D&D 5E What do you think would balance Expertise on Attack Rolls?

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

It sounds broken on paper. But for most of the game it's about as good as Bless.
Except it also doesn't affect Ability Checks and Saving Throws. And might only affect a single character. Expertise to Attacks doesn't get much better until level 9 and up. So it's crappy Bless for half a campaign.

If it only affects a single creature, requires Concentration, and only has a couple uses that recharge on a Long Rest it shouldn't be that game breaking. As @Mort says, it's potentially identical to the Devotion Paladin's Channel Divinity that has a short rest recharge.

 

[overgeeked]

You'd have to rework how AC works. You'd need to intro proficiency bonuses to AC...along with expertise bonuses to AC. That's how you'd balance it out. You would need to make armor expertise a feat for non-martial classes and automatic for martial classes. Boost the barbarian's and monk's unarmored defense by proficiency bonus at least, if not outright give them expertise automatically.

I'd suggest that expertise in attacks and armor would be limited to one weapon/attack and one type of armor per feat. It shouldn't be common at all. Rather something to show...well, rarefied expertise in use of that weapon and armor.

 

[overgeeked]

Isn't there a hard DC cap of 30 or 35? Or am I mistaken?

What is the highest Armor Class without breaking too many rules? Full Plate +3 with Shield +3 with the Defense Fighting Style? 21 + 5 + 1? So that would equal 27. I am sure there are feats; spells; skills that can bring it higher, or other combinations.

30 is the highest DC given, recommended for “nearly impossible” tasks. But there’s no real reason a DM couldn’t set a higher DC than that, if they wanted to.

A level 17+ rogue with expertise in a skill and a 20 in the stat has a +17, so the highest possible roll would be 37. Add in things like bless or guidance and you'd get to 41. With magic items (gloves of thievery) you can get another +5, tops.

Expertise in weapons would get you to the same spot, but magic weapons cap out at +3, so AC would fall behind. You can also get multiple magic armors that stack (plate and shield). So you'd have to boost potential AC to keep up. Providing prof bonuses and expertise with armor would work.

 

[Mort]

Expertise in weapons would get you to the same spot, but magic weapons cap out at +3, so AC would fall behind. You can also get multiple magic armors that stack (plate and shield). So you'd have to boost potential AC to keep up. Providing prof bonuses and expertise with armor would work.

But then all you have is another arms race. Another, well this is the new thing to get.

Personally, I prefer to not give out plussed weapons or armor. Instead giving out weapons and armor with interesting abilities. Avoids the whole issue without mucking up the math.

 

[overgeeked]

But then all you have is another arms race. Another, well this is the new thing to get.

Personally, I prefer to not give out plussed weapons or armor. Instead giving out weapons and armor with interesting abilities. Avoids the whole issue without mucking up the math.

With weapon expertise it’s already an arms race that armor loses. The only way to balance expertise in attacks is expertise in defense.

 

[Slit518]

With weapon expertise it’s already an arms race that armor loses. The only way to balance expertise in attacks is expertise in defense.

But, what if you want armor to lose because that is the point? The point being to hit more often (or getting hit).

 

[Mort]

With weapon expertise it’s already an arms race that armor loses. The only way to balance expertise in attacks is expertise in defense.

Right, that was part of what I was responding to. Introducing weapon expertise is step 1. Introducing, essentially, armor expertise is perpetuating the arms race. Better, IMO, not to start.

 

[Mort]

But, what if you want armor to lose because that is the point? The point being to hit more often (or getting hit).

5e math already allows for hitting much more often thanks to generally lower ACs, especially among monsters. Introducing expertise is likely too much.

 

[overgeeked]

But, what if you want armor to lose because that is the point? The point being to hit more often (or getting hit).

Then just lower monster ACs and boost monster to-hit modifiers. Unless you have a lot of PvP in your games, you don't need to worry about adding rules to make it fair. Just change the monster stats to do what you want.

Right, that was part of what I was responding to. Introducing weapon expertise is step 1. Introducing, essentially, armor expertise is perpetuating the arms race. Better, IMO, not to start.

5e math already allows for hitting much more often thanks to generally lower ACs, especially among monsters. Introducing expertise is likely too much.

So you recognize that attacks already win the arms race, but want attacks to win the arms race even harder?

Again, just drop monster AC and boost monster to-hit modifiers. No need to add subsystems that would need to be balanced.

 

[Seramus]

Fail all intelligence checks. You have to be asked/ordered to attack anyone in combat.