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: 7646704" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p>I <em>have </em>explained why it matters. There is NO reasonable explanation for it other than a "This is what these classes get." The only class I could in any way understand <em>possibly </em>being better (i.e. the highest possible numbers) at a skill <em>might </em>be Bards due to their nature of gathering knowledge and being well-traveled. One could argue that not only do the pick up a little of everything (Jack of all trades) but have learned things others have rarely been exposed to (thus, possibly higher numbers...). It is a stretch in some ways, but at least has a basis in the idea other than "sure, let's give them awesome skills to make them stand out."</p><p></p><p>Another possible idea, and it might be a good one. I'll think it over. You can go home now. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is a key issue in bold. Thank you for your support in understanding that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Higher floors (to a point) don't bother me either. Maybe when I summarized your idea I got something wrong. The more I look at it, I am starting to think the issue is in the DCs more than anything else...</p><p></p><p>Wait, what did I say about bards you don't agree with? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is interesting. I don't know if it is so much about lazy design as their effort to keep everything as simple as possible. Yeah, I would prefer more gradation over a simplified mechanic, but 5E is all about simple.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. Due to the nature of rolling, if the ceiling is potentially higher, the floor is raised as well (at least in RAW). Bounded accuracy is ALL about the ceiling and keeping numbers under control. Expertise (especially combined with other features in the game) flies in the face of this. If 30 is supposed to be the theoretical cap, we are getting in the realm of numbers beyond that. At +17 RAW, the average roll is 27 (approaching nearly impossible). I could go the other direction with passive perception; 20th level, WIS 20, expertise, observant = passive perception score: 32. So, "nearly impossible" <em>is</em> automatic. Sure, this is an extreme example, but very possible with three levels of bard or a single level of rogue. Take out the +6 for expertise, and at least we are just tipping over the difficult DC at 26, keeping things more "bounded".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>While others are working on it, I am more in favor of a simpler approach. Granting advantage on expert skill checks does a lot of what I want. Keeps the potential the same (20 is still max), and moves the success rate for higher checks up (allowing experts to "get there more easily". Either way, as I wrote before, I am starting to think the issue is in the DC...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We care about 2 for all the reasons myself and others have mentioned. And I am one of the rogue players, FWIW. I was fine with advantage, the other player in the group resisted the idea because it would decrease his potential (even though he was already ahead of the others...). IIRC, at the time I was +8 (+3 prof x2, +2 DEX) and he was +10 (+4 DEX), while the ranger was only +6. He didn't want to lose that +4 edge over the ranger and feel less competitive. Honestly, it seemed petty to me since he would still have been +7 with his DEX 18, and with advantage would have done better than the ranger most of the time anyway.</p><p></p><p>But again, I think the DCs are the issue as you have mentioned before, at least concerning stealth and passive perception. I mean, a DC 15 is supposed to be "moderate", yet most creatures have a passive perception score below that. With the +10 bonus our rogue had before, he was beating that 75% of the time, pushing it more towards the realms of what I would consider more easy than moderate. Take away the +15% from expertise, and 60% is more "moderate" IMO.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOL, in case you never noticed, this is what I wrote upthread we are currently doing. Expertise is +2, +3 at 7th, +4 at 14th. The other rogue player accepted this at least, over advantage, but no one really felt adding more skills or expertise selections was necessary.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep. Seems weird to me, too. Remove the number inflation for expertise, and it isn't an issue. Or, as several people have mentioned, if the higher numbers alone don't bother you (they bother me, but that might be <em>my </em>issue LOL), just allow every class one skill to have expertise in; rogue and bards would just have more. To me, this is a band-aid solution but might work for you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7646704, member: 6987520"] I [I]have [/I]explained why it matters. There is NO reasonable explanation for it other than a "This is what these classes get." The only class I could in any way understand [I]possibly [/I]being better (i.e. the highest possible numbers) at a skill [I]might [/I]be Bards due to their nature of gathering knowledge and being well-traveled. One could argue that not only do the pick up a little of everything (Jack of all trades) but have learned things others have rarely been exposed to (thus, possibly higher numbers...). It is a stretch in some ways, but at least has a basis in the idea other than "sure, let's give them awesome skills to make them stand out." Another possible idea, and it might be a good one. I'll think it over. You can go home now. ;) That is a key issue in bold. Thank you for your support in understanding that. Higher floors (to a point) don't bother me either. Maybe when I summarized your idea I got something wrong. The more I look at it, I am starting to think the issue is in the DCs more than anything else... Wait, what did I say about bards you don't agree with? :confused: It is interesting. I don't know if it is so much about lazy design as their effort to keep everything as simple as possible. Yeah, I would prefer more gradation over a simplified mechanic, but 5E is all about simple. I disagree. Due to the nature of rolling, if the ceiling is potentially higher, the floor is raised as well (at least in RAW). Bounded accuracy is ALL about the ceiling and keeping numbers under control. Expertise (especially combined with other features in the game) flies in the face of this. If 30 is supposed to be the theoretical cap, we are getting in the realm of numbers beyond that. At +17 RAW, the average roll is 27 (approaching nearly impossible). I could go the other direction with passive perception; 20th level, WIS 20, expertise, observant = passive perception score: 32. So, "nearly impossible" [I]is[/I] automatic. Sure, this is an extreme example, but very possible with three levels of bard or a single level of rogue. Take out the +6 for expertise, and at least we are just tipping over the difficult DC at 26, keeping things more "bounded". While others are working on it, I am more in favor of a simpler approach. Granting advantage on expert skill checks does a lot of what I want. Keeps the potential the same (20 is still max), and moves the success rate for higher checks up (allowing experts to "get there more easily". Either way, as I wrote before, I am starting to think the issue is in the DC... We care about 2 for all the reasons myself and others have mentioned. And I am one of the rogue players, FWIW. I was fine with advantage, the other player in the group resisted the idea because it would decrease his potential (even though he was already ahead of the others...). IIRC, at the time I was +8 (+3 prof x2, +2 DEX) and he was +10 (+4 DEX), while the ranger was only +6. He didn't want to lose that +4 edge over the ranger and feel less competitive. Honestly, it seemed petty to me since he would still have been +7 with his DEX 18, and with advantage would have done better than the ranger most of the time anyway. But again, I think the DCs are the issue as you have mentioned before, at least concerning stealth and passive perception. I mean, a DC 15 is supposed to be "moderate", yet most creatures have a passive perception score below that. With the +10 bonus our rogue had before, he was beating that 75% of the time, pushing it more towards the realms of what I would consider more easy than moderate. Take away the +15% from expertise, and 60% is more "moderate" IMO. LOL, in case you never noticed, this is what I wrote upthread we are currently doing. Expertise is +2, +3 at 7th, +4 at 14th. The other rogue player accepted this at least, over advantage, but no one really felt adding more skills or expertise selections was necessary. Yep. Seems weird to me, too. Remove the number inflation for expertise, and it isn't an issue. Or, as several people have mentioned, if the higher numbers alone don't bother you (they bother me, but that might be [I]my [/I]issue LOL), just allow every class one skill to have expertise in; rogue and bards would just have more. To me, this is a band-aid solution but might work for you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiency vs. Ability vs. Expertise
Top