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

[DND_Reborn]

So, I think I might be on to something! It would require reworking some DCs, etc., but I like the "feel" of it.

Here it is, and Esker can check the numbers (if you have time), otherwise I will do it tomorrow.

1. Roll 2d10 for checks (maybe even attacks and saves...)
2. You get your proficiency die based on the variant system.
3. You get an expertise die based on proficiency as well.
4. Choose the best two roll results from all the dice rolled.
5. Add your ability modifier and other bonuses.
(6. If you have advantage, you roll 3d10. If you have disadvantage, you only roll 1d10. (Still thinking about this...))

So, if your proficiency bonus is +4, you get to roll a d8. If you have expertise, you roll another d8.

Using the +4 example, suppose you rolled a 2d10 and got 3 and 9. You are proficient so roll a d8 and get a 7. The 7 replaces the 3! Instead of 12, you get 16.

Now, add expertise. Supposed your 2d10 were 2 and 5 (blah! ). You roll the d8 for proficiency and the d8 for expertise and get 6 and 8! These are better than the d10 rolls, so your total is 14, not 7.

For proficiency +6, you are rolling d12s and can get totals above 20, even without bonuses.

I also like this because without proficiency, you roll only the 2d10 and must take those numbers. Also, at lower levels, the d4s can help sometimes, but you aren't that good yet and the low die-type represents that well. Finally, you are only adding two dice at any time, the quick glance to pick out the higher numbers is easy even for the mathematically challenged.

A variant of this that is easier to work out is:

1. Roll 2d10.
2. Roll variant proficiency die.
3. Roll expertise die if available. If expertise is better than proficiency roll, you use expertise roll.
4. Add the 2d10 and the proficiency roll (OR expertise if it is better).
5. Add other bonuses.

Honestly, I don't like the second idea as much, but it might work out better and not need adjusting DCs and ACs, etc.

Anyway, I will probably be thinking about this and unable to sleep now. LOL!

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, I think I might be on to something! It would require reworking some DCs, etc., but I like the "feel" of it.

Here it is, and Esker can check the numbers (if you have time), otherwise I will do it tomorrow.

1. Roll 2d10 for checks (maybe even attacks and saves...)
2. You get your proficiency die based on the variant system.
3. You get an expertise die based on proficiency as well.
4. Choose the best two roll results from all the dice rolled.
5. Add your ability modifier and other bonuses.
(6. If you have advantage, you roll 3d10. If you have disadvantage, you only roll 1d10. (Still thinking about this...))

So, if your proficiency bonus is +4, you get to roll a d8. If you have expertise, you roll another d8.

Using the +4 example, suppose you rolled a 2d10 and got 3 and 9. You are proficient so roll a d8 and get a 7. The 7 replaces the 3! Instead of 12, you get 16.

Now, add expertise. Supposed your 2d10 were 2 and 5 (blah! ). You roll the d8 for proficiency and the d8 for expertise and get 6 and 8! These are better than the d10 rolls, so your total is 14, not 7.

For proficiency +6, you are rolling d12s and can get totals above 20, even without bonuses.

I also like this because without proficiency, you roll only the 2d10 and must take those numbers. Also, at lower levels, the d4s can help sometimes, but you aren't that good yet and the low die-type represents that well. Finally, you are only adding two dice at any time, the quick glance to pick out the higher numbers is easy even for the mathematically challenged.

A variant of this that is easier to work out is:

1. Roll 2d10.
2. Roll variant proficiency die.
3. Roll expertise die if available. If expertise is better than proficiency roll, you use expertise roll.
4. Add the 2d10 and the proficiency roll (OR expertise if it is better).
5. Add other bonuses.

Honestly, I don't like the second idea as much, but it might work out better and not need adjusting DCs and ACs, etc.

Anyway, I will probably be thinking about this and unable to sleep now. LOL!

If I may, this looks very close to just using the proficiency die optional and then changing expertise to having advantage on your proficiency die. This would keep the d20 and not change the base DC schema. It would give a significant boost for having expertise, but lower the usual benefit compared to non-expertise.

It would make checks more random, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I may, this looks very close to just using the proficiency die optional and then changing expertise to having advantage on your proficiency die. This would keep the d20 and not change the base DC schema. It would give a significant boost for having expertise, but lower the usual benefit compared to non-expertise.

It would make checks more random, though.

The second option is precisely that, really, but given my lack of sleep at the time I didn't realize it!

Expertise would grant advantage on the proficiency roll (you are rolling two dice and taking the better result). It is a simple way to implement expertise.

Another option is to use an expertise die. Keep proficiency static (ex. +4) and roll the variant die (ex. d8). If the die result is better, you use that, otherwise you use the static proficiency.

 

[Esker]

The second option is precisely that, really, but given my lack of sleep at the time I didn't realize it!

Expertise would grant advantage on the proficiency roll (you are rolling two dice and taking the better result). It is a simple way to implement expertise.

I actually modeled that one in the course of calibrating my earlier suggestion. I rejected it, because it makes expertise really weak: it's actually worse than a flat +2.

I would really appreciate a clear articulation of what game problem you think you're solving by lowering the maximum possible roll obtainable with expertise (as a primary goal, not as a side effect of lowering the minimum possible roll), since you haven't given one anywhere in this massive thread, and there's a disconnect between the reasons you give for making a change and the kinds of solutions you're endorsing vs rejecting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I actually modeled that one in the course of calibrating my earlier suggestion. I rejected it, because it makes expertise really weak: it's actually worse than a flat +2.

I would really appreciate a clear articulation of what game problem you think you're solving by lowering the maximum possible roll obtainable with expertise (as a primary goal, not as a side effect of lowering the minimum possible roll), since you haven't given one anywhere in this massive thread, and there's a disconnect between the reasons you give for making a change and the kinds of solutions you're endorsing vs rejecting.

Yeah, I just did the math myself and it is worse than a flat +2. Shoot!

If that is what you've gotten then I suggest you stop worrying about it. I've explained it many times and yet you keep asking me to repeat myself. I will do it one more time as clearly as possible:

Expertise inflates numbers so DCs are no longer challenges and thus reduce the fun because hard and more difficult tasks become routine, sometimes to the point of being near automatic. The greatest offender is Stealth vs. passive (or even active) perception as I have outlined repeatedly, although there are others.

My goal: reduce the impact of expertise on numbers so higher values cannot be achieved through it. Offer alternatives that makes expertise viable in other ways and create more options for players.

By increasing proficiency to +8, DCs can still be reached (even if at less probability) and now without expertise, allowing other classes to excel if they choose to, thus removing the illogical and poorly-thought-of idea that rogues and bards should be able to reach higher numbers more easily than others.

Doubling proficiency is a simple mechanic which leaves other characters feeling inadequate (Ranger: I'll scout the caves! Party: Let the Rogue do it, he is better. Wizard: I'll decipher that rune! Party: Let the Rogue do it, he is better. etc.). Rogues and Bards are already pretty balanced without the expertise mechanic as is. Offering Bards more skill proficiency slots makes so much more sense. Giving Rogue unique features does as well. There are other ways they can still be "skill monkeys" instead of just reaching higher numbers. In earlier editions when rogues got more skill points, they were still capped at the same maximum as other classes IIRC (I could be wrong, it has been years!).

I hope that is clear enough.

While I appreciate your contributions immensely, I feel like you are doing them with one hand tied behind your back (and no expertise in acrobatics to escape!) because you like the idea that these classes can hit numbers higher than others without either an archetype feature or dipping into rogue. I don't (obviously) and there is no justification for it other than "let's give these guys something no one else can do." So, why should they? Rogues can still fight, and in their own way nearly as well as the other battler classes. Bards GET spells and other features already! So, why should they get something else?

I like the idea of the expertise die based on the variant rule. You have a 50/50 chance the expert will roll above proficiency, thus gaining a bonus for that check. If you want it slightly better, maybe make it a d6 or d8 at first, and escalate it like superiority dice, to a maximum of a d20 even? I don't know, I would have to do the math on that as well to see if it works or grants too much benefit IMO. In fact, a superior dice mechanic similar to Battlemaster might work well, allowing expertise a limited number of boosts per short rest. I am not personally in favor for that option because I dislike the bookkeeping of superiority dice, but it is an option perhaps worth exploring.

EDIT: Here is a run modeling Skill Expertise after the battlemaster:

Skill Expertise

At 1st level (3rd for Bards), you gain skill expertise and learn tricks to enhance your skills and expertise dice to increase your chances of success.

Tricks. You learn two tricks of your choice, which are detailed under "Tricks" below. These tricks enhance skill checks in some way. You can only use one trick per skill check.

You learn two additional tricks of your choice at 6th level (10th for bards). [Maybe more at higher levels as well?]

Expertise Dice

You have four expertise dice, which are d6s. An expertise dice is spent when you use it. You regain all of your expended expertise dice when you finish a short or long rest.

When you make a skill check, you can choose to expend an expertise die and add the result of rolling the expertise die to your skill check.

You gain another expertise die at 7th level (11th for Bards) and one more at 15th level (18th for Bards).

Improved Skill Expertise

At 10th level, your expertise dice turn into d10s. At 18th level, they turn into d20s.

Tricks

(use your imagination LOL! You can't expect me to do it all. )

 

[WaterRabbit]

A few posters have mentioned that Bard and Rogues being better grapplers than fighters rub them the wrong way. It might be worth looking at using Pathfinder's Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB) and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) rules to handled grappling and shoving.

Basically CMB = Proficiency Bonus + STR Mod + Size Mod + Misc which is added to a d20 roll versus CMD. CMD = 10 + Proficiency Bonus + STR Mod + DEX Mod + Size Mod + Misc. This takes is out of a skill contest to basically just attack rolls so Expertise would not apply.

One could also change the Grappler feat to instead of having advantage to having double proficiency, in essence baking Expertise into the feat. Or allowing the DEX to be used in CMB instead of STR.

This also has the advantage of being able to quickly apply to creatures (other than having to figure out their proficiency bonus).

While Size Mods aren't in 5e, either the PF mods could be used or drop them and just give advantage to the larger combatant.

 

[Mycroft]

A few posters have mentioned that Bard and Rogues being better grapplers than fighters rub them the wrong way. It might be worth looking at using Pathfinder's Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB) and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) rules to handled grappling and shoving.

Basically CMB = Proficiency Bonus + STR Mod + Size Mod + Misc which is added to a d20 roll versus CMD. CMD = 10 + Proficiency Bonus + STR Mod + DEX Mod + Size Mod + Misc. This takes is out of a skill contest to basically just attack rolls so Expertise would not apply.

Yeah, Grapple checks could just be d20 + proficiency bonus + Str mod vs. 11 (or 12) + proficiency bonus + Str or Dex mod.
Much better than the current way, IMO.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Swapping Expertise to a dice rather than a flat bonus sounds like a good idea. It would allow Rogues to hit even higher DCs, but also make them less reliable at the lower-level of DCs where the problem seems to lie.
Bardic inspiration dice have a similar effect, even stacking on top of current expertise, however they have not been mentioned as a problem at all.

 

[Esker]

I've explained it many times and yet you keep asking me to repeat myself.
...
The greatest offender is Stealth vs. passive (or even active) perception as I have outlined repeatedly, although there are others.

I'm explicitly asking you not to repeat yourself, since all the examples you've given (such as the stealth example) are about expertise yielding success rates in the 70-100% range. But those are instances where moderate tasks become easy (if we grant that a 10-25% detection rate is low), not where hard tasks become a bit less hard. But instead of addressing why giving rogues and bards a feature that makes the really hard merely hard is a problem, you keep repeating yourself about medium difficulty tasks becoming routine or near automatic. But then the solutions you endorse boost the low end of skill rolls, which makes tasks that were moderately difficult with proficiency and routine with expertise into tasks that are automatic with expertise. Which is the opposite of what you say you want.

Let me quote you for a moment:

Did you know that the typical rogue with expertise in RAW (assuming some reasonable boosts to DEX over his career) needs only an average of 5.6 (4.6 ties) on his check to beat foes with a CR equal to his level (or in the case of CRs 21+, when he is level 20)? Let's round that up to an even 6, so there is only a 25% chance the rogue will be noticed. This is looking at over 2000 foes, by the way.

Now, you might think, "Well, that's fine, he has expertise, after all." True, but for any rogue who plans on being stealthy, he will most likely have expertise in it, meaning more likely than not he won't be spotted at all. And of course, against the majority of foes that won't be considered hard or deadly (CR equal to the rogue), the number he needs is lower.

So, the rogue with expertise needs a roll of about 6 under RAW to succeed. Assuming a bonus of around +12 or +13 that corresponds to a DC of about 18 or 19. So what happens if you replace the boost to the bonus currently granted by expertise with proposal #7 or #8 in the list you said you were considering? Now, they don't get the +4 from expertise, so they need a 10, but the minimum result is now... 10. So they've gone from succeeding 75% of the time to 100%. On the other hand if you rework expertise using the 2d10+proficiency die+second proficiency die only on higher natural rolls as I've proposed, the proficient character is about break-even with RAW, and the expert character is a bit lower, as you can see on the graph I posted. If instead you use the gold curve you made that you said looks more like what you want, you've boosted both the proficient and expert characters at those DCs, but you've boosted the expert by more. So now the expert is succeeding something like 90% of the time.

Do you see now why I say that the proposals you're endorsing are at cross-purposes with the problems you identify?

Doubling proficiency is a simple mechanic which leaves other characters feeling inadequate (Ranger: I'll scout the caves! Party: Let the Rogue do it, he is better. Wizard: I'll decipher that rune! Party: Let the Rogue do it, he is better. etc.).

The rogue can't have expertise in everything. If there's a ranger in the party who wants to be a scout, then during session zero, they should express that, and then if there's also a rogue in the party, they can fill a different niche: maybe the face with a side of trap-monkey, taking persuasion, deception, insight and thieves' tools. If a rogue takes expertise in arcana (even takes arcana in the first place), they're probably doing that because there isn't a wizard in the party and they figure somebody should be good at it. Etc. Don't blame the game mechanics for players choosing to build characters with a high degree of overlap.

Rogues can still fight, and in their own way nearly as well as the other battler classes. Bards GET spells and other features already! So, why should they get something else?

A while back I asked whether you were on board with replacing expertise with something that enabled the rogue and bard to retain their distinctive identity as skill-monkeys, and you said you were as long as it addressed the particular problems you had with expertise. But when you counter my questions and suggestions about how to replace expertise with something that feels equally powerful with it, you say things like this which make it seem that all along you just wanted to weaken the rogue and bard. If you'd said that from the outset I would have stopped participating in the discussion long ago, since that's a project I have no interest in.

Here is a run modeling Skill Expertise after the battlemaster:
...

I like the idea of tricks -- this is more or less the approach I was taking with my second proposal -- but you've got to fill in the details. I came up with some things for a few skills, but for others there didn't seem to be anything obvious. Also the rogue is very much designed as a resource-management-free class (I think the only thing in any subclass that has limited uses is the arcane trickster's spell slots), so I strongly suggest making the expanded skill options the kinds of things that can be done at-will.

 

[Esker]

Swapping Expertise to a dice rather than a flat bonus sounds like a good idea. It would allow Rogues to hit even higher DCs, but also make them less reliable at the lower-level of DCs where the problem seems to lie.

THANK YOU