class feature like expertise that is entirely about skill checks has to grant pretty big bonuses to feel like it's a worthy prize for picking a class, or for leveling up to 6th.
I'm playing a rogue that just got to 6th, and with expertise as written, and even though I like being a skill monkey, it feels like a slightly underwhelming level-up: the paladin is getting a crazy aura, the fighter gets an ASI or feat, the cleric gets a neat subclass thing and doubles their Channel Divinity uses, the lore bard gets to pick a couple of tasty treats from other classes' spell lists, etc. Meanwhile I get to be a little better at things that don't come up that often. And that's after a solid but still comparatively underwhelming level-up at 5th. Uncanny Dodge and one more d6 sneak attack is great, but it's not as fun as getting extra attack or 3rd level spells. If I were playing at a table that had nerfed expertise and not given something comparable back, I'd be questioning my class choice; probably multiclassing out, tbh.
You've reiterated that sentence many times, but repeated statement of your opinion does not an explanation make. It's fine if the answer is that there is no mechanical problem with the higher ceiling per se, and that it's just that you don't like the in-fiction connotations. It's, like, your opinion, man. I just want to be clear on the distinction.
What kind of explanation are you looking for? An explanation of why somebody wants to change something is always their opinion. For many people RAW expertise works fine (yourself included from your statements), it doesn't for me for, again, the reasons I've stated. Even if I give you a mechanical reason for it (such as auto-successes at lower DCs and less meaningful higher DCs due to expertise increasing the probability of success so it is no longer as much of a challenge), the desire for the change would still be my own preference--my opinion. I hope you see why there really isn't a distinction.
Ah, sealioning, not into it, thanks.
I've not heard that term, but I just looked it up, and I'm definitely not trolling anyone. If I'm understanding the concept correctly (via Wikipedia), the last thing I want is to provoke an angry response from anyone, and I'm not disguising anything as an attempt to learn and communicate; I really just want to communicate.
Raising the Bar
You have ability beyond the norm. Select one ability score and you gain the following benefits:
* You gain 1 point to the chosen ability score.
* Your maximum for the chosen ability score is now 20 instead of 18.
* Once per long rest when you make an attack roll, saving throw, or skill check using your chosen ability score modifier and the result fails, you can reroll the attempt. (MAYBE??? Too much? I probably won't keep this one... but our long rests are 24 hours.)
You have a knack for learning new things and a natural talent in one skill. You gain the following benefits:
* You gain one skill proficiency of your choice and proficiency in one language of your choice. You also gain proficiency in one kit, tool, or vehicle-type (land or sea) of your choice.
* Choose one skill, kit, tool, or vehicle-type in which you have proficiency. Whenever you make a skill check using your chosen skill, you add double your ability score modifier to your check (minimum +2).