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

[5ekyu]

That's a bit of a circular argument, though, isn't it? Your DCs are high because the PC gets such a large bonus to the roll. If the PC doesn't get that large bonus you don't make the DC so high. A DC 27 lock is an automatic success for a high-level rogue with Dex 20 thanks to Reliable Talent.



That's a more telling argument, though I have plans for Sharpshooter.

Actually, if you look in the DMG, the basic guidelines for DCs put you in the 10-15-20 range with some up and down based on factors that are very similar to what he just described.

What he described was a pretty std st of DCs just like the same can be expected for AC.

But let's ask you the same question, if you the GM will just lower dnd raise the DC why bother changing the rules on expertise from +2-6 to flat +2? Why change z rule for what you already nerf?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

That's a bit of a circular argument, though, isn't it? Your DCs are high because the PC gets such a large bonus to the roll. If the PC doesn't get that large bonus you don't make the DC so high. A DC 27 lock is an automatic success for a high-level rogue with Dex 20 thanks to Reliable Talent.

Ahhh...and this is where we get into "DM'ing style".

As many on these forums know, I'm an unashamed "old skool killer DM" (according to modern day standards; back in the day I was just a "harsh but fair DM", generally speaking). So your statement of "If the PC doesn't get that large a bonus you don't make the DC so high"...er, simply put. No. I don't do that. I don't "build encounters/adventures to suit the PC's". The DC for a task will be based on the factors that go into deciding that DC...regardless of which PC is going to be doing the "rolling against it" task.

If I have determined that a "Complex Lock made by a Master Locksmith" has a DC of 25, then it's 25. If a 3rd level PC Thief has +8 on his Thieves' Tools, great! If he only has +2, also great! If he is 15th level with +11, again, great! The DC of that lock isn't going to change. It was 25 on day one of the campaign, it's still 25 on day 1,228 of the campaign.

Also...I have no problems with a PC being able to "auto-succeed" at something because they are good at it. Why? Because there are FAR more things they are NOT good at...and sooner or later, their hubris and confidence will get them into a situation they can't get out of. And they die. And the Player makes a new 1st level PC. And we keep on gaming. And I add another skull sticker to my DM Screen (...or I would if I had skull stickers!... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[5ekyu]

Hiya!



Ahhh...and this is where we get into "DM'ing style".

As many on these forums know, I'm an unashamed "old skool killer DM" (according to modern day standards; back in the day I was just a "harsh but fair DM", generally speaking). So your statement of "If the PC doesn't get that large a bonus you don't make the DC so high"...er, simply put. No. I don't do that. I don't "build encounters/adventures to suit the PC's". The DC for a task will be based on the factors that go into deciding that DC...regardless of which PC is going to be doing the "rolling against it" task.

If I have determined that a "Complex Lock made by a Master Locksmith" has a DC of 25, then it's 25. If a 3rd level PC Thief has +8 on his Thieves' Tools, great! If he only has +2, also great! If he is 15th level with +11, again, great! The DC of that lock isn't going to change. It was 25 on day one of the campaign, it's still 25 on day 1,228 of the campaign.

Also...I have no problems with a PC being able to "auto-succeed" at something because they are good at it. Why? Because there are FAR more things they are NOT good at...and sooner or later, their hubris and confidence will get them into a situation they can't get out of. And they die. And the Player makes a new 1st level PC. And we keep on gaming. And I add another skull sticker to my DM Screen (...or I would if I had skull stickers!... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Exactly, I like explaining the "baselines" for dcs in my setting session zero then run it so consistently and then narratively providing enough that when they hit an unusual case - success or fail - they see it as an in character clue not just a GM sets dc.

Just like leather armor is the same AC whether being shot at by the archer or stabbed at by the desperate wizards with a dagger.

Why would a gm assuming "DC de jour" be worried at all about expertise? There is a logic disconnect there.

 

[Zen Ferno]

I GM in the exact same way. If DCs can shift arbitrarily, then the concept is completely meaningless. If a GM wants to tweak Difficulty to match narrative tension rather than a simulated (and set) Difficulty, they ought to be playing a Narrative system like DW or Genesys.

 

[clearstream]

You think it's disingenuous that I repeated my experience? I assure you, it's genuine. I have never seen anyone dip rogue for expertise, even if it was just expertise as the primary thing they were getting and they also got other things they might want. Or phrase it any way you want. In my experience, I have never seen anyone dip rogue with expertise in mind even vaguely.

You say you have. OK then, you're literally the first person I've heard who has done that.

So, would you say it's a problem? Was it overpowering in your game?

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.

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.

My present feeling is that Expertise is borderline. It depends on the specifics of use. My players are adroit at stacking Bardic Inspiration and Guidance to get very high ability checks. We play that only characters with proficiency can help another with a skill, but I find for key skills that more than one character very often has proficiency. I think it could be improved by scaling with Rogue (or Bard) levels and/or shifting to level 3 so it can't so cheaply be dipped.

 

[clearstream]

As someone that's GMed a game from level 1 to 18, and playing as RAW as possible, I can say it's not an issue to use Expertise as written.

We have a Cleric, a Paladin, a Sorcerer and a Rogue. The Rogue does trivialize "hard" Acrobatics and Deception checks, but it's never been as disruptive as anything the other party members do (flying, turning into gas clouds, summoning a literal storm of fire, nearly one-shotting a Vampire Lord, etc.)

At this high a level, the challenges are taking down evil demigods, so things like needing to run along a rope or lying to a guard are just for flavor anyway.

I think Expertise is fine on a Rogue. It becomes more problematic when dipped or stacked with other things, which is heavily conditioned on your players' choices.

I feel like having it scale with Rogue and Bard levels would retain what you like - Rogue can do a few cool things - and balance it a bit better in other cases. It's not a big deal, really, but the game could be improved by doing it. Less warping of the fiction in particular circumstances.

 

[Aldarc]

Skills are getting a bit out of hand as of late. You can get your expertise, and +1d4 for your subrace, and +1d4 for having the Guidance cantrip, and +1dx for having a bard in the party, and and 3-die super-advantage from a feat, all before level 5. I'm starting to get 3.x flashbacks here.

Consider instead:
You get an Expertise Bonus OR your Ability Mod Bonus.

That way, someone can pick up Expertise on, say History, and still be really good at it even if they have 8 Intelligence. And in the end you end up better than someone who is relying on raw talent.

Comments like this make me wonder whether D&D should (re-)consider "rolling under ability score" for all skills, saves, and combat. It seems like it would reduce all these floating addative numbers.

 

[Quartz]

The DC of that lock isn't going to change. It was 25 on day one of the campaign, it's still 25 on day 1,228 of the campaign.

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.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

At this point I think we might have to award troll points cuz it seems really odd maybe incomprehensible to be worrying about how easily a tier-4 character with magical support can deal with a very hard lock.

If the thing at tier-4 that makes you say "too powerful, I need rules changes to rein this in" are those handful of rogue skills, by all means, I think you need to house rule it. Just make the change and rest easy.

 

[pemerton]

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.