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

[clearstream]

I don't understand how DCs can be decided on independently of typical bonuses.

If a typical bonus to X is (say) +4 and the DC for X is set at 25, then that DC means that X-ing is effectively impossible without inspiration or something similar.

Whereas if a typical bonus to X is (say) +10 and the DC for X is set at 25, then that DC means that X-ing is hard but by no means impossible or even all that improbable.

So the meaning of setting a DC is entirely dependent on what typical bonuses are.

Where I find Expertise has impacted most on my campaign, is implicit and explicit Contests. Creatures without Expertise in Athletics or Perception (i.e. nearly every creature), are handily dominated by characters with Expertise. To the point of lack of challenge. One can tweak every creature, of course, but that doesn't really excuse the mechanic.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Does anyone have a problem with Expertise, outside of Perception and Athletics?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Well yes, but if you play with reduced bonus then you might decide on day 1 that the DC is lower. And 25 isn't that difficult for a high-level PC with +2 Expertise: +5 stat +6 Proficiency Bonus +2 Expertise is +13 already, and +1d4 Guidance +1d12 Inspiration makes that +22 so is an auto-success thanks to Reliable Talent. Indeed, for a mid-level PC with more modest stats, you get a base of +3 stat bonus +4 Proficiency Bonus +2 Expertise for +9 to the roll; add in 1d4 Guidance and 1d8 Inspiration and your lockpicker has +16 to the roll and Reliable talent means a minimum result of 26.

Anyway, while I dislike Expertise being based on the Proficiency Bonus, I do think it ought to be increased at later levels, much as the Fighter's Combat Styles scale with extra attacks. So, how about replacing the Feat / ASI the Rogue gets at level 10 with

Advanced Knowledge: your Expertise bonus increases to +4. You also gain proficiency in a new skill.

I can see what your point is, but I still don't see the problem. The numbers are high and can result in an "auto-success". I suppose if the typical adventuring day for the group is only needing to make that roll once or twice, then yeah, could be a problem because they would "never fail". This starts to slip back into a DM style thing; as I said, I don't "design to the PC's". This goes for everything, not just DC's. The Thief trying to steal the crown jewels would be making a LOT more checks than three or four. There would be sneaking, hiding, spotting, finding traps, disarming traps, picking locks, picking pockets...the whole 9-meters. And this is likely to take a lot of time. Guidance and Inspiration might help with the first one or two 'checks', but after that, it's all on the Thief. So a mid-level Thief might have, what, +12'ish? (+4 Dex, +4 x2 Expertise) And that's for how many skills? Two, or is it three at mid-level? With a DC of 20 to 25, that's roughly 50% plus or minus. Chances are that if the Thief has to make, say, 6 of these rolls...he's going to fail at least one or two, probably three. That makes for a pretty "bad thief", in terms of doing his job.

A lot of DM's like to take the more "cinematic" approach to DM'ing. In this, the Thief PC is expected to succeed at all the 'little things leading up to the big things'; this is where a DM will decide the DC's will be low'ish...so the Thief succeeds automatically or virtually so. But then, suddenly, as soon as the Thief gets to the Grand Chamber, all the DC's for locks, hiding, climbing, sneaking, etc, jump up by +10 to +20. Now the Thief will almost be guaranteed to fail...unless he has that Guidance, Inspiration, WhateverElse bonuses. ... ... And that's where I, with my DM'ing style, have a problem. It is a serious disconnect from "the realities of the campaign world". I mean, if the lighting and material of the room has the Sneak/Hide DC set at 30, but the other halls/rooms had it set at 20...WHY did the bad guy not just apply the same thing everywhere in his stronghold so that it was always DC 30? If the doors all had DC 18 locks...except for the one into his room, with DC 29, what is the reasoning? Any bad guy that can afford to find/get one lock at DC 29 *would* have all of his locks in his stronghold at DC 29. Cost? C'mon...unless he JUST, as in the last week, purchased the place and hadn't had time to replace them, there is no logical way. I mean, would a PC do the same thing...or would the PC factor in "Ok, we need XXXXgp's so all the locks will be DC 29"? Yeah, exactly. So why wouldn't an NPC bad guy do the same?

Anyway, this is getting a bit long-in-the-tooth so I'll sum up. By me keeping my DC's comparative to THE COMMON POPULATION of the world, where a DC 15 is "a bit tricky" for a commoner to pull off (re: will fail sometimes), and DC 25 is "quite difficult" for a commoner to pull off (re: will fail often/always), it gives my Players a solid grasp of what any perceived task's difficulty may be. If the common folk say that the Cliff's of Insanity are impossible for anyone to climb...the Players can guesstimate a DC of probably at least 22, likely 25, with the possibility of even higher. If the common folk say that the Cliff's of Insanity are impossible for all but the most skilled climber...then the Players can probably guess DC 18 to 22. If the common folk say that the Cliff's of Insanity are "really steep and dangerous, so best take your time", again, the Players can surmise somewhere in the low/mid-teens (say, 13 to 15). By approaching my world building this way, everything is consistent...at least in terms of "from a commoners point of view". In this regard, Expertise, as it is, isn't a problem because all it really does is let the Thief PC really show off his skills. I always think of Thieves as they were in BECMI for some reason...where a Thief tries to avoid melee combat at virtually all costs (crappy AC and only d4hp's, remember?). I hated that "Rogues" became "nimble damage dealers" in 3.x onward. Never sat well with me. So by sticking to the way Expertise is now, it at least tempts the Player to be, well, more "sneaky-sneak" Thief and less "stabby-stab" thief. And, IMNSHO, any rule that does that needs to be encouraged.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[clearstream]

Expertise, as it is, isn't a problem because all it really does is let the Thief PC really show off his skills.

A few posters have written more or less this, which is why I think Expertise should just scale with Rogue (and Bard) levels. Looking over the rules history of D&D, things that have scaled with character level have often overshadowed other options and trivialised some kinds of challenges.

 

[Mistwell]

We have a Dwarf Battlemaster who expressly dipped for Expertise and Cunning Action. What I'm finding as DM is that Cunning Action raises no issues at the table: the dwarf is more mobile... fine. Expertise bends the fiction somewhat. We use feats, and he has it on Athletics. With Shield Master and a moderately strong character (16), I find that foes nearly always end up prone.

I played with the Shield Master field for over a year. I also found it effectively knocked foes prone (without expertise). But more importantly, I often found this to be nearly useless. They would just stand back up. Meanwhile our ranged attackers were pissed they now had disadvantage to attack that foe who was prone.

Another case of Expertise warping things is our Bard. The Druid casts Pass Without Trace and makes her Stealth godly... literally. Two characters have Guidance so there's that, too.

But that's Pass Without Trace, which is a GREAT spell and the bonus dwarfs any expertise bonus you get. Not sure how that's an expertise issue.

 

[clearstream]

I played with the Shield Master field for over a year. I also found it effectively knocked foes prone (without expertise). But more importantly, I often found this to be nearly useless. They would just stand back up. Meanwhile our ranged attackers were pissed they now had disadvantage to attack that foe who was prone.

It depends what your players choose to do. That a mechanic can be exploited doesn't mean it will be at all tables. There was a period where Warlock players didn't like downed foes, but that seems to have passed.

But that's Pass Without Trace, which is a GREAT spell and the bonus dwarfs any expertise bonus you get. Not sure how that's an expertise issue.

The feeling I get from 5th is that it had strong attention to balance through the first two tiers, much less so thereafter. For 30 or 40 sessions all went well. The Battlemaster didn't even have Expertise until about session 20. The characters can now layer buffs from several sources, and I see some mechanics showing marked imbalance. Stacked modifiers have been a mechanical issue in many RPGs so this isn't really a surprise. It's impressive that they work as well as they do.

Mechanics aren't sacred, and I think a fix can retain things people care about while better retaining challenge and the value of other options. So far, I see posters wanting Rogues to be great at skills, so perhaps scale it with Rogue levels. That could even make Rogues feel more worthwhile to play.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Does anyone have a problem with Expertise, outside of Perception and Athletics?

Any contested skill can potentially cause problems if bonuses go off the die. So Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Insight, Perception, Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion. Slight of Hand isn't contested, but I can certainly see how a PC might annoy a DM with it by interrupting all the time or harassing important NPCs.

Other skills are much closer to binary tests of whether or not something works. Tool proficiency, vehicle proficiency, any Knowledge skill, Animal Handling, Medicine, Survival, and Performance don't really improve all that much if you roll a 30 instead of a 20, so why invest in a modifier above +10 or so?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Any contested skill can potentially cause problems if bonuses go off the die. So Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Insight, Perception, Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion. Slight of Hand isn't contested, but I can certainly see how a PC might annoy a DM with it by interrupting all the time or harassing important NPCs.

There's a limit to how much Acrobatics and Intimidation can help you, though. If you're unbeatable at Acrobatics, then you can escape from a grapple, but that's only useful the few times when someone tries to grapple you. If you never fail to Intimidate someone, or if you see through every lie that someone tells, then that's not really going to change anything.

Perception is in a unique place, because it comes up so frequently. For many characters, their Perception will be checked more frequently than every other skill put together. A lot of interaction is gated behind a Perception check to notice something in the first place.

Athletics is also in a unique place, because it's the only real contest that you can initiate against someone else while you're in combat. With multi-classing, or I guess as a bard, you can automatically knock someone down and keep them in place for an entire combat. You don't even need to roll, because the outcome is certain.

Perception and Athletics were the two skills that I noticed were most affected by expertise, when I played a rogue. Between expertise and reliable talent, I was moderately unstoppable. It felt unfair.

 

[Mistwell]

Let me put this a different way.

If there were a feat, and the ONLY thing it did were grant Expertise in one skill, would that feat be overpowered? Would a lot of people take it?

 

[5ekyu]

Does anyone have a problem with Expertise, outside of Perception and Athletics?

Locks seem to come up a lot and stealth.