D&D 5E Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise

[DND_Reborn]

In other threads about using 2d10, the DCs were adjusted slightly to reflect the unlikelihood of rolling very high results.

Of course, in other games as high as a DC 40 is nearly impossible, but I think bonuses were higher. Honestly, it has been too long for me to recall.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In my games where I use 2d10 for ability checks my DCs are as follows:

Trivial: DC 8
Easy: DC 11
Moderate: DC 14
Difficult: DC 17
Hard: DC 21
Onerous: DC 24
Nearly Impossible: DC 27
Superhuman: DC 30

Personally, I LOVE the 3 point separation between the DCs, and I find it so much easier to come up with useful DCs on the fly. I'm usually just dropping 14s and 17s, with the rarest of occasion a 21 if they are trying something really outlandish. And because the modifiers have more of an overall impact, it is easier for the players and I to know when the trained people should probably be making checks and when the untrained probably shouldn't.

Yes, if someone wants to go through all the white-room "real math" behind all of this, they'll come up with all kinds of reasons why 2d10 isn't "better" than d20, but I don't care about the invisible "real math". All I care about is the APPARENT numbers at the table for the players. How they look and feel. Even if it's only an illusion by a handful of percentage points, if one way feels better than the other, then that's what I'm going with. And for us, 2d10 give us the appearance of modifiers having more of an impact on success than the random number generator. And that's why we like it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The bell curve on 2d10 vs 1d20 is going to make characters better at run of the mill stuff and increases the utility of lower mods from non-core abilities and whatnot. That at the cost of (slightly) less ability to hit the ball out of the park on the really high DCs. I think that's a more than useful trade off really. That said, the math works the same way for NPCs in the context of opposed rolls but I think the trade there is fine, and I can see why your table likes the system.

Do you crit and whiff on 20 and 2 then?

 

[Umbran]

Their goals were noble, but they lacked the ability and drive to see them through.

It is fine to not like a part or whole of a game system, and say so.

Assigning something you don't like about a system to some personal character flaw of the designers is not acceptable. Stop insulting people. Thank you.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Do you crit and whiff on 20 and 2 then?

We only use 2d10 for ability checks, so no worrying about crits are necessary.

Attacks and saves still use the d20.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In my games where I use 2d10 for ability checks my DCs are as follows:

Trivial: DC 8
Easy: DC 11
Moderate: DC 14
Difficult: DC 17
Hard: DC 21
Onerous: DC 24
Nearly Impossible: DC 27
Superhuman: DC 30

Personally, I LOVE the 3 point separation between the DCs, and I find it so much easier to come up with useful DCs on the fly. I'm usually just dropping 14s and 17s, with the rarest of occasion a 21 if they are trying something really outlandish. And because the modifiers have more of an overall impact, it is easier for the players and I to know when the trained people should probably be making checks and when the untrained probably shouldn't.

Yes, if someone wants to go through all the white-room "real math" behind all of this, they'll come up with all kinds of reasons why 2d10 isn't "better" than d20, but I don't care about the invisible "real math". All I care about is the APPARENT numbers at the table for the players. How they look and feel. Even if it's only an illusion by a handful of percentage points, if one way feels better than the other, then that's what I'm going with. And for us, 2d10 give us the appearance of modifiers having more of an impact on success than the random number generator. And that's why we like it.

Yep. I think it was your thread I was referring to. I remember something along these lines.

 

[Esker]

And for us, 2d10 give us the appearance of modifiers having more of an impact on success than the random number generator. And that's why we like it.

I know you said you don't actually care about the "real math" but this isn't just an appearance; it's absolutely the case that 2d10 makes modifiers have a bigger impact! Which I like, myself. Others may not. But that's part of the beauty of D&D; you can adapt the system to your table's taste!

Thanks for chiming in with your actual practical wisdom. I've not tried this myself yet, so my remarks are just theorycraft.

 

[WaterRabbit]

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.

But how often are DC 5 checks used anyway? A check is only supposed to be made if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If the DM is assigning a DC 5 for a check he should really be asking why he is bothering in the first place. And as been pointed out, the lower bound would be raise to a DC 8.

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.

Yes the I want to jump to the moon, let me roll and see if I get a 20 on my check. The roll-playing game instead of the role-playing game. If the DC is set high enough that there is little chance to succeed, the the players should be using their creativity to reduce the DC or improve their bonuses instead of just relying on pure luck. This isn't a problem but a feature of the 2d10 solution.

 

[Esker]

That said, the math works the same way for NPCs in the context of opposed rolls but I think the trade there is fine, and I can see why your table likes the system.

It seems to me that opposed rolls is where the 2d10 system yields the biggest benefit, because now both parties are more likely to roll near their average, and so having the higher modifier is worth more.

Here are the numbers (rounded to whole percentages):

mod delta	d20 win chance	2d10 win chance
0	48%	47%
1	53%	53%
2	57%	60%
3	62%	66%
4	66%	72%
5	70%	78%
6	74%	82%
7	77%	87%
8	81%	90%
9	84%	93%
10	86%	95%
11	89%	97%
12	91%	98%
13	93%	99%
14	95%	99%

(If a tie counts as a win --- e.g., with insight vs deception --- just treat the delta as one more than it is)

So within a couple of points, 2d10 yields pretty much the same results as a d20, but as the asymmetry grows, you no longer have the (to me) strange result where someone with no skill and no modifier can beat someone with a +10 or more without even needing the equivalent of rolling a crit to do it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know you said you don't actually care about the "real math" but this isn't just an appearance; it's absolutely the case that 2d10 makes modifiers have a bigger impact! Which I like, myself. Others may not. But that's part of the beauty of D&D; you can adapt the system to your table's taste!

Thanks for chiming in with your actual practical wisdom. I've not tried this myself yet, so my remarks are just theorycraft.

Oh yeah, I always knew there was also a practical math difference, but if you went back to the old thread I had made when I talked about how it was actually working, there was a lot of pushback on the idea. The numbers were calculated in certain situations where there wasn't as much of a difference to warrant (in their opinion) making the switch. But as I said then (like I said here), we really only care about the appearance of difference. If it appears like the higher modified people succeed more often (even if you were to white-room the math and come to the conclusion "Oh no, at these specific DCs its only a 6% difference between the two and thus your decision to change was unnecessary")... then we go by the appearance rather than the "real math".

And for us its the same way across the board with everything-- the "real math" has never been a concern, its always just the story that comes out of the numbers and dice. If at the end of the day someone has a +7 to their Arcana check... it doesn't matter to me in the slightest HOW they got to that +7. They have a +7? They're knowledgeable about Arcana. But is it +3 from proficiency and +4 from INT? Is it +6 from Expertise and +1 from INT? Or they have no proficiency whatsoever and instead have a magical item that boosts their INT? When the dice drops, it doesn't really matter. When I tell them to roll an Arcana check, no one is comparing and contrasting what the individual parts were that GOT them to +7, they just care that they have a +7 because they have a better chance of answering the question that the check is asking about the information about magic. And its never a concern that "Well, my knowledge is from my background and I'm kinda smart and yours is from your class and you're really smart, and that character is dumb as a brick but for some reason has spent most of their life doing nothing but reading and learning about magic information so they have expertise in it." etc. etc. etc.

Heck, I have a hard enough time just getting the players to even kinda sorta roleplay their characters along the lines of their stats, let alone then divide everything up into their component parts.

 

[Esker]

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.

It's not going to be for every table; I recognize that. If your players like the chaos inherent in the uniform distribution of a d20, then leave things alone. But for me, if there's a DC 30 "impossible" task, then the fact that the level 5 super-specialist has a negligible chance to succeed gives them more to look forward to. If they take another ASI at level 8, then at level 9 they're able to do the impossible 10% of the time, which is pretty impressive. By level 13, they're up to 21%. Contrast that to the d20 roll, where they're able to do impossible things 20% of the time at level 9 and 30% of the time at level 13. At those levels, doesn't it take some fun out if you're doing supposedly impossible things nearly one out of every three tries? And if you don't expect to get to that high a level, then you still have "nearly impossible" things (DC 27, say) where the super-expert has that 'expanded crit range' chance of succeeding at level 5, and the "super hard" (DC 24) that they need the equivalent of a natural 17 to do. If you just have the impressiveness of the reach tasks increase as characters level, then you give the master a sense of ascending awesomeness.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

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.

Hmm.. maybe I am missing something, but I worked some numbers this morning and this actually seems to make expertise slightly better (just a bit, but overall about a 1.4% increase from d20 to 2d10)--which is definitely not what I want, LOL! At lower and higher DCs, it won't count as much depending on the level and total modifiers, but in the middle-ground it is much better). When positive, it is an average boost of over 9%, but when negative only an average decreased about less than 6%.

Since you are using RAW, having expertise is actually still worth just as much as being proficient (they are equal, after all). Someone with expertise in an area where they lack ability score modifiers works, but since it is often used to boost skills they are already good at, to make is worse still.

One exception for Rogues/Bards I commonly think of would be getting Expertise in Investigation or Perception, particularly Perception. INT isn't likely a dump stat, but WIS isn't as often comparable to WIS-oriented classes. Athletics is like another skill for Expertise if STR is a dump stat with DEX-oriented Rogues and Bards.

I am starting to like the idea that Expertise can be used to replace proficiency or ability score modifier by matching the better of the two. So, if you have +4 prof and +2 ability, you get +4 twice; if you have +3 prof and +5 ability, you get +5 twice. If they are the same, you get both as normal, but +1.

This way a low STR or WIS rogue (or bard) can help skills with low ability, and at lower levels higher ability can be augmented by replacing proficiency. A rogue at level 1 with DEX 16 would have +6 to stealth for example because the +3 dex is better than the +2 prof.

I think someone else suggested this, but I don't have time to cite who. Sorry, but thanks, you know who you are.

Otherwise... it is back to the drawing board.

 

[Esker]

Hmm.. maybe I am missing something, but I worked some numbers this morning and this actually seems to make expertise slightly better (just a bit, but overall about a 1.4% increase from d20 to 2d10)--which is definitely not what I want, LOL! At lower and higher DCs, it won't count as much depending on the level and total modifiers, but in the middle-ground it is much better). When positive, it is an average boost of over 9%, but when negative only an average decreased about less than 6%.
...
I am starting to like the idea that Expertise can be used to replace proficiency or ability score modifier by matching the better of the two. So, if you have +4 prof and +2 ability, you get +4 twice; if you have +3 prof and +5 ability, you get +5 twice. If they are the same, you get both as normal, but +1.

And here I thought we were finally getting somewhere! I still really don't like solutions that diminish the value of expertise (or that prevent rogues and bards from taking expertise in DEX or CHA skills, respectively), unless there is a sufficiently compelling feature being added to make up for it. And letting expertise replace instead of add is straight up diminishing its value (outside the edge case where you dump the stat all the way to 8, but I don't like encouraging that either); and so you're just straight up making rogues and bards worse classes.

The 2d10 system with RAW bonuses makes it so that for tasks of moderate difficulty, the first few points of bonus are worth more than the next few. Yes, for those sorts of tasks, expertise becomes a greater value than it was before. But the boon to proficiency is even greater. But unlike reducing the bonus granted by expertise, the non-linear difficulty curve redistributes the value of expertise in a given skill toward more difficult DCs. If you take expertise in a skill that uses your main stat, you'll get the most bang for your buck on really hard tasks (which don't come up as often), but if you take it on an off skill (making yourself more well rounded), then the benefit to you is greater on more typical tasks.

But if you think 2d10 makes it too easy in general to succeed on skill checks, you could always couple it with reduced bonuses across the board; on net you'd still get more for proficiency than you do RAW, and that at least would affect everyone instead of singling out rogues and bards.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If it doesn't walk like a duck or talk like a duck, then it isn't a duck in any way that matters. It doesn't matter how much duck DNA they injected into their emu.

This is a simple difference of definition. You're talking about all birds, as though anything in that taxonomic class could meet my needs, but my needs are far more specific than what you would fit under that label. When I want a duck, I need an actual duck. It doesn't matter if FATE or Apocalypse has a beak and feathers, or kind of looks like a duck from a distance. It's not close enough for what I need it.

I haven't yet seen your magnum opus of an RPG, so maybe don't throw stones?

Just because you haven't read it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't better than 5E along several observable metrics. It's on drivethruRPG.com, and it's earned far more than what I spent to produce it. The worst problems of 5E are actually pretty trivial to solve, if you approach them with a clear goal in mind.

 

[Maxperson]

But how often are DC 5 checks used anyway? A check is only supposed to be made if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If the DM is assigning a DC 5 for a check he should really be asking why he is bothering in the first place. And as been pointed out, the lower bound would be raise to a DC 8.

This is not a rule. The rule is that you only make a check if the outcome is in doubt. There are lots of checks where someone with a +1 or less will be able to fail a DC 5, and many of those will have meaningful consequences anyway.

Yes the I want to jump to the moon, let me roll and see if I get a 20 on my check. The roll-playing game instead of the role-playing game. If the DC is set high enough that there is little chance to succeed, the the players should be using their creativity to reduce the DC or improve their bonuses instead of just relying on pure luck. This isn't a problem but a feature of the 2d10 solution.

Dude, I already told you that you need to stop the assuming. You are really bad at it. Nobody was talking about jumping to the moon. Poor assumption #1. Nobody is talking about roll-playing. Poor assumption #2. And 2d10 isn't a solution to a problem, since there's no problem with skills as is. There are only preferences on how swingy you like them to be. Poor assumption #3.

Talk to me man. If you just ask me about what I'm talking about, I can save you from making all these lousy assumptions. I'm here to help.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not going to be for every table; I recognize that. If your players like the chaos inherent in the uniform distribution of a d20, then leave things alone. But for me, if there's a DC 30 "impossible" task, then the fact that the level 5 super-specialist has a negligible chance to succeed gives them more to look forward to. If they take another ASI at level 8, then at level 9 they're able to do the impossible 10% of the time, which is pretty impressive. By level 13, they're up to 21%. Contrast that to the d20 roll, where they're able to do impossible things 20% of the time at level 9 and 30% of the time at level 13. At those levels, doesn't it take some fun out if you're doing supposedly impossible things nearly one out of every three tries? And if you don't expect to get to that high a level, then you still have "nearly impossible" things (DC 27, say) where the super-expert has that 'expanded crit range' chance of succeeding at level 5, and the "super hard" (DC 24) that they need the equivalent of a natural 17 to do. If you just have the impressiveness of the reach tasks increase as characters level, then you give the master a sense of ascending awesomeness.

Yeah. It's definitely a preference thing. As for the doing the nearly impossible one time in three, though, most of the time those things are going to have some serious consequences for failure. Players don't usually try unless all the chips are down and they have to risk the two out of three chance for failure.

 

[Esker]

Yeah. It's definitely a preference thing. As for the doing the nearly impossible one time in three, though, most of the time those things are going to have some serious consequences for failure. Players don't usually try unless all the chips are down and they have to risk the two out of three chance for failure.

Yeah, that's fair enough; I've been the one arguing that having a high success rate on expertised stealth checks isn't a problem because the stakes are often high enough that even a 10% failure chance is enough not to do it willy nilly. But you can always adjust DCs to suit what you deem appropriate for a Hail Mary. I was thinking more about things like really ambitious persuasion checks that are made proactively with more upside than downside.

 

[Mistwell]

Just because you haven't read it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't better than 5E along several observable metrics. It's on drivethruRPG.com, and it's earned far more than what I spent to produce it. The worst problems of 5E are actually pretty trivial to solve, if you approach them with a clear goal in mind.

Gishes & Goblins?

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that's fair enough; I've been the one arguing that having a high success rate on expertised stealth checks isn't a problem because the stakes are often high enough that even a 10% failure chance is enough not to do it willy nilly. But you can always adjust DCs to suit what you deem appropriate for a Hail Mary. I was thinking more about things like really ambitious persuasion checks that are made proactively with more upside than downside.

Two things with that persuasion check. First, there are often sizable downsides to asking the nearly impossible. People tend to get upset over things like that. Second, you only roll if the outcome is in doubt. It doesn't matter what your bonus is, if the merchant never, ever gives discounts, you aren't getting one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

IIRC, TFT did something like that.