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

[DND_Reborn]

For a while, since I've been into 5E really, I have been annoyed by the contributions relatively of proficiency bonus, ability modifiers, and expertise. To me, proficiency should trump ability and expertise in the long run, but RAW we see proficiency barely beat out ability score modifiers (+6 max vs. +5 max). And expertise, available only to two classes with some archetype exceptions, equal to proficiency makes it too good IMO.

We currently play with the house-rule that proficiency caps out at +8, ability scores at +5 (was also +4 but we reversed it for simplicity since monsters and such are based on +5 progression), and expertise at +4 (+2 at low levels, +3 a mid, and +4 at higher). The potential maximum is still +17, so it works with the current system. I would like to see proficiency progress up to +11 or 12 even, lower ability scores to +4, and maybe make expertise a flat +2 bonus, and I might do this but I wonder if it would mess things up...

Now sure, the game plays fine RAW and with a practical cap at 30. So, I understand the purpose for bounded accuracy and all, but it makes me wonder if they bounded it too much?

Has anyone else had issue with the +6 vs. +5 vs. +6 system? Do you think it should be weighed differently? I am sure a lot of people haven't, and that is great for you, so I am more interested in people who do have issues with it.

So, I am quoting the OP for one purpose, which I bolded. While I appreciate some creative feedback on the drawbacks of making changes, it has gone on long enough for me. While some people have offered suggestions and alternatives (THANK YOU very much!), the thread is getting to the point of people discussing why it shouldn't be done, i.e. weighed differently between proficiency, ability, and expertise.

As I said in the OP, the game plays fine RAW, but I (and others at my table) aren't happy with it as is. We are seeking CHANGE, not reasons why we shouldn't. I could argue forever why we should but there is no point. Those who have expressed their views have (usually ) done so well. I am not concerned with nerfing the beloved rogue or his cousin, the bard, by altering how expertise affects the game or reworking it entirely. Our table will still love the rogue (well, none of like the bard anyway... so no loss there as far as we're concerned ), and enjoy playing him as much, if not more, than before.

Our rogue will have features that allow him to excel still at skills, even if in a different fashion, and we love the rogue for all the other things he can do.

Now, most of you have side-conversations going on, so of course I am not saying anything like "don't post here, blah blah blah". I am just saying unless you post something which furthers my goal, I probably won't reply (sorry, Esker, it's been fun!).

Later, all, and thanks for contributing!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I have to admit I do definitely like the flavor of explicit action options.

Now if we associated those directly with trained use of skills or dare I say it someone with expertise in a skill

That is a pretty good idea.
For those to whom it is problematic that the Rogue is able to roll higher in a skill check than the class that they regard as that skill being 'iconic' to.

Perhaps if Expertise was to give a unique capability that utilises that skill rather than a bonus to ability checks using it?
The Rogue picks from a few abilities for each skill, perhaps allowing multiple picks per skill, perhaps not.

 

[Fenris-77]

Apropos of nothing recent in this thread, except peripherally right above, I think expertise would be a wonderful rule if 5e had degrees of success and expertise allowed you to game the success levels, or somehow narrate them more to your benefit. It's tough when you have a straight binary system and every rule has to be about mods, because mods only get you so far before they, well, cause the problems we're talking about. Less failure and more narrative control over success would be more than enough for a class ability IMO.

 

[Sadras]

So last night, we had another example of where the straight d20+mods >= DC produces results that don't align with expectations. DM has a series of carnival games where player rolls against STR or DEX based skills. The fighter and the monk each have between +5 to +9 on the checks. The cleric has +0 to +2 on the checks. Cleric wins all of the games including the opposed arm wrestling against said fighter and monk. Why, cleric rolls 18s or better for every roll and monk and fighter cannot get above a 10.

Why allow a roll - did you honestly believe there was a reasonable chance of success with a person who has a +9 and another a +0? Why not use passives? Why not have it best of 3? Why not offer disadvantage to non-proficient characters?
At this point it should become less about mechanics. If a halfling challenges an ogre to an arm-wrestle, no magic involved, I usually default to in-game internal consistency = No roll, ogre wins.

 

[Mycroft]

At this point it should become less about mechanics. If a halfling challenges an ogre to an arm-wrestle, no magic involved, I usually default to in-game internal consistency = No roll, ogre wins.

Yes, for arm wrestling, the stronger character simply wins, no rolls. If they are equal, well, then you can get all Over the Top.

 

[5ekyu]

Apropos of nothing recent in this thread, except peripherally right above, I think expertise would be a wonderful rule if 5e had degrees of success and expertise allowed you to game the success levels, or somehow narrate them more to your benefit. It's tough when you have a straight binary system and every rule has to be about mods, because mods only get you so far before they, well, cause the problems we're talking about. Less failure and more narrative control over success would be more than enough for a class ability IMO.

For ability checks, attack rolls and saves- 5e is not binary - tho certainly a GM can choose to make it that way for their games.

For ability checks specifically, since we are talking expertise, a failure can be either no progress or limited progress with setback in addition to success (of course.) (DMG success at cost rule adds this gor attacks and saves but it's the default rule for ability checks.) Compared to a "binary" pass-fail only, this does result in "less failure" - but only if the GM chooses to use it.

Degrees of success or failure is already in the resolution for some skills and saves. There are sections addressing on degrees and crit failure or success in the DMG for the GM who wants them.

Just sayin' that a GM who doesnt want "binary 5e" has core rules and more already there in the system and just has to use them. For ability checks, its default.

In my game, easily half the non-passive ability checks that don't make the DC are resolved as "some progress with setback."

 

[Garthanos]

That is a pretty good idea.
For those to whom it is problematic that the Rogue is able to roll higher in a skill check than the class that they regard as that skill being 'iconic' to.

Perhaps if Expertise was to give a unique capability that utilises that skill rather than a bonus to ability checks using it?
The Rogue picks from a few abilities for each skill, perhaps allowing multiple picks per skill, perhaps not.

or make it a pick per point of expertise ... so you have progression

 

[Maxperson]

So last night, we had another example of where the straight d20+mods >= DC produces results that don't align with expectations. DM has a series of carnival games where player rolls against STR or DEX based skills. The fighter and the monk each have between +5 to +9 on the checks. The cleric has +0 to +2 on the checks. Cleric wins all of the games including the opposed arm wrestling against said fighter and monk. Why, cleric rolls 18s or better for every roll and monk and fighter cannot get above a 10.

So roleplay it.

Fighter: "If my muscles weren't still sore from the last fight, you wouldn't have had a chance to beat me at arm wrestling, cleric."

Just because D&D doesn't have a mechanic for sore muscles, doesn't mean that sore muscles can't happen as a reason to explain the result of the contest. There are other explanations you can come up with as well.

So even with a high modifier differential, the dice contribute much more than the abilities. So instead of games of skill, they all became games of chance.

The point of this: no matter how much one frets about ability, proficiency, expertise none of that matters when d20+mods >= DC is the core mechanic. A 2d10 mechanic would at least make the dice modifiers move the game toward skill trumps dice as the norm.

You were the one incorrectly accusing me earlier of rollplay. Why give up roleplay for rollplay? Also, even with a d20, skill trumps dice is the norm. +1 will lose to +8 most of the time, which makes the skilled individual winning the norm.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, for arm wrestling, the stronger character simply wins, no rolls. If they are equal, well, then you can get all Over the Top.

Luck is a thing, especially for a halfling. Sore muscles are a thing. Why could't the ogre have sore muscles or have his elbow slip? For that matter, the halfling's arms are so much shorter that to even grab the halfling's hand the ogre has to hold his arm at a really long, awkward angle, preventing him from leveraging his full strength.

The explanations are there if you care to look for and roleplay them.

 

[Sadras]

Luck is a thing, especially for a halfling. Sore muscles are a thing. Why could't the ogre have sore muscles or have his elbow slip? For that matter, the halfling's arms are so much shorter that to even grab the halfling's hand the ogre has to hold his arm at a really long, awkward angle, preventing him from leveraging his full strength.

The explanations are there if you care to look for and roleplay them.

Sure.
My idea would be that the PC would have to beat the Ogre's roll and/or the passive (whichever was higher), so as not to make Luck play such a large factor in circumstances where Luck appears to be the only possible factor for what would be an obvious outcome.