Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7645159" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p>Given the other features I would be adding to rogues to make them perform skills better in other ways, overall they would not be weaker than RAW, simply stronger in other ways. Since I don't like the high potential for expertise, I don't see this as a bad thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I just thought of this one today, actually. I like it, but have a hard time justifying the reason to base it off of ability. Also, in the case of rogues with STR 10, expertise in athletics would offer no benefit at all, so I probably won't be using it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, in some ways it messes with things, but it was still a good idea and I was summarizing everything (well, most of it) from the thread. But I don't mind losing the expert's high ceiling, that is an issue I have trying to remove. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We actually tried advantage once but ended up rejecting it. Again, it is part of the summary of peoples' ideas.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, our design goals differ in some key points.</p><p></p><p>1. Expertise (as the rogue/bard feature) should offer options available to those classes which make using their skills more versatile and offers a greater degree of success, but without granting them potential beyond other classes.</p><p>2. I agree with this for proficient over non-proficient characters. That is why I did like #8b from my post, making a minimum of 5 + bonuses if you have proficiency. Even with modest bonuses, it makes moderate DC of 10 automatic, and with higher bonuses even DC 15.</p><p>3. Here we definitely disagree. I see expertise as is as <em>too </em>powerful compared to other features, and reigning it back only brings these classes back in line compared to others. I really don't mind them potentially being a bit better (up to +2), but more than that is unbalancing as our table has seen.</p><p>4. This is exactly the opposite of what I want LOL! Expertise is a feature offered (for rogues anyway) at level one. Yet, because it is based on proficiency, it continually gets better. That is what makes it so powerful compared to other features other classes get, such as Fighting Styles (which don't improve). In your view, this is what makes them a key feature, but makes it too strong in my view. Your definition of "expert" is spot on, but again why should rogues and bards be experts compared to other classes. Widening the gap just makes it worse IMO. </p><p>5. It is already hard for proficient characters do to hard and nearly impossible, even at the highest levels. Of course, at lower levels, those tasks are literally impossible. Someone with expertise should have a chance. One option I forgot to list before was for someone with expertise, a natural 20 should always succeed regardless of the DC. This could even be expanded at higher levels in some fashion.</p><p>6. Proficiency shouldn't be affected, only expertise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The system adds too much complexity for me, anyway. First, adding dice rolling takes time and for our group, adding a variable result from several dice would take way too long LOL! Compared to rolling a single d20, rolling a proficiency die, 2d20, and possibly another proficiency die for expertise would definitely be rejected at our table.</p><p></p><p>I don't mean to sound ungrateful for all the obvious thought and effort you've put into this, but it isn't heading in the direction we want. In the OP, the idea was to increase proficiency while decreasing ability and expertise; going from the +6/5/6 model to something like +8/4/4 or +9/5/2, etc. Since I have long been advocating for reducing the effect of expertise, I am not sure where you thought increasing it was my goal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7645159, member: 6987520"] Given the other features I would be adding to rogues to make them perform skills better in other ways, overall they would not be weaker than RAW, simply stronger in other ways. Since I don't like the high potential for expertise, I don't see this as a bad thing. I just thought of this one today, actually. I like it, but have a hard time justifying the reason to base it off of ability. Also, in the case of rogues with STR 10, expertise in athletics would offer no benefit at all, so I probably won't be using it. Yeah, in some ways it messes with things, but it was still a good idea and I was summarizing everything (well, most of it) from the thread. But I don't mind losing the expert's high ceiling, that is an issue I have trying to remove. :) We actually tried advantage once but ended up rejecting it. Again, it is part of the summary of peoples' ideas. Unfortunately, our design goals differ in some key points. 1. Expertise (as the rogue/bard feature) should offer options available to those classes which make using their skills more versatile and offers a greater degree of success, but without granting them potential beyond other classes. 2. I agree with this for proficient over non-proficient characters. That is why I did like #8b from my post, making a minimum of 5 + bonuses if you have proficiency. Even with modest bonuses, it makes moderate DC of 10 automatic, and with higher bonuses even DC 15. 3. Here we definitely disagree. I see expertise as is as [I]too [/I]powerful compared to other features, and reigning it back only brings these classes back in line compared to others. I really don't mind them potentially being a bit better (up to +2), but more than that is unbalancing as our table has seen. 4. This is exactly the opposite of what I want LOL! Expertise is a feature offered (for rogues anyway) at level one. Yet, because it is based on proficiency, it continually gets better. That is what makes it so powerful compared to other features other classes get, such as Fighting Styles (which don't improve). In your view, this is what makes them a key feature, but makes it too strong in my view. Your definition of "expert" is spot on, but again why should rogues and bards be experts compared to other classes. Widening the gap just makes it worse IMO. 5. It is already hard for proficient characters do to hard and nearly impossible, even at the highest levels. Of course, at lower levels, those tasks are literally impossible. Someone with expertise should have a chance. One option I forgot to list before was for someone with expertise, a natural 20 should always succeed regardless of the DC. This could even be expanded at higher levels in some fashion. 6. Proficiency shouldn't be affected, only expertise. The system adds too much complexity for me, anyway. First, adding dice rolling takes time and for our group, adding a variable result from several dice would take way too long LOL! Compared to rolling a single d20, rolling a proficiency die, 2d20, and possibly another proficiency die for expertise would definitely be rejected at our table. I don't mean to sound ungrateful for all the obvious thought and effort you've put into this, but it isn't heading in the direction we want. In the OP, the idea was to increase proficiency while decreasing ability and expertise; going from the +6/5/6 model to something like +8/4/4 or +9/5/2, etc. Since I have long been advocating for reducing the effect of expertise, I am not sure where you thought increasing it was my goal. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
Top