Skill/Tool Expertise Houserule

[AvatarVecna]

I've got a houserule I intend to implement in a RL 5e game. The basic idea is that, if a character would receive proficiency in a skill or tool set they're already proficient in, they can choose a different skill/tool set to become proficient in (as they can now) OR they now have expertise in that skill. The group in question doesn't optimize much, so I'm not expecting them to totally abuse this.

Thoughts?

[Kryx]

I wouldn't. It'll create more specialized characters. People will choose background to double up on those amazing skills like perception.

Plus it weakens the rogue's appeal.

[AstralFire]

Agreed with Kryx. It's an easy mechanical slope to stacking modifiers.

[jaydubs]

Expertise feels like it should stay exclusive to the resident skillmonkeys (rogues and bards). It's a big part of what makes them superior skill users to other classes.

Choosing another proficiency sounds reasonable. I'd restrict a duplicate tool proficiency to granting another tool proficiency, but add a language option (player's choice). But a duplicate skill proficiency can become a skill, tool proficiency, or language proficiency (player's choice). That's how backgrounds are balanced, anyway, with languages and tool proficiency being interchangeable with each other, but not with skills. Skill just feel more powerful to me than tools or languages.

[AvatarVecna]

Would it be more balanced if the "duplicated proficiency means expertise" thing was only an option at 1st level? That would prevent several skill sources from granting tons of expertise.

Also, part of the problem I'm looking at is (for example) that elves receive Perception proficiency for free, which doesn't quite mesh with certain literary character capabilities. Sure, an elf is more likely to be proficient in Perception than your average human, but they aren't any more perceptive than a human who's also proficient in Perception.

"Legolas, what do your elven eyes see?"

"Nothing your human eyes couldn't, since your Wisdom (Perception) bonus is just as good as mine."

[Cyan Wisp]

Seems...okay. Not sure. Does it steal the thunder from rogues and bards? Maybe limit it to one skill or tool so it represents a real focus, perhaps?

I might steal this idea for expert NPCs - talented smiths, renowned masons or high-class tailors or whatever. Again, just the one tool or skill, but representing dedicated training, like 3.5e skill focus.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, part of the problem I'm looking at is (for example) that elves receive Perception proficiency for free, which doesn't quite mesh with certain literary character capabilities. Sure, an elf is more likely to be proficient in Perception than your average human, but they aren't any more perceptive than a human who's also proficient in Perception.

"Legolas, what do your elven eyes see?"

"Nothing your human eyes couldn't, since your Wisdom (Perception) bonus is just as good as mine."

They're only equal if the human and elf have the same level, wisdom score, and are both proficient in perception. It's not like every elf has to be better than every human at seeing things. It satisfies world-building purposes that elves are significantly better at perception on average. I think it's perfectly fair that a human who trained for it can have a similar perception score to an elf.


Also, I think your suggestion would devalue expertise a lot, and also encourage players to minmax their skill and background selection to only two or three skills, all of which would have expertise.

[jaydubs]

I still don't like the idea of giving away a significant class feature just based on picking the matching race or background. It would be like saying any half-orc gets a second attack because half-orcs are traditionally are good at hitting things. That's maybe slight hyperbole, but only in degree, not nature of the problem (giving away class features).

[silveralen]

If I were to do this, it would be half expertise (and wouldn't stack with expertise). I'm not entirely sure I like this idea regardless, but that's probably the route I'd take.

[Malifice]

I have a new feat in my campaigns called Skill Focus.

Select one tool or skill proficiency. You double your proficiency bonus when using that tool or skill proficiency. You also add one point to the ability score that that skill or tool runs off, to a maximum of 20.

[Slipperychicken]

I have a new feat in my campaigns called Skill Focus.

Select one tool or skill proficiency. You double your proficiency bonus when using that tool or skill proficiency. You also add one point to the ability score that that skill or tool runs off, to a maximum of 20.

That's looks like a balanced feat. My anti-homebrew bias wants me to come up with an objection, but I can't seem to find any.

[Malifice]

That's looks like a balanced feat. My anti-homebrew bias wants me to come up with an objection, but I can't seem to find any.

I balanced it being half a class feature (expertise affects 2 skills) and half an ability score increase.

It allows for classes to be good at a single skill (more if they want to blow more feats) without dipping Rogue or Bard.

Fighters (who gain 2 extra feats) can look at Athletics to acually be the combat machines they are supposed to be (shove, grapple, push etc). Same with Monks and Barbarians and other martials.

A wizard can also double Arcana bonus without dipping Rogue, and get +1 to intelligence at the same time. Or crafting skills for the 'Smith' type character and so forth.

It just kinda works.

My only gripe is the name. Im looking for something more dynamic than 'skill focus'.

[Naanomi]

A way to get 'expertise' with tools would be nice. One can't currently be a highly skilled sailor or navigator or brewer. A feat would be good to support this, but I wouldn't tie it to backgrounds.

[Knaight]

This seems entirely reasonable to me - the one issue is in whether rogues can use expertise to get triple proficiency added, which is a bit much with the numerical scale in use. Alternately, you could just have other skills be selected, while not having the expertise analog as an option.

[Spacehamster]

A way to get 'expertise' with tools would be nice. One can't currently be a highly skilled sailor or navigator or brewer. A feat would be good to support this, but I wouldn't tie it to backgrounds.

I always thought that expertise could be put on tools too, and will keep it that way since it wont unbalance anything since skills are generaly more useful compared to tools anyway, just lets you make your character be more unique. :)

[AvatarVecna]

I might steal this idea for expert NPCs - talented smiths, renowned masons or high-class tailors or whatever. Again, just the one tool or skill, but representing dedicated training, like 3.5e skill focus.

This was the original purpose: making vaguely capable NPCs while allowing players to get pretty good as well. Incidentally, I think I'll include the "once per character" rule to the original rule. That should allow the flexibility I was looking for without being completely overpowered.

[Malifice]

This seems entirely reasonable to me - the one issue is in whether rogues can use expertise to get triple proficiency added, which is a bit much with the numerical scale in use. Alternately, you could just have other skills be selected, while not having the expertise analog as an option.

PHB page 12: If you have an ability that lets you double your proficiency bonus more than once, you only double it once.

[Knaight]

This was the original purpose: making vaguely capable NPCs while allowing players to get pretty good as well. Incidentally, I think I'll include the "once per character" rule to the original rule. That should allow the flexibility I was looking for without being completely overpowered.

That would help a lot. It leaves rogues able to get expertise on three things instead of one, which is a pretty hefty benefit, alongside other advantages.


PHB page 12: If you have an ability that lets you double your proficiency bonus more than once, you only double it once.
That's the standard. There's a case to be made for breaking that standard if implementing this, in that one narrow case. The once per character rule is a much cleaner method for differentiating between rogues and other classes though, as the triple proficiency bonus is fine in the early game, but gets a bit out of hand. +18 before ability modifiers on a d20 is pushing it, +23 after is just broken, and if magic items get involved it can get worse.

[Malifice]

That would help a lot. It leaves rogues able to get expertise on three things instead of one, which is a pretty hefty benefit, alongside other advantages.


That's the standard. There's a case to be made for breaking that standard if implementing this, in that one narrow case. The once per character rule is a much cleaner method for differentiating between rogues and other classes though, as the triple proficiency bonus is fine in the early game, but gets a bit out of hand. +18 before ability modifiers on a d20 is pushing it, +23 after is just broken, and if magic items get involved it can get worse.

My skill focus feat above does the same thing. Allows any class to specialise in a skill. Now monks and fighters can actually be good at grapplling without taking a dip into Rogue.

[Malifice]

That's the standard. There's a case to be made for breaking that standard.

While the rule says your PB can only be doubled once, it leaves open of adding to it. Although I wouldnt personally; it would be better served via advantage mechanism (to preserve bounded accuracy).

You could have the following feat:

Skill Mastery
Prerequisite: Having feat or class feature that doubles your proficiency bonus in at least one skill or tool proficiency


Select one skill or tool to master when you choose this feat. You must be able to double your proficiency bonus in that skill via a class feature or feat. You have advantage on any checks you make with that skill or tool.
You gain +1 to the ability score assosciated with that skill or tool to a maximum of 20.


Just a thought.

[Kryx]

This was the original purpose: making vaguely capable NPCs while allowing players to get pretty good as well. Incidentally, I think I'll include the "once per character" rule to the original rule. That should allow the flexibility I was looking for without being completely overpowered.

I think you missed the point of many posters. Once doesn't solve the issues we presented, but it looks like you can't be dissuaded.

[JohnDaBarr]

I have seen this topic being discussed a lot lately because a good number of people are discontent with the success rate their characters have with skill checks, and to set the record strait I'm not advocating here that impossible (read: highly improbable) stuff is made easier to achieve but to adjust the problem with common checks. The problem lies in the fact that players expect and are to some degree accustomed from other games/editions to have 80-90% chance of success doing relatively common stuff they are trained in (proficient) but in 5ed they suddenly have 55-65% chance. So if a DM wants to deal with that problem he shouldn't simply deal around skill expertise like it's candy, but simply adjust the skill DC. Instead something having DC 15 make it DC 12 or 13 and suddenly your players will gave a better time. This problem shouldn't be solved by giving more numbers or stuff to the players but by adjusting the difficulty bar that is in my opinion set to high for somethings in 5ed.

Also a part of that problem lies in how we perceive 5ed, since a lot of us are veterans of the old editions and have a certain bias towards numbers and how high should the bar be set, for instance a part of my brain screams ''That is too easy'' when I see a DC 15 but in 5ed DC15 isn't really that easy. For Pelor sake I still have problems comprehending that 21 AC is a lot...

As for the idea of Skill Focus and Skill Mastery feats I think is 10/10 would blatantly steal. Of topic: I was thinking somewhere in these lines about how other class features should be made accessible via feat similar with this and the Ritual Caster feat, and I believe I should start a thread about it.

[Kryx]

The problem lies in the fact that players expect and are to some degree accustomed from other games/editions to have 80-90% chance of success doing relatively common stuff they are trained in (proficient) but in 5ed they suddenly have 55-65% chance.

To me this is a solid rejection of the principles of 5e and bounded accuracy. 5e isn't built on the idea of PCs who become demi-gods. Old editions did that.

It can be done, but I don't think it should be. To each their own I guess.

[Naanomi]

Old editions did that.
3.X and 4 did that; people seem to gloss over the life of a 2e Thief and her percentile roll skills being below 50% for much of her career

[AvatarVecna]

I think you missed the point of many posters. Once doesn't solve the issues we presented, but it looks like you can't be dissuaded.

I didn't come here looking for "use this" or "don't use this", I came here looking for the potential balance problems. I'm aware that employing this rule unbalances the game quite a bit in some aspects, but with my home group rarely optimizing in any respect, and the fact that, unless we start there, we rarely reach double-digit levels in any edition, I think this rule will work out just fine for my group's purposes. How useful/balanced/broken this rule is in games with players focused on optimization instead of characterization doesn't matter for my purposes, because my group isn't like that.

I appreciate all the feedback I've received on this.

[JohnDaBarr]

I didn't come here looking for "use this" or "don't use this", I came here looking for the potential balance problems. I'm aware that employing this rule unbalances the game quite a bit in some aspects, but with my home group rarely optimizing in any respect, and the fact that, unless we start there, we rarely reach double-digit levels in any edition, I think this rule will work out just fine for my group's purposes. How useful/balanced/broken this rule is in games with players focused on optimization instead of characterization doesn't matter for my purposes, because my group isn't like that.

I appreciate all the feedback I've received on this.

Well as I see it there won't be and particular balance problems, only difference will be that your group will have an easier time passing some skill checks while making your Rogue/Bard a bit jobless. But if your group is as you said reluctant to optimize then it wouldn't be an issue.

[AvatarVecna]

Well as I see it there won't be and particular balance problems, only difference will be that your group will have an easier time passing some skill checks while making your Rogue/Bard a bit jobless. But if your group is as you said reluctant to optimize then it wouldn't be an issue.

Texted the rule to a few of my players, one asked if there was a tool set for prostitutes (entirely in-character for this player and the characters they tend to play). I think it's gonna be fine.:smalltongue:

[Kryx]

The reason I'm heavily dissuading using this ruling is that it sounds like you're trying to emulate the features of 3.x and 4e.
The same way I'd caution any DM from handing out bunches and bunches of magic items. (most in 3.x and 4e were math fixes)

If you're doing it for flavor and don't mind PCs taking feats to essentially never fail a skill then that's your choice. 5e made a purposeful choice to not allow PCs to auto succeed and I think it's a great choice, but you may disagree with that design concept. You should at least try it out before changing it imo.

[AvatarVecna]

The reason I'm heavily dissuading using this ruling is that it sounds like you're trying to emulate the features of 3.x and 4e.
The same way I'd caution any DM from handing out bunches and bunches of magic items. (most in 3.x and 4e were math fixes)

If you're doing it for flavor and don't mind PCs taking feats to essentially never fail a skill then that's your choice. 5e made a purposeful choice to not allow PCs to auto succeed and I think it's a great choice, but you may disagree with that design concept. You should at least try it out before changing it imo.

I have tried it out, with this group even, just not at high level. Two previous 5e campaigns lasted 6 sessions (one starting at lvl 1, anothers starting at lvl 7); both ended in frustration due to lack of success. You're talking about 55-65% chance of success, but that assumes, at the very least, a vaguely optimized build and dice that aren't carrying out an ongoing campaign to kill their player's characters. I'd never consider implementing this rule in a pbp game here on the playground, but it'll serve as a safety net for the guy who insists on being an Assassin's Creed style rogue (complete with balancing and climbing) despite his average d20 roll being 6 or so.

Is that coddling the players a bit? Perhaps, but I'd rather coddle them a bit than have another game end with frustration that the cool characters they want to play keep dying because the rules say they can't be that awesome yet. If keeping the game fun means making skills easier to master, I'll take it.

[Person_Man]

I agree with Kryx et al. Expertise is rare ability that makes the Rogue and Bard special. And having more Skills + Thieves Tools is part of what makes the Rogue special. And bonuses of any kind are generally very rare in 5E, specifically to make them more special and balanced. There are also several spells that effect Skills, the Help Action, etc. If your players are failing, its because they haven't invested the proper resources to succeed, which forces them to resolve issues using the resources they do have (hit points, defenses, combat, etc).

Also, instead of increasing the player's bonuses, you might want to take a look at how you set DCs. The "old school" method (that I use) is to have players describe what they are doing, and then set the DC based on the natural consequences of what they describe. Do they take the time to use a grappling hook and rope, work together, and carefully use the crevaces to work their way up the side of the cliff? Lower the Athletics DC to Climb to 10, and give them Advantage for Helping each other. Do they poke the floor with a 10 foot pole as they walk? Lower the DC of finding the hidden pit trap to DC 5, because there's no way they'd miss it. Do they poke a pressure panel with a 10 foot pole? Raise the DC to find it to 20, because hitting a button with a pole is probably going to set it off. And so on.

[Shining Wrath]

Don't grant Expertise as it waters down Bards and Rogues. Unique class features ought to remain unique.

Consider granting Advantage, but only usable once per (long/short) rest. They've had more training, so if they really concentrate they can do amazing things - but it's tiring to do so.

[Knaight]

To me this is a solid rejection of the principles of 5e and bounded accuracy. 5e isn't built on the idea of PCs who become demi-gods. Old editions did that.

It can be done, but I don't think it should be. To each their own I guess.
Being reasonably likely to pass moderately difficult skill checks is not becoming a demi-god. The absolute maximum here is still +17, with a maxed out attribute and highest proficiency bonus. Actual campaigns are unlikely to see more than a +13, seeing how rare higher level play is. The first still has a 10% failure rate on a DC 20, and a 35% failure rate on a DC 25. The latter has a 5% failure rate even on a DC 15, a 30% failure rate on a DC 20, and a 55% failure rate on a DC 25. This isn't like 3.5, where you can roll 1d20+60 for a skill check. Those failure rates aren't out of bounds for a system like GURPS, and GURPS isn't exactly known for characters becoming untouchable demi-gods. If anything, it's known for very grounded characters that die all the time (I'd say realistic, but the skills are so stupidly specific that characters tend to end up unrealistically specialized). What this produces is characters who can be very good at a particular thing, and who manage routine tasks fairly easily, while having decent success chances against very difficult tasks that retain the ability to fail.


The reason I'm heavily dissuading using this ruling is that it sounds like you're trying to emulate the features of 3.x and 4e.
The same way I'd caution any DM from handing out bunches and bunches of magic items. (most in 3.x and 4e were math fixes)

If you're doing it for flavor and don't mind PCs taking feats to essentially never fail a skill then that's your choice. 5e made a purposeful choice to not allow PCs to auto succeed and I think it's a great choice, but you may disagree with that design concept. You should at least try it out before changing it imo.

It sounds like it is trying to implement a system that other games also happen to have implemented. 3e and 4e are arguably among them, though I'd consider what they did is pretty different regarding the sheer magnitude of the skill difference, the range of DCs, etc. I'd be much more inclined to use more grounded skill based systems as points of comparison. Put bluntly, this change reminds me of games I actually like, and not 3e or 4e.

[Person_Man]

Question: Are your PCs aware of the Help rules?

"When you take the Help action, the creature you aid gains advantage on the next ability check it makes to perform the task you are helping with, provided that it makes the check before the start of your next turn."

It basically grants Advantage to most Skill checks outside of combat.

There's also the Guidance Cantrip, Enhance Ability spell, and Pass Without Trace.