D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?

[Chaosmancer]

I'm kind of surprised with how many people are saying Expertise has caused no problems. I know that my experience is somewhat unusual (3 rouges, a ranger and a druid isn't typical party comp) but the issue I ran into seems kind of inevitable to a degree.

Stealth with expertise. By level 11 when you get reliable talent expertise in Stealth means your result is likely a minimum of 23 (10+8+5) and could easily get a 28. Sure, the Beholder boss might be able to see the Rogue, but the Elite Drow Guards who are posted throughout the compound, they get a +4 which means that unless the rogue rolls their minimum and the drow roll a natural 20, there is no way for them to spot the rogue.

And, while that may seem like a good way for the rogue to show off their skills, I've found something else entirely happen. We just end up skipping it. The rogue says "Stealth" and I say "You succeed" because the odds are so far tilted in the rogues favor that I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time. We know the result so no roll happens, and while my players enjoyed laughing at my frustration (with that ungodly +10 Pass Without a Trace making results of 35 to 40 not uncommon) I think they also started to get a bit frustrated themselves because where there is no challenge there is no interesting story.

And by taking expertise they are indicating to me that they want to be challenged in this regard, but how am I supposed to challenge a lockpicker who can effortlessly hit a DC 25. DC 30 is meant to be saved for the most difficult challenges possible (that aren't just auto-failures) and I need them to start popping up at mid-levels? How many god-tiered locks are even supposed to exist in the world? And at least those are plausible, challenging someone who has advantage, pass without trace, reliable talent and a mod of +15 in stealth is just a fools errand. And that is one magic item and one spell that lasts an hour.


Does it wreck the game? I guess not, but it doesn't seem to make the game very enjoyable either.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm kind of surprised with how many people are saying Expertise has caused no problems. I know that my experience is somewhat unusual (3 rouges, a ranger and a druid isn't typical party comp) but the issue I ran into seems kind of inevitable to a degree.

Stealth with expertise.

It's not a problem of expertise, it's a problem of all skills not being created equal! Stealth and Perception are on average significantly more valuable than other skills.

Monte Cook et al. in the original 3.0 rules got it right when they made you pay double price for Stealth and Perception, but then a lot of people complained that they didn't want to pay double, so WotC designers accepted the common preference and merged Move Silently & Hide and Listen & Spot together, and they have been normal-price skills since then.

If you house rule Expertise for all skills and tools now to nerf down Stealth a little bit, you end up with it being too weak for all other skills. It's better to consider an ad-hoc nerf targetted to Stealth and Perception only. Or as another option, give Expertise on Perception to monsters and NPCs more frequently so that it counters the Expertise on Stealth of the PCs, and viceversa.

 

[GreyLord]

I'm kind of surprised with how many people are saying Expertise has caused no problems. I know that my experience is somewhat unusual (3 rouges, a ranger and a druid isn't typical party comp) but the issue I ran into seems kind of inevitable to a degree.

Stealth with expertise. By level 11 when you get reliable talent expertise in Stealth means your result is likely a minimum of 23 (10+8+5) and could easily get a 28. Sure, the Beholder boss might be able to see the Rogue, but the Elite Drow Guards who are posted throughout the compound, they get a +4 which means that unless the rogue rolls their minimum and the drow roll a natural 20, there is no way for them to spot the rogue.

And, while that may seem like a good way for the rogue to show off their skills, I've found something else entirely happen. We just end up skipping it. The rogue says "Stealth" and I say "You succeed" because the odds are so far tilted in the rogues favor that I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time. We know the result so no roll happens, and while my players enjoyed laughing at my frustration (with that ungodly +10 Pass Without a Trace making results of 35 to 40 not uncommon) I think they also started to get a bit frustrated themselves because where there is no challenge there is no interesting story.

And by taking expertise they are indicating to me that they want to be challenged in this regard, but how am I supposed to challenge a lockpicker who can effortlessly hit a DC 25. DC 30 is meant to be saved for the most difficult challenges possible (that aren't just auto-failures) and I need them to start popping up at mid-levels? How many god-tiered locks are even supposed to exist in the world? And at least those are plausible, challenging someone who has advantage, pass without trace, reliable talent and a mod of +15 in stealth is just a fools errand. And that is one magic item and one spell that lasts an hour.


Does it wreck the game? I guess not, but it doesn't seem to make the game very enjoyable either.

And why is this a problem??

In 5e you aren't supposed to roll a skill check every time. In fact, many times a character uses a skill a DM is simply supposed to assume they succeed. Unless there is a reason to have a character roll a skill check, assume they succeed.

This is why Blacksmith's can reliably do their job. It's why an acrobat can normally always be successful (rather than falling 5% of the time and dying even if they have a ton of bonuses) while others cannot. It's why someone who is trained to track will always be more successful in the long run than someone who is not, because it is assumed on normal tasks that they succeed. Unless there is a REASON to make players or characters roll...don't.

The normal assumption is if they are trained in a skill they will succeed in the skill. Expertise helps when there is a challenge around that may cause them to fail, but otherwise, just like other skills, it is assumed that if they are trained they will succeed.

Now if they aren't trained...

 

[5ekyu]

It's not a problem of expertise, it's a problem of all skills not being created equal! Stealth and Perception are on average significantly more valuable than other skills.

Monte Cook et al. in the original 3.0 rules got it right when they made you pay double price for Stealth and Perception, but then a lot of people complained that they didn't want to pay double, so WotC designers accepted the common preference and merged Move Silently & Hide and Listen & Spot together, and they have been normal-price skills since then.

If you house rule Expertise for all skills and tools now to nerf down Stealth a little bit, you end up with it being too weak for all other skills. It's better to consider an ad-hoc nerf targetted to Stealth and Perception only. Or as another option, give Expertise on Perception to monsters and NPCs more frequently so that it counters the Expertise on Stealth of the PCs, and viceversa.

To me this gets back to a fundamental fallacy... the value of ABC.

The types of challenges presented or chosen to the groups are what set the value of things.

A group which rarely scouts and has a lot of mostly heavy armor types is not one where stealth matters. Nor is it that good for say holding a wall against zombie hordes.

It really comes down to the GM campaign level choices (and the players characters choices) as to how valuable various traits will be seen in play and so... without effort to push balance to force it it doesn't just occur naturally.

This is where imo it is vital to have a good basis of shared understanding about what the campaign will be like before chargen **and** for the GM to shape to some degree the challenges are like based on chargen outcomes. (Anaethema to some)

If it's important to you that survival proficiency be "balanced" as an option beside proficiency in stealth, then you have to look at how often your challenges make either useful.

But for most any system it's not that easy.

That's because in 5e different attributes feed different skills plus they do other things and different skills are acquired from different class, race and background which do other different things. So it's that final "package" called a character that is really the smallest bit you can take as balance or not fodder.

Then again, the designer said the game was not designed to be balanced for some one on one class vs class character competitions so maybe the weights for the scale start at four man party.

To me...

Balance in play is more critical than balance on paper and balance in play means character scale and wont happen by accident but by decision and choice.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not a problem of expertise, it's a problem of all skills not being created equal! Stealth and Perception are on average significantly more valuable than other skills.

Monte Cook et al. in the original 3.0 rules got it right when they made you pay double price for Stealth and Perception, but then a lot of people complained that they didn't want to pay double, so WotC designers accepted the common preference and merged Move Silently & Hide and Listen & Spot together, and they have been normal-price skills since then.

If you house rule Expertise for all skills and tools now to nerf down Stealth a little bit, you end up with it being too weak for all other skills. It's better to consider an ad-hoc nerf targetted to Stealth and Perception only. Or as another option, give Expertise on Perception to monsters and NPCs more frequently so that it counters the Expertise on Stealth of the PCs, and viceversa.

I'm wondering what you mean by it will be too weak for other skills. Do you have skills which require a minimum result of 23 to be useful?

I mean expertise in tolls is already relatively useless unless you and the DM are clever, since rolling for tools is nearly nonexistant. And, I don't know about you, but the result between a 20 and a 30 on a deception check or persuasion check is pretty hard to spot, because I don't run with diplomancers like I heard about in 3.x. Knowledge checks? I use them quite a bit, but almost no one ever takes expertise in them since they aren't typical rogue things.

I mean, where are we going to see this become "too weak" if we reigned it in?

Which by the way, I've had no problems with expertise at low levels. +4 to a skill hasn't ever caused an issue. It is when we start getting into +8,+10, and +12 that I start scratching my head and wondering what it is I could do

And why is this a problem??

In 5e you aren't supposed to roll a skill check every time. In fact, many times a character uses a skill a DM is simply supposed to assume they succeed. Unless there is a reason to have a character roll a skill check, assume they succeed.

This is why Blacksmith's can reliably do their job. It's why an acrobat can normally always be successful (rather than falling 5% of the time and dying even if they have a ton of bonuses) while others cannot. It's why someone who is trained to track will always be more successful in the long run than someone who is not, because it is assumed on normal tasks that they succeed. Unless there is a REASON to make players or characters roll...don't.

The normal assumption is if they are trained in a skill they will succeed in the skill. Expertise helps when there is a challenge around that may cause them to fail, but otherwise, just like other skills, it is assumed that if they are trained they will succeed.

Now if they aren't trained...

It is a problem because players want to be challenged. If a player picks intuition as a skill, but I never have them roll intuition and just tell them the secrets the NPCs are keeping or if they were keeping secrets then what was the point of the players choice? They aren't getting a chance to show that they are skilled, because they aren't getting a chance to roll. Instead they are just succeeding, and because we are moving along and they just do it, it doesn't get spotlight time and it doesn't seem impressive.

It's all perception I suppose. But I had players not even want to bother with stealth anymore because they knew they would succeed, it was an automatic assumption that they could just sneak up on anybody, so it wasn't fun anymore, because there was no risk for failure. So we stopped doing it, unless there was a mechanical benefit for the assassin

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Stealth with expertise. By level 11 when you get reliable talent expertise in Stealth means your result is likely a minimum of 23 (10+8+5) and could easily get a 28. Sure, the Beholder boss might be able to see the Rogue, but the Elite Drow Guards who are posted throughout the compound, they get a +4 which means that unless the rogue rolls their minimum and the drow roll a natural 20, there is no way for them to spot the rogue.

The other solution here is to give NPCs access to skill proficiencies, and possibly even expertise, where it makes sense. Much of the certainty in opposed checks is a result of the game rules treating NPCs like second-class citizens, when we really want them to (at least) pose a challenge where it makes sense.

And by taking expertise they are indicating to me that they want to be challenged in this regard, but how am I supposed to challenge a lockpicker who can effortlessly hit a DC 25. DC 30 is meant to be saved for the most difficult challenges possible (that aren't just auto-failures) and I need them to start popping up at mid-levels?

Are you sure about that? (Do you know your player?) When I take expertise with Perception and Thieves Tools, what I'm trying to say is that it's very important to me that I not fail to find and remove traps; I would be rather put out, if you instead took that as call to contrive unreasonably-difficult traps, in order to foil me.

If I wanted to be challenged in such a regard, then I wouldn't have put expertise in those things. That would guarantee a lot more close calls and random failures.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The other solution here is to give NPCs access to skill proficiencies, and possibly even expertise, where it makes sense. Much of the certainty in opposed checks is a result of the game rules treating NPCs like second-class citizens, when we really want them to (at least) pose a challenge where it makes sense.

Completely true, but those Drow are already proficient. Expertise only nets them a total of +7. I mean, it helps, but needing to roll a 17 to match the rogue's minimum result is still pretty crap.

And what about non-opposed stuff. A Lord betrays the party and locks them up. Rogue Sleight of Hand expertise handles lockpicking and hiding the lockpicks. Min result 23 means that not only did they hide there lockpicks, but the cell they are locked in and manacles they are bound with might as well be wide open. Unless they were forged by mastercraft-dwarves and enchanted. After all, manacles and locks are a DC 15 check to lockpick, DC 20 covers incredibly well made locks. I need a 25 to make sure the rogue needs to roll a 12, and should that local lord really have access to that quality of lock?

Are you sure about that? (Do you know your player?) When I take expertise with Perception and Thieves Tools, what I'm trying to say is that it's very important to me that I not fail to find and remove traps; I would be rather put out, if you instead took that as call to contrive unreasonably-difficult traps, in order to foil me.

If I wanted to be challenged in such a regard, then I wouldn't have put expertise in those things. That would guarantee a lot more close calls and random failures.

I think I know them fairly well.

I can't imagine you would be very satisfied if you devoted resources to finding traps and I narrated "Okay, you guys enter the hallway. Saelorn you find three traps, a spiked pit, a flamethrower, and a guillotine. You disarm them all and before you waits the golden doors of the Pit Lord. After Saelorn unlocks the door and removes the poison needle in the handle you see..."

Sure, you succeeded and were important in that scene. But, actually, you didn't do anything. You just sat there and listened to me say things, you made no decisions and made no checks. Sure, I could pad it out with you asking "Do I see any traps?" and have you follow with "I disarm the traps". Maybe you'll forget to ask "is the door trapped" but your passive is above a twenty so that's unreasonable since the spot DC would be below that. And if you asked, then you find and disarm it.

I don't find that very exciting. The game still works but... I don't like easy mode very often.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I can't imagine you would be very satisfied if you devoted resources to finding traps and I narrated "Okay, you guys enter the hallway. Saelorn you find three traps, a spiked pit, a flamethrower, and a guillotine. You disarm them all and before you waits the golden doors of the Pit Lord. After Saelorn unlocks the door and removes the poison needle in the handle you see..."

Sure, you succeeded and were important in that scene. But, actually, you didn't do anything. You just sat there and listened to me say things, you made no decisions and made no checks. Sure, I could pad it out with you asking "Do I see any traps?" and have you follow with "I disarm the traps". Maybe you'll forget to ask "is the door trapped" but your passive is above a twenty so that's unreasonable since the spot DC would be below that. And if you asked, then you find and disarm it.

You might be surprised. The player isn't actively doing anything in the real world, but the character is equally impressive within the narrative whether or not the player picks up dice for it. The only thing that dice add, in this scenario, is a chance to fail. If my concept for the character is that they can breeze through traps because they're so amazing, then I'm not going to be terribly happy if they fail to breeze through traps.

As a player, I feel significantly more satisfaction for choosing to make a character who can overcome this sub-set of challenges without rolling, than I would for getting lucky in rolling dice ten times in a row. It was a conscious decision for me to put expertise in Thieves Tools rather than Athletics. There's no skill or choice involved with rolling dice.

I don't find that very exciting. The game still works but... I don't like easy mode very often.

Whenever you build a character with strengths and weaknesses, you make a decision about what you want to be easy and what you want to be difficult. By taking proficiency in something, you are deciding to make certain challenges easier for you. By taking expertise in something, and continuing to play a rogue until level 11, you are deciding to make those challenges trivial for you.

If the DM scales up challenges to actually be challenging for you, in spite of everything you have done to trivialize them, then none of your choices about strengths or weaknesses actually matter. If the untrained street thug is only ever confronted with DC 12 traps, and the master burglar only ever comes across DC 27 traps, then the player's choice to invest in beating traps was meaningless.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You might be surprised. The player isn't actively doing anything in the real world, but the character is equally impressive within the narrative whether or not the player picks up dice for it. The only thing that dice add, in this scenario, is a chance to fail. If my concept for the character is that they can breeze through traps because they're so amazing, then I'm not going to be terribly happy if they fail to breeze through traps.

As a player, I feel significantly more satisfaction for choosing to make a character who can overcome this sub-set of challenges without rolling, than I would for getting lucky in rolling dice ten times in a row. It was a conscious decision for me to put expertise in Thieves Tools rather than Athletics. There's no skill or choice involved with rolling dice.

I admit, I do find that a bit surprising. Sure, the narrative doesn't change if we were reading the book or watching the movie, but we are playing a game. It may take more skill to build a character, but if I don't get to use their special abilities they were built with... what's the point?

Whenever you build a character with strengths and weaknesses, you make a decision about what you want to be easy and what you want to be difficult. By taking proficiency in something, you are deciding to make certain challenges easier for you. By taking expertise in something, and continuing to play a rogue until level 11, you are deciding to make those challenges trivial for you.

If the DM scales up challenges to actually be challenging for you, in spite of everything you have done to trivialize them, then none of your choices about strengths or weaknesses actually matter. If the untrained street thug is only ever confronted with DC 12 traps, and the master burglar only ever comes across DC 27 traps, then the player's choice to invest in beating traps was meaningless.

I agree with this to a degree, but what is the man with a minimum of 23 to do in a world where 99% of the things he encounters are DC 15 and 20? Let's take that expertise out for a moment. Your minimum is now 19, you still will breeze through the majority of locks and traps in the world. So... why invest in it? Why care about expertise? Unless you are encounter something of mythic levels reliable talent plus proficiency is more than enough. And then you can let the cleric or bard whose character concept is buffing to shine as well if you encounter something truly challenging.

Your choice has made no impact unless I try to challenge you, but to challenge you I need challenges beyond the scope a level 11 character is supposed to operate at. Heck, even by level 18, when you should be operating on the most mythic of scales, the bonus is +17 with a minimum of 27 (+18 of if you can break the 20 cap), throw some guidance, enhance ability and a bardic inspiration on the pile and I have to seriously ask "What is the DC of the lock on the Gates to Hell" because you'll average a 39 on that roll.

Picking the lock on some cosmic prison meant to hold gods is cool, but you're average is nearly ten points higher than the highest DC brought up in game. That means you have almost a 50/50 shot. Oh, unless you happen to be level 20, then just guarantee a minimum result of 39, average of 45 or 50. Where is the tension? Where is the excitement?

If you can't fail, what's the point of even having the obstacle exist in the first place?

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Those are some weak tea high-level obstacles if you ask me.

It's not that you need a 38 on your lock-picking roll. It's that you need the King of Shadows' lockpicking tools to even make the attempt. How did you get those? And the only reason you can make the attempt in the first place is because you trick the Nefarious Hell Beast that guards the door. How did you do that? And what are you going to do when the door opens and the Blistering Hell Wind sears you down to your soul?

You're dealing with gods and curses and monsters here. DCs are sooo low-level.