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

[Esker]

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.

Yeah, I didn't say there was no downside of trying and failing a long shot persuasion attempt. Just that often it's not on the scale of, I dunno, making an athletics check to jump over a chasm to escape a pursuing horde of something or other.

As for rolling only when the outcome is in doubt, the window of uncertain outcomes is going to be different for a bard with a +13 in persuasion than for a normal person.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, what I was suggesting about the averages is that the rolls will be closer together and less swingy. That does indeed mean that the mod increases in importance, even while it gives less ability to hit really high DCs reliably. So in the context of a general game where you're talking about normal non-expertised rolls, the players are less likely to hit their roll out of the park, and the opposed roll will generally be closer to the PC roll. It feels more tense, so I'm fine with it. The PCs are also less likely to crap the bed, which is where I feel the real strength of this idea lies. The single d20 isn't always kind to the narrative.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not a fan of Expertise, especially its impact on the half-baked grappling rules. A 9th level bard or rogue can practically go around pinning pit fiends and what not with impunity.

We have gone for a granular proficiency bonus for some campaigns:

Variant: Proficiency Bonus; Low, Medium, High​

Proficiency Bonus​

Hit Dice/Level Low Medium High
1 +2 +2 +2
2 +2 +2 +2
3 +2 +2 +2
4 +2 +2 +3
5 +2 +3 +3
6 +2 +3 +3
7 +2 +3 +4
8 +3 +3 +4
9 +3 +4 +4
10 +3 +4 +5
11 +3 +4 +5
12 +3 +4 +5
13 +3 +5 +6
14 +3 +5 +6
15 +4 +5 +6
16 +4 +5 +7
17 +4 +6 +7
18 +4 +6 +7
19 +4 +6 +8
20 +4 +6 +8
21 +4 +7 +8
22 +5 +7 +9
23 +5 +7 +9
24 +5 +7 +9
25 +5 +8 +10
26 +5 +8 +10
27 +5 +8 +10
28 +5 +8 +11
29 +6 +9 +11
30 +6 +9 +11

 

[Sadras]

[MENTION=7005485]Mycroft[/MENTION] - A level 10 rogue with expertise uses +5 for proficiency (essentially the High column)?

 

[Mycroft]

@Mycroft - A level 10 rogue with expertise uses +5 for proficiency (essentially the High column)?

Yes (sorry about the formatting going all wonky):

Rogue
Ability Score Adjustment: Your Strength, Dexterity, or Intelligence score increases by 1.

Variant: Proficiency Bonus
Weapon Attacks: Medium
Saving Throws: High (Dexterity, Intelligence); Medium (Wisdom, Charisma), Low (Strength, Constitution)
Perception: High
Skills: High (Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), Medium (Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma), Low (Strength)
Tools: High

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not a fan of Expertise, especially its impact on the half-baked grappling rules. A 9th level bard or rogue can practically go around pinning pit fiends and what not with impunity.

We have gone for a granular proficiency bonus for some campaigns:

Variant: Proficiency Bonus; Low, Medium, High​

Proficiency Bonus​

Hit Dice/Level Low Medium High
1 +2 +2 +2
2 +2 +2 +2
3 +2 +2 +2
4 +2 +2 +3
5 +2 +3 +3
6 +2 +3 +3
7 +2 +3 +4
8 +3 +3 +4
9 +3 +4 +4
10 +3 +4 +5
11 +3 +4 +5
12 +3 +4 +5
13 +3 +5 +6
14 +3 +5 +6
15 +4 +5 +6
16 +4 +5 +7
17 +4 +6 +7
18 +4 +6 +7
19 +4 +6 +8
20 +4 +6 +8
21 +4 +7 +8
22 +5 +7 +9
23 +5 +7 +9
24 +5 +7 +9
25 +5 +8 +10
26 +5 +8 +10
27 +5 +8 +10
28 +5 +8 +11
29 +6 +9 +11
30 +6 +9 +11

" A 9th level bard or rogue can practically go around pinning pit fiends and what not with impunity."

Has that been a problem in your games? Seems to me a very suicidal bard tactic to me. Get to point blank with primary melee devil, stay for and extra action pin them so both of you are restrained so that really his best target is you. Seems more like recipe for a broiled bard appetizer.

 

[Sadras]

My suggestion

Non-Proficient: 1d20 + Ability
Proficient: 1d20 + Ability + Proficiency (minimum, use passive of 10 + Proficiency)
Expertise: 1d20 + Ability + Proficiency (minimum, use passive of 10 + 2 x Proficiency)

Maintains the Bounded Accuracy of the system without breaking it (as the common complaint with Expertise);
It ensures proficiency in most cases outstrips non-proficient characters;
In contested checks, the Proficient and Expertise characters will usually win; and
The mechanic is simple and elegant with minimum use of change required.

 

[Maxperson]

As for rolling only when the outcome is in doubt, the window of uncertain outcomes is going to be different for a bard with a +13 in persuasion than for a normal person.

For sure the range increases, but while that +13 may let the bard go to a new kingdom and talk his way past the guards(which he couldn't do at say +5) and up to the king, there's no chance of persuading this king to loan his army to strangers. The group would be lucky not to get tossed into the dungeon.

 

[Maxperson]

" A 9th level bard or rogue can practically go around pinning pit fiends and what not with impunity."

Has that been a problem in your games? Seems to me a very suicidal bard tactic to me. Get to point blank with primary melee devil, stay for and extra action pin them so both of you are restrained so that really his best target is you. Seems more like recipe for a broiled bard appetizer.

Yeah. At 9th level the rogue or bard likely dies in 1 round, 2 if he's lucky. That's hardly "with impunity."

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

We are getting somewhere, just maybe not where you want to be.

The idea of allowing expertise to match your better contribution from proficiency or ability isn't making the classes worse IMO, it is bringing them back within bounded accuracy. And as I said before, with RAW, expertise contributes (over again) the same benefit as proficiency. Even with 2d10, the same issue remains that (for only the sake of a class feature), rogues and bards have the potential to be better at things than other classes which would naturally excel at those skills.

I like the idea (and it might warrant a rename) that expertise can be used by rogues and bards to shore up skills where ability is lacking (the aforementioned STR/athletics and WIS/perception examples). This could be a big boon to those skills, after all. Also, with the +1 when proficiency and ability are the same, those classes still have to potential to be better (albeit only slightly) than other classes. A rogue, for instance, with DEX 20 and proficiency +5 would have a total of +11, while a similar ranger would be +10. As soon as they both make proficiency +6, the rogue would be +12 and the ranger +11... so the rogue is still better. Considering they can do this with four skills, it is still a nice feature IMO.

Or maybe just cap the total modifier for RAW at +13 or so, regardless of how you got there. It will require more thought...

I'm not a fan of Expertise, especially its impact on the half-baked grappling rules. A 9th level bard or rogue can practically go around pinning pit fiends and what not with impunity.

We have gone for a granular proficiency bonus for some campaigns:

Variant: Proficiency Bonus; Low, Medium, High​

Proficiency Bonus​

Hit Dice/Level Low Medium High
1 +2 +2 +2
2 +2 +2 +2
3 +2 +2 +2
4 +2 +2 +3
5 +2 +3 +3
6 +2 +3 +3
7 +2 +3 +4
8 +3 +3 +4
9 +3 +4 +4
10 +3 +4 +5
11 +3 +4 +5
12 +3 +4 +5
13 +3 +5 +6
14 +3 +5 +6
15 +4 +5 +6
16 +4 +5 +7
17 +4 +6 +7
18 +4 +6 +7
19 +4 +6 +8
20 +4 +6 +8
21 +4 +7 +8
22 +5 +7 +9
23 +5 +7 +9
24 +5 +7 +9
25 +5 +8 +10
26 +5 +8 +10
27 +5 +8 +10
28 +5 +8 +11
29 +6 +9 +11
30 +6 +9 +11

Oddly enough, your High proficiency is nearly identical to our standard. Something along these lines might work, but I have to think about it. Thanks for it and it reminds me in some ways of D20 SW, which I always liked.

My suggestion

Non-Proficient: 1d20 + Ability
Proficient: 1d20 + Ability + Proficiency (minimum, use passive of 10 + Proficiency)
Expertise: 1d20 + Ability + Proficiency (minimum, use passive of 10 + 2 x Proficiency)

Maintains the Bounded Accuracy of the system without breaking it (as the common complaint with Expertise);
It ensures proficiency in most cases outstrips non-proficient characters;
In contested checks, the Proficient and Expertise characters will usually win; and
The mechanic is simple and elegant with minimum use of change required.

Nice. I will have to consider this as well and check some numbers. I am not keen on the passive 10 part since to me "passive" is really more like a 5 LOL.