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

[GreyLord]

I wish combat attacks and skill checks used the same math. Wielding a weapon is like any other kind of skill. Expertise for sharpshooter and expertise for grappling and expertise for persuasion, should all be the same numeric value.

It was a mistake to create two different systems.

I've brought it up before, but I don't see it as that big of a problem, BUT if one wants to have such a system just bring in Weapon Specialization for Fighters and Warriors.

I treat it just like a Rogue Expertise, but instead it is used for a Fighter with a weapon of their choice. In this they can double their proficiency bonus with a chosen weapon. If one wanted to extend it to other Warriors (Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) they could...but I would NOT give it out to Rogues (they already have expertise in skills), Spellcasters (such as wizards, clerics, warlocks, sorcerers, as they already have their special bonus), or others who were not warriors.

Of course I don't see expertise breaking the game (and thus I do not see how weapon specialization of this sort would break the game). If one FINDS expertise to break the game though, this would also be likewise I believe. However, for those who don't believe expertise breaks the game I don't see any reason that this wouldn't be an idea to incorporate in regards to warriors/fighters and combat.

 

[Dausuul]

I wish combat attacks and skill checks used the same math. Wielding a weapon is like any other kind of skill. Expertise for sharpshooter and expertise for grappling and expertise for persuasion, should all be the same numeric value.

It was a mistake to create two different systems.

They would still be two different systems. Defeating an enemy in combat requires a whole bunch of attack rolls; skill checks are typically one-and-done. You can't just equalize the modifiers and call it the same system.

 

[Yaarel]

They would still be two different systems. Defeating an enemy in combat requires a whole bunch of attack rolls; skill checks are typically one-and-done. You can't just equalize the modifiers and call it the same system.

Defeating an enemy requires a number of attack rolls to complete a ‘challenge’. D&D specializes in combat mechanics and makes it complex.

Similarly, to complete a skill ‘challenge’ can part of a complex encounter that requires numerous skill checks. For example, for us, creating a magic item (or modifying an existing magic item) involves numerous challenges, from acquiring the rare ingredients to performing the proper magical rituals. In this sense, the skill challenge involves a number of skill checks. Where combat results in finding random loot, skill results in creating or otherwise obtaining your own loot.

Also, I enjoy nonlethal combat encounters, where the opponent flees, is captured, bargained with, or stealthed past. I find this more realistic, and diverse skill checks often determine the outcome.



Also note, if combat requires many attack rolls, one would expect a single skill check to be more challenging, opposite an expertise auto-win bonus that effectively removes the possibility of a challenge.

 

[Ristamar]

I wish combat attacks and skill checks used the same math. Wielding a weapon is like any other kind of skill. Expertise for sharpshooter and expertise for grappling and expertise for persuasion, should all be the same numeric value.

It was a mistake to create two different systems.

If I had to venture a guess at designer intent, it's likely due to the fact that combat often becomes a boring slog for the less martially skilled when there's too much variance (akin to 3.x). The same slog would likely occur with a string of very long, overly complex skill challenges.

Characters are able to shine in different ways in combat through their class features, but the basic roll-to-hit mechanic is fairly tight and homogeneous and notably weighted toward success. Since most skill checks are one-and-done, though, a little more variance helps highlight and differentiate the PCs in the areas outside of combat without grinding away the momentum of the game.

Symmetry simply for the sake of symmetry without deference to disparate design features and goals is foolish, IMO, especially when the measured exceptions and asynchronous bits are often what make the game fun and interesting.

 

[Jester David]

I wish combat attacks and skill checks used the same math. Wielding a weapon is like any other kind of skill. Expertise for sharpshooter and expertise for grappling and expertise for persuasion, should all be the same numeric value.

It was a mistake to create two different systems.

There's no shortage of other RPGs that have weapon use as a variety of skill check. Where you train in "Swords" or "Bows".
But it's not very D&D. And 5e really tried to hit on the key elements of D&D rather than remaking the game.

 

[Dausuul]

Defeating an enemy requires a number of attack rolls to complete a ‘challenge’. D&D specializes in combat mechanics and makes it complex.

Similarly, to complete a skill ‘challenge’ can part of a complex encounter that requires numerous skill checks. For example, for us, creating a magic item (or modifying an existing magic item) involves numerous challenges, from acquiring the rare ingredients to performing the proper magical rituals. In this sense, the skill challenge involves a number of skill checks. Where combat results in finding random loot, skill results in creating or otherwise obtaining your own loot.

Also, I enjoy nonlethal combat encounters, where the opponent flees, is captured, bargained with, or stealthed past. I find this more realistic, and diverse skill checks often determine the outcome.

Also note, if combat requires many attack rolls, one would expect a single skill check to be more challenging, opposite an expertise auto-win bonus that effectively removes the possibility of a challenge.

Both of those scenarios - a diverse array of skill checks, or a single skill check - are very, very different from making the same check over and over. When you're making the same check repeatedly (an attack roll), even a small increase in that check makes a big difference.

In a combat, making 2 attacks per round for five rounds, you might have to hit (let's say) 7 times to win before you are yourself defeated. If you normally hit on a roll of 8 or better, a +2 bonus to your attack roll (e.g., from Archery) increases your chances of victory by 26%! It's like a skill challenge where the DM always calls for the same skill. Any bonus to that skill, however small, is worth gold.

To get the same benefit in a one-and-done skill check, you need a +5 bonus... like high-level Expertise. And in a skill challenge where many different skills are called for, it might not even be possible to get +26% out of a bonus to one single skill.

 

[Yaarel]

There's no shortage of other RPGs that have weapon use as a variety of skill check. Where you train in "Swords" or "Bows".
But it's not very D&D. And 5e really tried to hit on the key elements of D&D rather than remaking the game.

Personally, my interest is more toward making skill checks more like combat − robust, balanced, thoughtful, challenging.

When skills use the same math that combat does, then it is easier to adjudicate the difficulty and the appropriate levels when difficult stunts should be more plausible. Consistent math makes it easier to handle skill checks on the fly, as they arise naturally as part of narrative decisions by players.

Also, when skills use the same math as combat, it is easier and more balanced to integrate skill checks as *part* of innovative or situational attack maneuvers.

 

[5ekyu]

As precedent, I'll cite two of the Fighter's Combat Styles: Sharpshooter is a fixed +2 to hit and Duellist is a fixed +2 to damage. Both are initially the same as the Proficiency Bonus but unlike Expertise stay there.

The problem with this is that the fighter attacks scale as they advance, so at 5th level those +2s apply more than once a turn and keep gaining benefit and umphh as you continue to gain more attacks. Similarly, as the damage tends to rise that +2 also gains more yield per strike.

Meanwhile the +2 becomes still a +2 applying typically only once a turn exception being cases where you might get a bonus action check and an action check on the same turn with both being expertise skills.

If this is your foundation for a +2 expertise house rule you should limit fighting style bonuses to "once a turn" and I am sure your martial players will be fine with that if it reins in those game wrecking rogue skills.

 

[Quartz]

If this is your foundation for a +2 expertise house rule you should limit fighting style bonuses to "once a turn" and I am sure your martial players will be fine with that if it reins in those game wrecking rogue skills.

I'm sorry but you're not demonstrating how this wrecks the rogue. Remember that the Rogue gets Expertise in more skills, Reliable Talent, and so on. So, please elaborate.

 

[Caliban]

Currently, Expertise doubles your proficiency bonus. This means that PCs can simply take a level of Rogue and instantly get +4 to +12 to their roll. That doesn't seem right to me, and mathematically, multipliers are a bad idea where bounded accuracy is involved.

So how about having Expertise as a plain +2? That's low enough to not be game-breaking but high enough to matter, especially at low levels. Rogues could perhaps improve it to +4 at 10th level instead of the ASI.

How would this affect the game?

Mass chaos and the destruction of all you hold dear.