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

[Parmandur]

The fact that the ability modifier can be so much greater than the proficiency bonus, especially at low levels, was one of the first things that seemed really off with this edition. I mean, if someone goes out of their way to become proficient in an obscure skill, then they should definitely be the go-to person for using that skill when it comes up, regardless of natural talent. If the paladin with proficiency in Religion is less-knowledgeable about it than the wizard who isn't, then what was the point in even writing down that proficiency?

In my game, I increased the magnitude of the proficiency bonus by +4 across the board. If you're trained in something, then you're at +6 next to anyone who isn't, and that goes up to +10 by high levels. Expertise just lets you substitute your proficiency bonus in place of your stat modifier, whenever that's better. (Stat bonuses are also increased by +5 across the board, so they go from +4 to +10 instead of going from -1 to +5.)

The RAI for Proficiency is that many skill attempts are best gated by Proficiency (see every published Adventure for 5E).

The Paladin might only have +3 for Intelligence, but the Gnome Wizard with 20 Intelligence lacking Proficiency in Religion cannot even roll to identify the holy symbol in the tomb.

 

[Leatherhead]

Rogue nerf week continues!

Why can't people just let rogues just have their nice things, man?

Because Rogues took all their nice things from the Fighter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Again, I come home from work and lots of stuff to catch up on! Love it and thanks to all for contributing.

They won't, though. Suppose you want to build a lightfoot halfling rogue that specializes in talking and noticing things (in particular, focusing on Persuasion, Deception, Insight, and Perception), but also wants to be capable in combat. They've got to invest in DEX and CON to survive and do damage, and they want some WIS and CHA to support their skills. So maybe their starting array after racial bonuses is 9,16,14,8,14,14. Then there's a sorcerer in the party, with persuasion and deception, and a cleric with perception and insight. All of them bump their main stat at levels 4 and 8, so now the sorcerer has 20 CHA and the cleric has 20 WIS.

With a flat +2 for expertise, the rogue is always going to be slightly behind the sorcerer at talking, and slightly behind the cleric at noticing, unless they put ASIs into CHA and WIS (and how often have you seen a character put ASIs into abilities that have no impact on their combat ability?). And that's with a pretty hefty investment into those ability scores on the rogue's part! A more typical case would be having 10s or 12s in tertiary stats. Yes, neither one of those will be as good at all four at the same time as the rogue, but it would be kind of deflating to pick a skill monkey class and not be the best in the party at the skills you choose to specialize in.

The other reason I don't like a flat bonus is that it means that the distinction between non-proficiency and proficiency becomes more meaningful as you level, but the distinction between proficiency and expertise becomes relatively less meaningful. It seems weird to me to say that getting more experience doing the thing you are considered an "expert" in doesn't let you further distinguish yourself from those who are merely trained in that thing.

A flat +2 bonus is equivalent to two ASIs. So, if I start my Rogue with a WIS 14 and your Cleric begins with WIS 16, you already have an edge in that respect. However, until you reach 8th-level (assuming you don't take any feats, which is unlikely IME, at least at our table), the Rogue has a better Perception modifier. Considering that represents half the levels most tables play, I am fine with it. If anything, like I mentioned, I might also add the advantage mechanic to expertise if I kept it a flat bonus. That would offer the Rogue a definite edge over the cleric and sorcerer.

Also, if we used a flat bonus, ability modifiers will likely cap at +4, not +5. So, with the initial investment of 14 in WIS and/or CHA, the Rogue would never be worse than the others.

I would rather they have used the BECMI ability score modifiers that cap at +3, or at least cap ability scores at 18 for +4 if they kept the 3E system. I think that proficiency is just fine, with low level characters being better with natural ability and higher level characters benefiting more from training. I kinda wish that expertise was 1.5 Proficiency modifier, rather than double, but IME it works with the current system. The reality is that the system works as is, and changing it to my liking would require changing a lot of monsters to reflect it.

I agree. I know some people obviously value the three concepts differently, but like many I prefer the idea that ability score is raw talent, proficiency is training, and expertise is specializing. In many ways I prefer the 3E system myself. If you make expertise half proficiency (one of the many options I've toyed with LOL), you get the 1.5 proficiency modifier you want.

The reality as you point out is the biggest challenge, a lot of tinkering with monsters, etc. and that is primarily why I wonder if it would be worth it...

 

[Horwath]

I agree that expertise is having inflation effect on modifiers.

But that is a fault of d20 and its non-consistency. With 3d6 expertise would be great at just adding half a modifier extra on to your proficiency modifier not full.
As with 3d6, +1 extra really means a lot.

But if we want to keep d20, maybe we can combine expertise and rogues reliable talent into new mechanics:

Expertise: it would have 3 levels:

Expertise 1; treat d20 roll of skill(one, couple or all - up to debate) as 5 if the roll is lower than 5.


Expertise 2; treat d20 roll of skill(one, couple or all - up to debate) as 10 if the roll is lower than 10.


Expertise 3; treat d20 roll of skill(one, couple or all - up to debate) as 15 if the roll is lower than 15.


This would prevent bonuses to inflate too much, but it would give ability to skill monkey to succeed at "mundane" tasks 100% of the time without going for +20 modifiers to do it.

 

[Esker]

Because Rogues took all their nice things from the Fighter.

Hey man, #notallrogues

 

[robus]

I guess I’m not really understanding the motivation for all this? Isn’t the DM involved? Is the DM asking for rolls that skilled/or expert should automatically succeed at? Or is the DM asking for rolls that have little to no consequence?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I guess I’m not really understanding the motivation for all this? Isn’t the DM involved? Is the DM asking for rolls that skilled/or expert should automatically succeed at? Or is the DM asking for rolls that have little to no consequence?

Yes, the current DM is involved but for our group I will soon be DMing. The issue we originally had RAW is characters with ability scores of +3 or +4 with proficiency at +4 and expertise getting +11 or +12 total. While this might not seem like much, with things like stealth and most creatures having such horrible passive perception, the main rogue in our group was practically undetectable. He would roll an 8, and have a 20. Few monsters have a passive perception of 20! We saw it as game-breaking as the rogue could sneak into and out of places without hardly a risk of being noticed. Yeah, we get it, he is mid-level with a great DEX and expertise, he should be good, but there comes a point where it takes some of the excitement out of the game when you are making hard checks routinely. So...

We've already all agreed to adjust things like proficiency bonus and expertise, and have some house-rules in place for the table under the current DM. And I was wondering what others think of the balance between contributions from the three factors: proficiency bonus, ability score modifier, and expertise. Which should trump which in contribution? Some people have voiced their agreement that expertise, for instance, can add too much, especially at higher levels making difficult checks almost easy.

For me, I feel the +6, +5, +6 is too even. Since proficiency advances automatically with level, I think overall it should warrant the greatest contribution. Yet it barely beats out maximum ability score bonuses and for those who have expertise, they are only equal. My suggestion is a cap of +11 for proficiency, +4 for ability scores, and a flat +2 for expertise (most likely granting advantage as well). This way bounded accuracy isn't affected since the maximum possible bonus is still +17. This might not be the way we go, but it is where I am at now. FWIW, we currently have proficiency max at +8, ability scores are still +5, and expertise ranges from +2 to +4 depending on level.

Obviously I don't want to "take anything away" from Rogues, and expertise is one of their big bang features really. And, of course, such changes would require major tweaking for monsters, etc. and I don't know if it is worth the hassle as much as I would prefer it.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, the current DM is involved but for our group I will soon be DMing. The issue we originally had RAW is characters with ability scores of +3 or +4 with proficiency at +4 and expertise getting +11 or +12 total. While this might not seem like much, with things like stealth and most creatures having such horrible passive perception, the main rogue in our group was practically undetectable. He would roll an 8, and have a 20. Few monsters have a passive perception of 20! We saw it as game-breaking as the rogue could sneak into and out of places without hardly a risk of being noticed. Yeah, we get it, he is mid-level with a great DEX and expertise, he should be good, but there comes a point where it takes some of the excitement out of the game when you are making hard checks routinely. So...

We've already all agreed to adjust things like proficiency bonus and expertise, and have some house-rules in place for the table under the current DM. And I was wondering what others think of the balance between contributions from the three factors: proficiency bonus, ability score modifier, and expertise. Which should trump which in contribution? Some people have voiced their agreement that expertise, for instance, can add too much, especially at higher levels making difficult checks almost easy.

For me, I feel the +6, +5, +6 is too even. Since proficiency advances automatically with level, I think overall it should warrant the greatest contribution. Yet it barely beats out maximum ability score bonuses and for those who have expertise, they are only equal. My suggestion is a cap of +11 for proficiency, +4 for ability scores, and a flat +2 for expertise (most likely granting advantage as well). This way bounded accuracy isn't affected since the maximum possible bonus is still +17. This might not be the way we go, but it is where I am at now. FWIW, we currently have proficiency max at +8, ability scores are still +5, and expertise ranges from +2 to +4 depending on level.

Obviously I don't want to "take anything away" from Rogues, and expertise is one of their big bang features really. And, of course, such changes would require major tweaking for monsters, etc. and I don't know if it is worth the hassle as much as I would prefer it.

Changing the numbers can have wonky side effects: I'd suggest looking at the alternative skill rules suggestions in the DMG. If you guys are bored by a Rogue auto-succeeding, use the dice pooling method (instead of +4 in Prod and Expertise, he gets +2d8). No more automatic success, adds some drama to rolls, but is a wash mathematically in the big picture

 

[DND_Reborn]

Changing the numbers can have wonky side effects: I'd suggest looking at the alternative skill rules suggestions in the DMG. If you guys are bored by a Rogue auto-succeeding, use the dice pooling method (instead of +4 in Prod and Expertise, he gets +2d8). No more automatic success, adds some drama to rolls, but is a wash mathematically in the big picture

The added randomness is nice, true, but it would slow down game play (albeit not a lot...) and could lead to even higher numbers, making even more times when he is unnoticeable.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey man, #notallrogues

This is true. Some rogues conned their things out of fighters.