Replacing Expertise

[Grod_The_Giant]

I admit that I've hardly been shy on my dislike for 5e's skill system, but now I want to turn my eye to what I consider one of the most egregious aspect: Expertise. Putting aside all the probability math, I see Expertise as... if not a problem, certainly an irritation. Why?

First of all, it breaks Bounded Accuracy. Badly. Seriously, why does this exist? Literally the entire rest of the game is dedicated to keeping your numbers low and treating every tiny bonus as a big deal, and here's a low-level feature that can quite possibly double your bonus. At the very least, it's a continual fifty percent increase, no cost demanded. It blows every other bonus out of the water.

Because of that,you must be a Bard or Rogue to be good.. Not a skillmonkey-that's a different thing-but to be good at your shtick. Because of the BA-breaking nature of the class feature, it's hard to argue that having Expertise puts you on a very different playing field. At the bare minimum, they'll be slightly better than your maxed-ability-proficiancy; at worst they'll have the aforementioned fifty percent increase. It's insane. Only a Bard or Rogue can possibly hit the highest DCs.

And, of course, outsized bonuses can cause problems for DMs, since one party member's skill can so drastically outclass another's. Not as badly as past editions, but obstacles included to challenge the average party member are a lot less meaningful to the guy with Expertise, and vice-versa. It's still opening the gap the edition was supposed to close.

So...I'd like to look at potential replacements. Something to fill the same role, but without the number-breaking bit. So far, I've thought of:
Perma-Advantage. It's short and simple, but it's not a tremendously unique bonus either. It basically means you're as good at working alone as most people are in a team. It also trivializes normal sources of Advantage, including clever play.
Rerolls. Slightly more complex, perhaps, but provides a similar boost to reliability (as opposed to raw numbers). The downside is that it would (probably) be a limited resource.
Minimum Rolls. Basically a lesser version of the Rogue's Reliable Talent, or perhaps a version of the DMG's auto-success rules. Great skillmonkey abilities that encourage players to take risks and actually use their skills, but threatens to step on the toes of the aforementioned sources.

I dunno, what do you guys think?

[Sander]

I'm going to allow myself to be entirely frank here, so disregard any potentially mean comments if you like; Now, I don't personally mind the expertise mechanic, but, like you, I do see the issue and how it absolutely butchers bonded accuracy. That being said, I also dislike each and every replacement option you mentioned. Why? Well, they're so awfully bland and seem more like nerfbat inc. than anything else. Allow me elaborate: The expertise ability puts a given character leaps and bounds ahead of other characters attempting the same skill rolls. Is this good? I dunno, probably not, but what it does do, is make the Rogue or Bard feel sorta special. They might be doing the same thing as the fighter, but the difference between them is like Einstein and Paris Hilton trying their hand at quantum mechanics - it's not exactly a fair playing field, which, honestly, I like. Could we replace this mechanic? Absolutely, but in my opinion it'd have to be a change to something else entirely. I propose creating a new ability, use the same name if desired, granting the character "expertise" in the amount of skills as normal, but instead of expertise doubling the prof. bonus, it allows that particular skill to be used for a new purpose. I haven't done the entirety of my homework here, I admit, but something along the lines of being able to use acrobatics to wall-run shorter distances, athletics to maybe sunder stuff, insight as quasi-mind reading, perception as a lesser version of the Battlemaster's lv.7 ability "Know Your Enemy" allowing you to ask a question or two regarding an individual's stats or whatnot. This is, in no way or form, a complete houserule, but the idea is, quite simply, to replace expertise with an expanded skill system. Like, 1 or 2 new ways to use each skill, listed neatly under the ability description, and then you choose however many expertises you would normally get. It won't butcher bonded accuracy, but still allow an expertised character to feel special using that skill, arguably even more so than before as they can now, literally, do something with that skill that nobody else can. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

[Thomeyis]

I don't think it's much of a problem. Your proficiency bonus is going to be less than 4 for the vast majority of play, which makes the difference between +9 (assuming +5 ability modifier here) and +13. Sure, your modifier is 50% higher, but the actual chance of success on a skill roll only goes up by 20%. Advantage will frequently outshine this. Considering that's one of the primary draws of the Rogue/Lore Bard, I don't see it as something to worry about.

[pwykersotz]

I'm a fan of higher minimums myself. But in an effort to come up with new ideas...

The character with expertise rolls 2d10 for that skill, plus 1d10 for each source of expertise thereafter. Roll all d10's at once and choose the highest two.

This has the advantage of never breaking the limit of 20, forcing a higher average, and accounting for multiple sources of expertise.

[smcmike]

I'm a fan of higher minimums myself. But in an effort to come up with new ideas...

The character with expertise rolls 2d10 for that skill, plus 1d10 for each source of expertise thereafter. Roll all d10's at once and choose the highest two.

This has the advantage of never breaking the limit of 20, forcing a higher average, and accounting for multiple sources of expertise.

This is an interesting idea, but not a good expertise replacement, since it drastically reduces the chances of rolling high.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm going to allow myself to be entirely frank here, so disregard any potentially mean comments if you like; Now, I don't personally mind the expertise mechanic, but, like you, I do see the issue and how it absolutely butchers bonded accuracy. That being said, I also dislike each and every replacement option you mentioned. Why? Well, they're so awfully bland and seem more like nerfbat inc. than anything else. Allow me elaborate: The expertise ability puts a given character leaps and bounds ahead of other characters attempting the same skill rolls. Is this good? I dunno, probably not, but what it does do, is make the Rogue or Bard feel sorta special. They might be doing the same thing as the fighter, but the difference between them is like Einstein and Paris Hilton trying their hand at quantum mechanics - it's not exactly a fair playing field, which, honestly, I like. Could we replace this mechanic? Absolutely, but in my opinion it'd have to be a change to something else entirely. I propose creating a new ability, use the same name if desired, granting the character "expertise" in the amount of skills as normal, but instead of expertise doubling the prof. bonus, it allows that particular skill to be used for a new purpose. I haven't done the entirety of my homework here, I admit, but something along the lines of being able to use acrobatics to wall-run shorter distances, athletics to maybe sunder stuff, insight as quasi-mind reading, perception as a lesser version of the Battlemaster's lv.7 ability "Know Your Enemy" allowing you to ask a question or two regarding an individual's stats or whatnot. This is, in no way or form, a complete houserule, but the idea is, quite simply, to replace expertise with an expanded skill system. Like, 1 or 2 new ways to use each skill, listed neatly under the ability description, and then you choose however many expertises you would normally get. It won't butcher bonded accuracy, but still allow an expertised character to feel special using that skill, arguably even more so than before as they can now, literally, do something with that skill that nobody else can. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
To be honest, I would love to see a system like that, for any D&D-type system that treats skills as largely an afterthought. I just don't want it tied to specific class features; I'd much rather improve the generic way that all characters interact with the world--give non-casters more appropriately scaling noncombat abilities.

[Sander]

To be honest, I would love to see a system like that, for any D&D-type system that treats skills as largely an afterthought. I just don't want it tied to specific class features; I'd much rather improve the generic way that all characters interact with the world--give non-casters more appropriately scaling noncombat abilities.

Agreed, this would be a fantastic skill system overall, but tying it to class features - at least the first time around - wouldn't be such a terrible idea, I think. Think of it like both an experiment for further improvements to the general skill system as well as a replacement for expertise. One, that works a little like battlemasters' maneuvers - doing something you've always done, and giving it a new spin/angle or an extra effect.

[MrStabby]

I think there are some good points and some bad points here.

Firstly, I like that characters can put resources into improving skills. I like that there exist classes that can boost this. I think that skills can be an important way to add to RP and I like that there is both a magical and a non magical class (well 2 classes if you include the knowledge cleric) that can add this to a character.

Secondly I like that it is significant. I think a comparison to combat invoking bounded accuracy is not really useful. In combat, if your to hit rolls fall behind, you are an irrelevancy and in terms of play time combat can be a significant part of a campaign. Having to sit out fights because you didnt optimise for combat would be a poor game. On the other hand, if you are sitting out knowledge religion checks it is a much smaller deal.

In agreement, I have problems with some skills (maybe due to being a poor DM, but the system doesnt make it easy). These are the social skills; there are too many problems in most game worlds that can be circumvented by high skills, especially if you want to differentiate high skills from medium or low skill in these areas.



Whilst much harder to fix, I personally think that some of the challenge is in the multiclassing rules. If it were easy enough for any character to take a splash of bard or rogue if they wanted to RP a more skilled version of their class (sacrificing other features for skills) then this really wouldn't be an issue.

[Tanarii]

I dunno, what do you guys think?I think you should reduce all DCs by 5 too. Make chance of success for everyone 25% higher across the board.

Suggestion based on your expressed dislike for how low success chances are in other threads, and your comment here about "you must be a Bard or Rogue to be good".

I think that'd work in conjunction with perma-advantage.

[Demonic Spoon]

1. Bounded accuracy does not mean that no one gets any bonuses to anything ever. If expertise breaks bounded accuracy, then so do ability score increases, skill proficiency in general, archery fighting style, etc.

The bounds of accuracy already include expertise; it's part of the core system as released.

2. Expertise, and expertise-like mechanics like what Knowledge clerics and dwarves get, are exactly there to represent being awesome at a skill. If another class does not have expertise or a similar mechanic, they are not meant to be awesome at that specific skill, period.

If for example you think wizards should be really good at Arcana checks, then they should get expertise in it somehow. The fact that a rogue can get Arcana expertise doesn't stop a wizard from being really good at Arcana, since the wizard was never able to be really good at Arcana in the first place. A wizard was always exactly as good as any other class with the same INT and profiency.

3. I don't get how you can seriously argue that expertise makes the DM's life hard when the DM is expected to account for things like players teleporting across the continent or getting direct help from their god. Players get powerful abilities that can affect the narrative; expertise is just one of those abilities.

[pwykersotz]

This is an interesting idea, but not a good expertise replacement, since it drastically reduces the chances of rolling high.

Does it?

According to anydice (http://anydice.com/program/d07) it drops the odds of a 20 by 2.2%, but increases the odds of another high number vastly.

[Tanarii]

Does it?

According to anydice (http://anydice.com/program/d07) it drops the odds of a 20 by 2.2%, but increases the odds of another high number vastly.You said a character with expertise rolls 2d10. That reduces the chances of everything 17+.

http://anydice.com/program/271f

I'm assuming you meant '2d10 + 1d10 per source of expertise, including the first'?

[pwykersotz]

You said a character with expertise rolls 2d10. That reduces the chances of everything 17+.

http://anydice.com/program/271f

I'm assuming you meant '2d10 + 1d10 per source of expertise, including the first'?

Doh! :smallredface:

You're right, I typo'd. I meant 2d10 plus 1d10 for each source of expertise, so yeah, 3d10 for the first.

[JellyPooga]

I dunno, what do you guys think?

I think you've grasped the wrong end of the straw. Expertise and similar abilities are meant to represent an extraordinary level of ability. A character with Expertise is not only good or proficient, they're an expert. Expertise is not just someone that happens to be good at skill, it's someone that has both talent and training. A guy with Expertise is almost always better than anyone else he meets at his chosen field; he's the olympic athlete, the professional historian, the go-to guy if you need a thing done.

Expertise is supposed to break the normal dynamic of the game. Yes, any character can be proficient with Arcana or Perception or with Thieves Tools, but only a Rogue or Bard can truly be an Expert; that's part of their raison d'etre, just as being handy in a fight is a Fighters schtick, being better than everyone else at skills is theirs.

If you don't like the notion of a Rogue being better than a Cleric at Religion or a Wizard at Arcana, I still think you're looking at things the wrong way. For example; a Cleric is focused on his own religion. He has a good working knowledge of his deity, his deities religious observances, scripture and holidays. He is not, necessarily, so hot on other deities, let alone other pantheons or other fields encompassed by the Religion skill. A Rogue or Bard that has chosen Religion as an Expertise, on the other hand...he does know about many religions, his own and others, he does know about the undead and the inner and outer planes, because he's a student of Religion, not just a practitioner. Similar reasoning can be applied to Wizards and Arcana, Druids and Nature or Bards and Performance (and so on and so forth).

If you scale back Expertise such that it doesn't allow for a significant bonus over someone that doesn't have it, you've missed the point of the ability. If you scale it back so that it's just another source of Advantage, or a similar bonus that doesn't actually allow you to achieve a greater degree of success than someone that doesn't have it, then you've missed the point of the ability. It's designed to allow that greater degree of success; to allow that character to surpass all others in that field. A Fighter might be strong and trained in athletic pursuits and have a chance of achieving the impossible (max Athletics mod +11, "Nearly Impossible" DC = 30), but the Rogue acrobat who's been flying the trapeze since before he could walk...that guy considers the "impossible" to be part of his every-day job with his max mod of +17 and a minimum score of 27 from Reliable Talent.

In short, what most people consider difficult or impossible, the Expert should consider routine. If your proposed modification to Expertise does not achieve this, you're doing something wrong. All of the OPs suggestions give a greater chance of rolling higher, but don't actually give any possibility of getting a greater degree of success than anyone else.

[smcmike]

Well said Jelly. The circus acrobat is a great example. Expertise is for extremely difficult tasks that are also essentially save-or-dies, things that no one would even attempt if they couldn't be quite sure that they would succeed.

[Zman]

Personally I'm a fan of lowering DCs and making Expertise Advantage.m sure,miss bland, but so is just doubling proficiency. And it doesn't break bounded Accuracy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The bounds of accuracy already include expertise; it's part of the core system as released.
That's part of the issue, in a way. These two classes scale differently than everyone else; the system has to either take that into account, and suddenly math is weird for someone*.


*I've noticed that probabilities with Expertise look significantly more appropriate than without; it makes me wonder whether the Easy/Medium/Hard categories were made with them in mind, or if Expertise was a hasty patch job.

[NewDM]

My view on this is that they should have put the skill monkey stuff into a Class Option (Archetype or College) of the rogue or bard. It would look something like this:

Roguish Archetype - Skill Monkey

Skilled Hands.
When you use choose this archetype at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to make a skill check with a skill you are proficient in, when you do this you have disadvantage on the roll.

Expertise.
At 3rd level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies and your proficiency with thieves' tools. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies. At 6th level, you can choose two more of your proficiencies (in skills or with thieves' tools) to gain this benefit.

Widely Skilled
At 9th level, choose two skills you are not proficient in, you gain proficiency in those skills.

Reliable Talent.
By 13th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

Master of Skills
By 17th level, you have dabbled in a little bit of everything. You now treat any untrained skills as trained, and add your proficiency bonus.

Bard would be similar except it would be about gaining proficiency in more skills and possibly getting the identify spell for free once per day or something.

[Theodoxus]

I'm with Demonic Jelly here - it can't break BA, as it's part of the core mechanic.

However, in the other thread regarding skills, someone hit on an idea that I actually like - it takes Expertise and turns it on its head. Doubling the attribute mod instead of the proficiency bonus. For one, it means that wizards with maxed int will still fare well against Knowledge clerics in int checks. For another, it's maxed at +10 [sans attribute boosting magic items], which reduces the 'breaking BA' crowds mantra.

[JellyPooga]

However, in the other thread regarding skills, someone hit on an idea that I actually like - it takes Expertise and turns it on its head. Doubling the attribute mod instead of the proficiency bonus.

On the surface, this looks like a pretty good idea, but I have one concern. It precludes the use of Expertise to ameliorate a low Stat.

For example; the typical "Strength:8 Halfling" that's good at climbing; his Strength is low but needs good Athletics to be a decent climber. Step in Expertise (as written) and lo, despite a negative Strength mod, he's still as good as someone with regular proficiency and an above average Strength. At level 1. At higher levels, it's likely he'll eventually surpass any but specialised users with regular proficiency. He can claim to be "good" at climbing, where with regular proficiency he really cannot with his max skill mod of +5.

The "double stat bonus" solution doesn't provide for this.

[Naanomi]

Are you also opposed to all the other sources of flat/variable bonuses to skills? Guidance, Bend Luck, Dark One's Own Luck, and (most prominently) Bardic Inspiration... Natural Explorer and Dragon Ancestor also join Expertise, Blessing of Knowledge, and Stonecutting as a doubling mechanic. A fair number of magic items also add flat bonuses (an Ioun Stone increasing proficiency bonus; a few others for specific skills)

[Tanarii]

*I've noticed that probabilities with Expertise look significantly more appropriate than without; it makes me wonder whether the Easy/Medium/Hard categories were made with them in mind, or if Expertise was a hasty patch job.
You really should just consider lowering all DCs by 5 across the board in your games, since you don't like the success chances.

In fact, IMO that'd also be appropriate in any game where the DM is handing out Ability/Skill checks like (slightly bitter) candy. And if a DM isn't taking into account that an non-proficient and non-talented individual has about a 50/50 shot of failing the 'Easy' task when he calls for a check, he's not judging what 'Easy' means properly. The DMG explicitly tells a DM to keep that chance in mind.

Edit: not suggesting you hand out checks too often, or don't keep probability in mind. That was more of a general comment.

[djreynolds]

I'm with Demonic Jelly here - it can't break BA, as it's part of the core mechanic.

However, in the other thread regarding skills, someone hit on an idea that I actually like - it takes Expertise and turns it on its head. Doubling the attribute mod instead of the proficiency bonus. For one, it means that wizards with maxed int will still fare well against Knowledge clerics in int checks. For another, it's maxed at +10 [sans attribute boosting magic items], which reduces the 'breaking BA' crowds mantra.

Thank you good sir, that was me.

Just double the ability modifier for proficiency and triple it for expertise. It works and its fair, in that you must still invest in the ability to be good at the skill or an expert in it. You would see more rogues investing more heavily in wisdom to be good at perception.

And your right, that little Halfling with an 8 in strength stinks at climbing, he must invest something in that ability. This way you cannot dump a stat yet still be good in stuff that requires strength.

It may not be the solution our OP is looking for, but it does require work or investment of the character in that ability and in turn a weakening in another. It is a solution, just not the solution.

Try it out, a rogue's max stealth would 15 and the monks would be 10 if both maxed out dex. Oddly enough it has been said advantage is roughly +5 on a roll.

[JellyPooga]

Just double the ability modifier for proficiency and triple it for expertise.

And your right, that little Halfling with an 8 in strength stinks at climbing, he must invest something in that ability. This way you cannot dump a stat yet still be good in stuff that requires strength.

This...works less well than I initially imagined (where Proficiency was unchanged and Expertise gave double stat bonus). This system precludes anyone of Average ability (i.e. a score of 10 or 11) from being good at a job. You require a bonus in a stat to benefit from Proficiency, let alone Expertise.

For example: A Cha:10 Rogue with Expertise is as good at Deception as anyone else untrained with Cha:10.

That doesn't sit well with me.

[djreynolds]

This...works less well than I initially imagined (where Proficiency was unchanged and Expertise gave double stat bonus). This system precludes anyone of Average ability (i.e. a score of 10 or 11) from being good at a job. You require a bonus in a stat to benefit from Proficiency, let alone Expertise.

For example: A Cha:10 Rogue with Expertise is as good at Deception as anyone else untrained with Cha:10.

That doesn't sit well with me.

O'heck lets just do what we always do hijack some nuclear weapons.

It just a way, not the way. It does force people to have good all around stats.

[HammeredWharf]

There's an inherent problem here:


Because of that,you must be a Bard or Rogue to be good.. Not a skillmonkey-that's a different thing-but to be good at your shtick.


And then you nerf Expertise., so that no one's good at their shtick. As other said, lowering the DCs would be better in this case.

[OldTrees1]

I think you've grasped the wrong end of the straw. Expertise and similar abilities are meant to represent an extraordinary level of ability. A character with Expertise is not only good or proficient, they're an expert. Expertise is not just someone that happens to be good at skill, it's someone that has both talent and training. A guy with Expertise is almost always better than anyone else he meets at his chosen field; he's the olympic athlete, the professional historian, the go-to guy if you need a thing done.

He's/She's the Archmage, the Grand Strategist, the High Priest/Priestess, the finest Torturer, and the best "locksmith".

Treating Expertise as what makes an expert is fine, but then you need to come to grips that 5E requires all of these character concepts to be Rogues (even if only for a level). I see this as a problem since I see the Rogue's raison d'etre as being good at skills not as being required to be good at a skill. The subtle difference between having 1 expert level skill and having many expert level skills & being more reliable at them.

In discussing skills I have 3 questions:
1) How many levels should pass before a PC considers a higher DC tier as they used to consider a lower DC tier. Currently 5E is set at roughly 15 levels(+3 prof, +2 ability).

2) How much overlap in the RNG do you want between the highest, the average, and the lowest in their field? Not asking probability here, just raw numbers. Should the overlap be 15? 10? 5? (Desire for minimum rolls in some classes should be considered here)

3) The first 2 questions set the DCs and the scaling. The last question is how do we want the successrate to differ. This is merely calculating the probabilities we want and adding mechanics like advantage to accomplish those means.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be precise, the reason I want to come up with a new form of Expertise is that I plan on houseruling double-proficiency-to-skills for everyone.

[Theodoxus]

He's/She's the Archmage, the Grand Strategist, the High Priest/Priestess, the finest Torturer, and the best "locksmith".

Treating Expertise as what makes an expert is fine, but then you need to come to grips that 5E requires all of these character concepts to be Rogues (even if only for a level). I see this as a problem since I see the Rogue's raison d'etre as being good at skills not as being required to be good at a skill. The subtle difference between having 1 expert level skill and having many expert level skills & being more reliable at them.

To be fair, what you're talking about in the bold, aren't adventurers. There's no reason an NPC class couldn't have expertise thrown in at some level. Archmage might have it as part of their 3rd level ability. The locksmith, maybe at 1st [as part of a generic 'tradesman' class].

NPCs are vastly different, and generally more powerful than PCs - look at the common thug with multiattack as an ability - what Rogue wouldn't dream of dipping Thug for a level?

So yeah, it's ok for non-PCs to be experts, with expertise, if needed...

[OldTrees1]

To be fair, what you're talking about in the bold, aren't adventurers. There's no reason an NPC class couldn't have expertise thrown in at some level. Archmage might have it as part of their 3rd level ability. The locksmith, maybe at 1st [as part of a generic 'tradesman' class].

NPCs are vastly different, and generally more powerful than PCs - look at the common thug with multiattack as an ability - what Rogue wouldn't dream of dipping Thug for a level?

So yeah, it's ok for non-PCs to be experts, with expertise, if needed...

What do you mean PCs can't be Archmages, Grand Strategists, High Priest/Priestesses, or the best "locksmiths"(Rogue 20 specialized on either dungeons or heists)? :smalltongue: I will grant that PCs are unlikely to be employed as the finest Torturers though. Yes, the NPC versions can have 2xProf slapped on, but the PCs in 5E would need to be Rogues if being a Rogue is required to be an expert in your field.


To be precise, the reason I want to come up with a new form of Expertise is that I plan on houseruling double-proficiency-to-skills for everyone.
So I think your answer to my question #1 and part of #2 is:
1Q) How many levels should pass before a PC considers a higher DC tier as they used to consider a lower DC tier. Currently 5E is set at roughly 15 levels(+3 prof, +2 ability).
1A) You want a DC tier shift to take roughly 10 levels (+8 prof, +2 ASI over 20 levels)

2Q) How much overlap in the RNG do you want between the highest, the average, and the lowest in their field? Not asking probability here, just raw numbers. Should the overlap be 15? 10? 5? (Desire for minimum rolls in some classes should be considered here)
2A)
(-2 ability +0 prof) vs (+5 ability, +12 prof) is an overlap of 1 (20-2 = 1+17) or less (with minimum rolls)
(+2 ability +4 prof) vs (+5 ability, +12 prof) is an overlap of 9 (20+6 = 9+17) or less (with minimum rolls)
(+3 ability +8 prof) vs (+5 ability, +12 prof) is an overlap of 14 (20+11 = 14+17) or less (with minimum rolls)
(+2 ability +4 prof) vs (+3 ability, +8 prof) is an overlap of 15 (20+6 = 15+11) or less (with minimum rolls)

Is this correct? Are you thinking of giving minimums to any rolls(ala Reliable Talent)? Are you sure the size of the overlaps is calibrated correctly for your liking (remember this is setting the length of the overlap, not the probability of the overlap)?

Once I you sure the scaling is correctly calibrated, then you could run the numbers on how advantage and other means of distribution alterations tweak the success rates to your liking.

[Specter]

I believe it's a good thing.

Without Expertise, a Bard and a Sorcerer would have the same Persuasion modifier in any situation, for instance. But the Bard is devoted towards improving his social circle and getting the most out of every interaction, so he gets a better bonus.

This doubled proficiency is not even gamebreaking at lower levels (before level 5 it's only +2 to a skill, much like Skill Focus in 3.5). It gets insane at higher levels, but that's something a character deserves: a 17th level rogue should be the only one to attempt to open the ancient king's impenetrable chest, and at a high DC there's still plenty of room for failure.

[Spacehamster]

I think it's meant to break bonded accuracy, basically having expertise means you are a master at it and are supposed to succeed most of the time. :)

[Tanarii]

He's/She's the Archmage, the Grand Strategist, the High Priest/Priestess, the finest Torturer, and the best "locksmith".respectively:
1) Wizard 20
2) Battlemaster 20 with Int 20
3) Cleric 20
4) Rogue 11 with Intimidate (Expertise) (plus 9 of whatever)
5) Any level 17 character with Guild Artisan (Locksmith's guild), Artisans Tools: Locksmith's Tools

I don't see a problem with the torturer needing 11 levels of Rogue to get good at Intimidate. Rogues are supposed to be the best at that kind of nasty anyway. The others might be other classes and some specific backgrounds, but they're primarily functions of class, background, and natural talent (for strategist). Not getting +6 more on a specific skill.

Edit: oops. Yeah the last one should have one level of Rogue for expertise Thieves' tools. Again, I don't see a problem wi that. The archetype is supposed to be the best at that specific thing.

[OldTrees1]

respectively:
1) Wizard 20
2) Battlemaster 20 with Int 20
3) Cleric 20
4) Rogue 11 with Intimidate (Expertise) (plus 9 of whatever)
5) Any level 17 character with Guild Artisan (Locksmith's guild), Artisans Tools: Locksmith's Tools

I don't see a problem with the torturer needing 11 levels of Rogue to get good at Intimidate. Rogues are supposed to be the best at that kind of nasty anyway. The others might be other classes and some specific backgrounds, but they're primarily functions of class, background, and natural talent (for strategist). Not getting +6 more on a specific skill.

Edit: oops. Yeah the last one should have one level of Rogue for expertise Thieves' tools. Again, I don't see a problem wi that. The archetype is supposed to be the best at that specific thing.
I have a feeling you only replied to my post rather than read the post I was replying to.

The context you missed: "A character with Expertise is not only good or proficient, they're an expert."
Thus the Archmage (an expert in their field of arcane knowledge) would not be a Wizard 20 but rather a Wizard 19 / Rogue 1.

I do see a problem with levels of Rogue or Bard being mandatory for being an expert in your field. I highlighted the thematic objection via the examples of Archmage and the others (2 of which were intended as Rogues for the sake of equal scale).

PS: "locksmith" =/= locksmith. It is more about unlocking/unbarring the way than about making locks. (hint hint) :smalltongue: (I think you caught that in your edit)

[smcmike]

I have a feeling you only replied to my post rather than read the post I was replying to.

The context you missed: "A character with Expertise is not only good or proficient, they're an expert."
Thus the Archmage (an expert in their field of arcane knowledge) would not be a Wizard 20 but rather a Wizard 19 / Rogue 1.

I do see a problem with levels of Rogue or Bard being mandatory for being an expert in your field. I highlighted the thematic objection via the examples of Archmage and the others (2 of which were intended as Rogues for the sake of equal scale).

PS: "locksmith" =/= locksmith. It is more about unlocking/unbarring the way than about making locks. (hint hint) :smalltongue: (I think you caught that in your edit)

This strikes me as a complaint about theory, rather than play. By that, I mean that the only people making Arcana checks on the regular are PCs, and hitting the theoretical maximum in that skill isn't likely to ever be very important. This is not a game that is primarily about scholarship, and the rules for scholarship are not very robust.

What skills are people actually using expertise for? athletics, acrobatics, stealth, perception, thieves tools...

[OldTrees1]

This strikes me as a complaint about theory, rather than play. By that, I mean that the only people making Arcana checks on the regular are PCs, and hitting the theoretical maximum in that skill isn't likely to ever be very important. This is not a game that is primarily about scholarship, and the rules for scholarship are not very robust.

What skills are people actually using expertise for? athletics, acrobatics, stealth, perception, thieves tools...

1) I am talking about PCs making those checks so we are on the same page there. Is wanting my Wizard 20 to be an expert at arcane lore (and the mechanics requiring a mandatory level of Rogue to do so) mere theorycrafting? Sure the skill system is not very robust and so the DM would use those DC tiers. In actual play my Wizard 20 is only as good as a ~11th level expert in the field. So in actual play I must take a mandatory level of Rogue in order to play my Wizard. Is that really a complaint about theory rather than play?

2) Your second question seems to indicate selecting skills for metagame reasons rather than for optimizing a character concept. Was this an intentional indication or am I misinterpreting it(I presume the latter)?

[smcmike]

1) I am talking about PCs making those checks so we are on the same page there. Is wanting my Wizard 20 to be an expert at arcane lore (and the mechanics requiring a mandatory level of Rogue to do so) mere theorycrafting? Sure the skill system is not very robust and so the DM would use those DC tiers. In actual play my Wizard 20 is only as good as a ~11th level expert in the field. So in actual play I must take a mandatory level of Rogue in order to play my Wizard. Is that really a complaint about theory rather than play?

2) Your second question seems to indicate selecting skills for metagame reasons rather than for optimizing a character concept. Was this an intentional indication or am I misinterpreting it(I presume the latter)?

1. Yes, it's a complaint about theory, because you are using a theoretical character for comparison. If no one actually plays an arcane expert, your +11 is the peak of arcane mastery in the world. There is no need whatsoever to take a level of rogue to play that concept. If a lore bard comes along and beats you, oh well. I guess bards are better at lore than wizards. Most rogues are not.

2. I'm not entirely clear on your question. Am I suggesting that Expertise is generally selected for skills that are likely to be particularly useful during the game? Yes. Yes I am. But if you'd rather play a master brewer, have at it.

[Specter]

Those who want "Expertise" in knowledge skills can take a level of Knowledge Cleric. So, for those, Bard/Rogue are not mandatory.

[OldTrees1]

1. Yes, it's a complaint about theory, because you are using a theoretical character for comparison. If no one actually plays an arcane expert, your +11 is the peak of arcane mastery in the world. There is no need whatsoever to take a level of rogue to play that concept. If a lore bard comes along and beats you, oh well. I guess bards are better at lore than wizards. Most rogues are not.

2. I'm not entirely clear on your question. Am I suggesting that Expertise is generally selected for skills that are likely to be particularly useful during the game? Yes. Yes I am. But if you'd rather play a master brewer, have at it.

1) So making a comparison to opportunity costs is somehow dismissible? *Scoffs* Well, playing your game if I had made a comparison to the DC tiers and the inability for a Wizard 20 to be an expert in their field, would that be an example of an "actual play" complaint in your vernacular? Or what about comparing my Wizard 20's arcane lore to one of my Rogue/Bard's various expert level skills?

2) Ah, so I was misreading it. I'm glad that was my presumption.


@Specter
Good catch. Thanks. That solves the Priest/Priestess and give another option for the level tax to the Strategist and the Archmage.

[Segev]

What if it was, instead, that you could turn any roll on one of the selected skills/tools into a "20" after seeing what the roll is. Usable once per short rest at first, then 2x per short rest after a certain level (maybe when your proficiency bonus hits +4), and 3x per short rest at high level (possibly when proficiency hits +6)?

It's a HUGE bonus that can't break bounded accuracy, but it only applies a few times per short rest. This could easily be "every time you use it" if it's an ability that is called upon rarely, but if it's rare to call upon it, then that's its own "penalty" for investing heavily in it.

[OldTrees1]

What if it was, instead, that you could turn any roll on one of the selected skills/tools into a "20" after seeing what the roll is. Usable once per short rest at first, then 2x per short rest after a certain level (maybe when your proficiency bonus hits +4), and 3x per short rest at high level (possibly when proficiency hits +6)?

It's a HUGE bonus that can't break bounded accuracy, but it only applies a few times per short rest. This could easily be "every time you use it" if it's an ability that is called upon rarely, but if it's rare to call upon it, then that's its own "penalty" for investing heavily in it.

Neat. You could also throw in some "15"s instead if a "20" is deemed to much.

[Tanarii]

I have a feeling you only replied to my post rather than read the post I was replying to.Sure did. :smallredface:


The context you missed: "A character with Expertise is not only good or proficient, they're an expert."
Thus the Archmage (an expert in their field of arcane knowledge) would not be a Wizard 20 but rather a Wizard 19 / Rogue 1.

I do see a problem with levels of Rogue or Bard being mandatory for being an expert in your field. I highlighted the thematic objection via the examples of Archmage and the others (2 of which were intended as Rogues for the sake of equal scale).Sure. But I'm object to the idea that an Archmage implies an expert in Arcana, High Priest an expert in Religion, or Stategist expert in any existing skill. (Maybe History?).

That said, I personally think that the best house-rule for Expertise is that Rogues can only take Expertise in Rogue-class skills and Thieves' Tools. Bards should still be any skill and Musical Instruments. (That still allows dipping Bard for Expertise, but requires a three level Dip.)


PS: "locksmith" =/= locksmith. It is more about unlocking/unbarring the way than about making locks. (hint hint) :smalltongue: (I think you caught that in your edit)Totes.

[Asmodouche]

How about an "Expertise" die? It would work just like advantage but it can stack with advantage. Also it could be canceled by disadvantage but then the expert would simply roll the normal non-disadvantaged one d20.

or is this a slippery slope?

[N810]

Or perhaps add a smaller die to your d20 roll, say a D4 or a D6 and add that to the D20 total ?

[OldTrees1]

Sure did. :smallredface:

Sure. But I'm object to the idea that an Archmage implies an expert in Arcana, High Priest an expert in Religion, or Stategist expert in any existing skill. (Maybe History?).

That said, I personally think that the best house-rule for Expertise is that Rogues can only take Expertise in Rogue-class skills and Thieves' Tools. Bards should still be any skill and Musical Instruments. (That still allows dipping Bard for Expertise, but requires a three level Dip.)

Totes.
Are you objecting to the idea that an Archmage should be able to be an expert in Arcana or the idea that every Archmage must be an expert in Arcana? I meant to imply that the theme of an Archmage implies the 1st. I did not and do not mean the 2nd.

Essentially I see it as any character should be able to become an expert in 1 thing in their field if they so choose, but Bards and Rogues are experts in many things. This way I can both have the an Archmage that is an expert in arcane lore, and have a Bard be equally knowledgable in arcane lore in addition to a wide number of other areas.

However Grod is giving 2xProf to everyone and was wondering what to replace the Expertise features with.

[Grod_The_Giant]

However Grod is giving 2xProf to everyone and was wondering what to replace the Expertise features with.
Exactly this.

To be honest, I like the idea of Expertise as a class-based feature less and less. If anything of that nature exists, I feel like it should be a feat, or maybe linked to your Background- which is, after all, the main (often only) source of non-adventuring identity. Something accessible to anyone whose concept requires them to be an Expert.

Bards and Rogues could perhaps get something to replace the ability... But I'd rather it be specific for their schticks, I think.

[Naanomi]

I like the idea of adding expertise to skills if you get it from BOTH your class and background... A brainy sage/wizard exists but leaves the chance of a tribal wizard who doesn't understand the theory behind what he does. Rogues/Bards (and others) then benefit from extra (often chooseable) expertise without denying other classes the option

[Calinar]

I like the idea of adding expertise to skills if you get it from BOTH your class and background... A brainy sage/wizard exists but leaves the chance of a tribal wizard who doesn't understand the theory behind what he does. Rogues/Bards (and others) then benefit from extra (often chooseable) expertise without denying other classes the option

I was going to say something similar, give the other classes an extra skill or two and either let them give up a skill (or skills) from their list to gain expertise in another (EG, give up two skills to gain expertise in two other skills). Or, as Naanomi said, allow class and background skills to stack to give expertise. Both allow for a nice choice of specialization or generalization.

[Mr.Moron]

I also hate the current expertise. I'd change it to something like this:

Expertise: You have a particular knack for getting things right. When you make a check with the chosen skill you may automatically choose for the result of the roll to be a "15" you may use this after making the roll but before the DM announces the result. Once you use this feature you cannot use it again until you finish a long or short rest.

[MrStabby]

So being better than everyone else at skills is kind of the thing of bards and rogues. One of a few yes but a pretty big part of the character concept. If you are going to take away from them the one thing they do better than all the other classes then I think anything you add would need to be of commensurate value - i.e. introduce something else that is relevant and that each does better than all the other classes.

You could take the lazy approach and just give them other abilities that, whilst in isolation are reasonably good, do not replace the field in which they do excel.

As it is, I don't have a problem with dips. If the character you want to take adventuring is a sage with the best theoretical knowledge of arcana it is perfectly acceptable to drop a level of Knowledge Cleric in there - you sacrifice a practical knowledge and ability to cast spells for an improved theoretical knowledge of arcana - not a problem. Your ranger in a supremely stealthy character? Well sacrifice ranger progression for a level in rogue to represent his preference for stealth over toughness. You want a Chivalrous Knight with superb knowledge of how to play the bongos - feel free to add some bard levels if that is the character you want to take on an adventure.

[Tanarii]

Bards and Rogues could perhaps get something to replace the ability... But I'd rather it be specific for their schticks, I think.a huge part of their Schtick is they are skill monkeys. Better at them than anyone else could possibly be. In fact, that and backstabbing were ALL of their Schtick originally, but for a specific list of thief-type skills.

That's why I think the best house rule is to limit expertise to rogue-class skills. Thats what they do better than anyone else possibly can, in an impossible and inhuman way at the highest levels, and that is integral to the D&D archetype of a Thief/Assassin, aka Rogue. (ATs are a late addition but hey, hey might as well reap the benefits.)

Bard also were prestige classes that required training in fighting and learned Druid spells & special musical abilities and bardic lore. They were Effectively Fighter/Rogue/Druid + some. So the same applies to them, except broader areas of expertise makes perfect sense. Or not, limit them to Rogue skills as well.

I'm not saying don't give double proficiency to everyone etc etc. I just think Rogues and Bard should retain the ability to be better than anyone else, inhumanly so, in certain areas. It's central to the archetype. Maybe use an even more specific list: Stealth, Sleight of hand, Theives Tools, and Investigation/Perception. Keep the last as one selection for expertise, but it only applies trap related activities. Maybe Athletics for climbing too.

[Grod_The_Giant]

a huge part of their Schtick is they are skill monkeys. Better at them than anyone else could possibly be. In fact, that and backstabbing were ALL of their Schtick originally, but for a specific list of thief-type skills.
Which is why they have lots of other skill-related abilities-- all the way from getting more trained skills than anyone else to things like Reliable Talent.


I'm not saying don't give double proficiency to everyone etc etc. I just think Rogues and Bard should retain the ability to be better than anyone else, inhumanly so, in certain areas. It's central to the archetype.
Rogues? Maybe, though I think they've certainly broadened beyond "the best at stealth." But definitely not Bards. The Bard is the jack-of-all-trades class. A bit of magic, a bit of melee, a bit of skills. Maybe the best at talking, but that's about it. Either way, I'd rather express that sort of thing as class features than numeric bonuses. After all, class features let you do things that are qualitatively distinct from anyone else; bigger numbers (especially 5e's bigger numbers) just mean you can do pretty much the same stuff as everyone else but maybe a little bit better sometimes.

[Vogonjeltz]

First of all, it breaks Bounded Accuracy. Badly. Seriously, why does this exist? Literally the entire rest of the game is dedicated to keeping your numbers low and treating every tiny bonus as a big deal, and here's a low-level feature that can quite possibly double your bonus. At the very least, it's a continual fifty percent increase, no cost demanded. It blows every other bonus out of the water.

Because of that,you must be a Bard or Rogue to be good.. Not a skillmonkey-that's a different thing-but to be good at your shtick. Because of the BA-breaking nature of the class feature, it's hard to argue that having Expertise puts you on a very different playing field. At the bare minimum, they'll be slightly better than your maxed-ability-proficiancy; at worst they'll have the aforementioned fifty percent increase. It's insane. Only a Bard or Rogue can possibly hit the highest DCs.

And, of course, outsized bonuses can cause problems for DMs, since one party member's skill can so drastically outclass another's. Not as badly as past editions, but obstacles included to challenge the average party member are a lot less meaningful to the guy with Expertise, and vice-versa. It's still opening the gap the edition was supposed to close.


Grod, I think it's not that bad.

1) Expertise doesn't apply to all skills, only 2 and then 2 more much later on in the game. It's meta-game, but the DM being aware of their players Expertise can choose to present or not present challenges to which the expertise could even apply. (i.e. If they have expertise in lockpicking, but there are no locks because the game is taking place entirely in caves and forests).

2) Rogues and Bards don't get other nice things because they have expertise, they have limited weapon selection, limited armor proficiency, the second worst hit dice, and little in the way of combat output (Sneak Attack is great and all, but it's situational, and even if it applied 100% of the time, the Rogue would still be dealing less damage than a Barbarian, Fighter, or Paladin in combat; The Bard can't even hope to close the gap).

Expertise is nice enough, but it's not remotely game breaking.

After going through the thread I guess I'm more interested in seeing what Expertise is causing such heartache.

[Tanarii]

Rogues? Maybe, though I think they've certainly broadened beyond "the best at stealth."Best at: Athletics (Climb), Perception (Finding Traps & Hear Noise), Investigation (Finding Traps), Stealth (Hide in Shadows and Move Silently), Sleight of Hand (Pick Pockets), Thieves Tools (Open Lock and Remove Traps). Read Languages, which doesn't really exist any more.


But definitely not Bards. The Bard is the jack-of-all-trades class. A bit of magic, a bit of melee, a bit of skills. Maybe the best at talking, but that's about it.Bards literally were Rogues. Dual-classed Fighter/Rogues, who then went on to pick up some Druid & lore & musical ability. Later on those were blended into a single class, but they still are Rogue/Fighter/Casters with musical abilities. They should, at the minimum, be able to be "experts" in the same skills as a Rogue, although not necessarily as well. (In 5e this is represented by later access to the Expertise Feature). Otherwise you're ditching the Archetype.


Either way, I'd rather express that sort of thing as class features than numeric bonuses. After all, class features let you do things that are qualitatively distinct from anyone else; bigger numbers (especially 5e's bigger numbers) just mean you can do pretty much the same stuff as everyone else but maybe a little bit better sometimes.Sure. The specifics of how it's executed aren't critical. I was just pointing out what the Archetype for these two classes is based on, it's root. A huge part of their shtick, for both these classes, is they were/are able to be far superior than any other class at these things. I felt like you weren't aware of that from your comments.

[JellyPooga]

Sure. The specifics of how it's executed aren't critical. I was just pointing out what the Archetype for these two classes is based on, it's root. A huge part of their shtick, for both these classes, is they were/are able to be far superior than any other class at these things. I felt like you weren't aware of that from your comments.

It's an interesting point. In early editions of D&D Rogues could literally do things others could not. They could move silently. They could climb sheer surfaces. They could pick locks. Anyone could attempt to move quietly or climb a tree, but it took a Thief to move without any sound whatsoever or climb a brick wall with no worthy handholds to speak of.

That's what Expertise represents and should be; the ability to achieve that which others simply cannot. As others have said, it's supposed to break bounded accuracy, because it's supposed to allow you to achieve greater possibilities of success than anyone else can even consider. Expertise in Athletics, for example, isn't just being good at climbing, it's being able to consider climbing a brick wall on an icy day with greased shoes and expecting to succeed.

If you replace Expertise with an ability to roll higher on the dice (before modifiers) or more reliably, you don't allow for this "achievement of the impossible", only facilitate an easier "achievement of what anyone can find possible" and that changes the dynamic of the Rogue/Bard quite significantly.

[Tanarii]

If you replace Expertise with an ability to roll higher on the dice (before modifiers) or more reliably, you don't allow for this "achievement of the impossible", only facilitate an easier "achievement of what anyone can find possible" and that changes the dynamic of the Rogue/Bard quite significantly.
But if you remove expertise, but add class features that allow things that even successful checks via the skill probably shouldn't do, then you would be bringing that feeling back even more. Of course, what skills can do is rather intentionally undefined, so that may be difficult to do well. It'd require inventiveness, at the least.

[JellyPooga]

But if you remove expertise, but add class features that allow things that even successful checks via the skill probably shouldn't do, then you would be bringing that feeling back even more. Of course, what skills can do is rather intentionally undefined, so that may be difficult to do well. It'd require inventiveness, at the least.

For sure. The way Expertise works currently allows for a scaling progression of what's considered "impossible" at a given level of play, allowing a high level character to outclass a low level character with Expertise, so any alternative bonus would have to consider this as well.

[OldTrees1]

For sure. The way Expertise works currently allows for a scaling progression of what's considered "impossible" at a given level of play, allowing a high level character to outclass a low level character with Expertise, so any alternative bonus would have to consider this as well.

I am curious if you can give a thematic explanation for the Rogue's ability to do the impossible in skills stereotypical in the domain of other classes (Ex: Knowledge skills) in the same manner you did for Climb and Move Silently. I would like to better understand the Rogue as you see it.

Social skills seem easy for me to describe under your perspective so let's see if I got this right:
Rogue Expertise Persuasion is like what Haley did here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0965.html) and Expertise Deception is like what Haley did under a glibness potion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html). Are these accurate examples of the impossible you are talking about(at least as the expertise bonus exceeds the +6)?

[JellyPooga]

I am curious if you can give a thematic explanation for the Rogue's ability to do the impossible in skills stereotypical in the domain of other classes (Ex: Knowledge skills) in the same manner you did for Climb and Move Silently. I would like to better understand the Rogue as you see it.

The old-school Thief, to return to that, did eventually get the ability to do scholarly things; read languages, use scrolls, so the precedent is there. Since then, Rogues have become increasingly diverse as far as skills go; they're no longer by necessity a sneaky, thiefy lock-picking type, but can be anything from a hard-nosed detective or a flamboyant performance acrobat, to a fast-talking scholar of the arcane.

In the case of Knowledge skills, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Rogue that chooses Expertise in it has chosen a focused study of it; not just a practical one, but a theoretical one. Consider the difference between being an Electrician and having a PhD in Electronics.
- The Sparky knows the ins and outs of his trade and knows the practical applications of Electronics in ways having a PhD will never reveal. In this case, a Wizard is the "Sparky" and knows the practical application of the Arcana skill; i.e. he can cast spells and knows about the Arcana specific to his trade.
- On the other hand, the guy with a PhD has a far broader spectrum of Electronic knowledge. He might not know the hands-on practical application or even how his knowledge might apply, but his understanding of the principles involved are far greater and further reaching. In this case, our PhD is a Rogue with Expertise in Arcana. He doesn't know how it applies in a practical sense; he can't cast spells, but his understanding of the principles on a fundamental scale can be far greater. He also has a broader understanding; a Wizard might not have much conception of the way a Bard uses Arcana, being focused on his own study and application of it, but a Rogue Expert is more likely to have considered both angles, because he's studied Arcana in a theoretical sense, not a practical one.

So whilst a Wizard could identify a spell effect, the Rogue Arcana Expert could tell you the school of magic or the Class that used it, perhaps. While a Wizard can identify a dragons type, the Rogue Expert tells you its weaknesses, or might even have heard of the specific dragon if it's got some kind of reputation.

"Impossible" knowledge is very much as possible to come up with as "impossible" uses of physical skills. It just takes a little creativity some of the time.

[Naanomi]

Before we get over excited about 'impossible' tasks remember a bard with Guidance and inspiration can consistently push any skill check of any party member well past Expertise levels

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's what Expertise represents and should be; the ability to achieve that which others simply cannot. As others have said, it's supposed to break bounded accuracy, because it's supposed to allow you to achieve greater possibilities of success than anyone else can even consider. Expertise in Athletics, for example, isn't just being good at climbing, it's being able to consider climbing a brick wall on an icy day with greased shoes and expecting to succeed.
But, because of how 5e is set up, it doesn't even do that. It makes you marginally better than anyone else; even with the boost you're still relying heavily on the d20, and for most of your career you're shooting for the same DCs as anyone else. It's not like 3.5's Epic Skill Uses exist anymore*, and as has been pointed out, Expertise doesn't break BA enough to be a really obvious advantage--it's enough to be irritating but not enough to really feel impressive. I think custom class features are probably best.

Rogues could, perhaps, eat the Thief subclass-- get your pick of Fast Hands or Second Story Work at first, and Supreme Sneak or Use Magic Device at . That would be a set of appropriately sneaky class features to fill the same role. Assassin, Arcane Trickster, and Swashbuckler still offer a decent set of choices; Thief never really felt like it was on their level to begin with.

Bard would need some homebrew, I suppose. Perhaps at 3rd level they can use Charisma for Insight checks and make an Insight check to determine a creature's characteristics immediately (as per the DMG rules), and at 10th they can ignore Disadvantage on Charisma checks?



*Barring the sort of DM interpretation that's being argued about in other threads.

[Tanarii]

But, because of how 5e is set up, it doesn't even do that. It makes you marginally better than anyone else; even with the boost you're still relying heavily on the d20, and for most of your career you're shooting for the same DCs as anyone else. It's not like 3.5's Epic Skill Uses exist anymore*, and as has been pointed out, Expertise doesn't break BA enough to be a really obvious advantage--it's enough to be irritating but not enough to really feel impressive. I think custom class features are probably best.
But that fits the archetype. Rogue type skill classes (which includes the Thief/Assassin, Bard, and in some areas the Ranger) could do things others couldn't, but they didn't start of exceptional at it. They has a small chance of pulling it off at first. But by the time they reached mid-level, they were significantly skilled at it, and at high level, exceptionally skilled.

In 5e that's represented by starting off 10% better, increasing to 20% by mid level, and 30% at high.

And to look at it another way, if they're expert (or Natural Explorer, or knowledge Cleric) and naturally talented, they can pull off nearly impossible tasks with time as early as level 5 (+4 ability score, +6 expertise, repeat until they get a 20). No other class can do that.

But the time they reach level 13, given time, they can pull off a nearly impossible task in anything they're an expert in with an ability score of 10 or higher. Other classes can only do that if they have a max ability score and proficiency, and no earlier than level 13.

Similarly the chance to accomplish Very Hard tasks given time is easier to accomplish at first level. Ability score 12 + expertise vs 16 + proficiency.

On the flip-side, Easy tasks become automatic with a +9 bonus, which comes much earlier for someone with expertise. Again, potentially as early as level 5 for a 16 ability score, and at level 11 for a 12 ability score.

Also worth noting is the way Reliable Talent interacts with expertise in terms of gating skills, since it changes the base result to 10+bonus.

I don't think class features as a replacement is a bad idea. But I think they should reflect the gating of what they could potentially have accompliced in their typical areas of natural talent and classic skills. Dex skills for Rogues, Cha skills for Bards. And vice versa at a higher levels (Cha rogues and Dex Bards). Assuming you're trying to keep them focused on 'classic' skill sets appropriate to what they do, as opposed to areas that are other classes specialties (Int & Wis type skills).

IMO the Ranger gives some good examples of how to do it with features. They get enemy related, terrain related, movement related, and sneaking related benefits. Otoh Most of them are skill check oriented, because that's the de facto resolution mechanics, so maybe that wouldn't work for what you're trying to accomplish.

[unwise]

At some players requests, I ran a game where Expertise meant that you could not roll lower on your dice roll than "1 + 2 x your proficiency". So at mid levels, folks could not roll less than 7 on the D20 with an expertise skill. This worked well for skills like stealth and pickpocket where you really don't want to stuff them up, but was less important on things like Lore skills. It did however mean that the skill-monkey classes were no better at doing the really hard stuff than anybody else, they just never stuffed up the easy stuff.

I felt like an unnecessary nerf to me, but that is how they wanted it. I would have at least made the minimum roll higher.

[Serket]

I don't want to play a character that doesn't have Expertise using the skill system as it stands currently.

I like playing characters that have things they're good at. Without Expertise, 5e's skill system doesn't let you be good - as in, reliably better than your untrained friends - at anything until you're high level.

So I would be totally happy to play in a game that altered the skill system radically, as long as it let me be good at things I chose to specialise in. I would not be happy to play in a game that removed expertise while keeping everything else as is.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't want to play a character that doesn't have Expertise using the skill system as it stands currently.

I'm basically making old Expertise the default skill bonus.

[JellyPooga]

I don't want to play a character that doesn't have Expertise using the skill system as it stands currently.

I'm the same, but then I've always enjoyed the Thief/Rogue/Skill-Monkey role in D&D.

Although I've been arguing on the side of Expertise as written, here's some ideas that might be worth considering;

1) The "alternative stat"; I could see some exploration down the route of Expertise allowing a character to use a different ability score than the default (e.g. Dex for Athletics or Int for Insight). Whilst this doesn't achieve the "sense of the impossible" that I was talking about in previous posts, it does allow a character to defy the norm...he's physically small and weak but still an excellent climber.

Going down this route also encourages the notion of the skill-monkey as the "master of all skills" as his dump-stats are no longer as likely to be negatively impacting his skill modifiers (i.e. he's less MAD when it comes to skills).

2) The "signature move"; this is the notion that an Expert character has a particular maneuver, trick or whatever that only he can pull off or always works under particular circumstances. You could either come up with a list of options to choose from (like the Battlemasters Maneuvers) or you could do it on a more ad-hoc basis.

This is somewhat like the idea of Skill Tricks in 3.5e (introduced in Complete Scoundrel, I believe). The problem with this is that it encourages the "if you haven't got X Ability, you simply can't do it" mentality, but it can be empowering for those that enjoy the "look what I can get at level 8!" style of play. It would also require careful balancing, I think.

3) The "derived bonus"; rather than giving those with Expertise higher skill mods, give them a related bonus. Bonus move speed for Athletics, perhaps. Maybe a Climb Speed as an alternative. Acrobatics gives a dodge bonus to AC, Arcana might boost spell DC's 1/short rest or something. This could be more for those who focus on the combat aspects of D&D and most abilities that might get an associated bonus are likely to be used in combat more often than not. For those that enjoy that style of game, though, this could be worth consideration.

[NewDM]

So being better than everyone else at skills is kind of the thing of bards and rogues. One of a few yes but a pretty big part of the character concept. If you are going to take away from them the one thing they do better than all the other classes then I think anything you add would need to be of commensurate value - i.e. introduce something else that is relevant and that each does better than all the other classes.

Being better at things really isn't what Rogues/Bards are about.

In early editions the Rogue was simply a mechanical representation of a cross between an assassin and a burglar.

They had the ability to pick pockets, open locks, FaRT (find and remove traps), hiding, moving silently. Their "secondary" purposes were to listen at doors, climb vertical surfaces, and back stabbing. They were like Wizards with no spells, but with the above abilities to compensate, and they had leather armor and a few weapon choices such as short sword, dart, dagger.

At mid level (4th out of 12) they gained the ability to read 20% of languages which increased to 80%. At high level (10th out of 12) they gained the ability to read and use magic scrolls with an increasing chance to accidentally reverse the spell with higher level spells.

This is far from a skill monkey when you compare it to what other classes got. It doesn't compare to having an increasing number of spell slots, with spells that can do anything.

There was a Thief sub-class called assassin that could kill instantly (50%) when they had surprise. They also got alignment languages and disguise ability.


At some players requests, I ran a game where Expertise meant that you could not roll lower on your dice roll than "1 + 2 x your proficiency". So at mid levels, folks could not roll less than 7 on the D20 with an expertise skill. This worked well for skills like stealth and pickpocket where you really don't want to stuff them up, but was less important on things like Lore skills. It did however mean that the skill-monkey classes were no better at doing the really hard stuff than anybody else, they just never stuffed up the easy stuff.

I felt like an unnecessary nerf to me, but that is how they wanted it. I would have at least made the minimum roll higher.

The skill monkey concept is only true for 1 edition (3rd). Even then they get skill monkey wrong. Skill monkey isn't better than everyone else (in 3rd they couldn't go over the level caps for skills), it simply has more skills than anyone else.

If I had my way, I'd go back to what a Rogue was good at.

Rogue Features that replace ungodly skill bonuses and auto-wins:

When picking pockets the Rogue can roll a d12 in addition to the normal d20 for the check. They take the higher roll. If they fail but roll above half the DC they are not noticed.
When opening locks with thieves' tools the Rogue can roll 1d6 and add it to the roll.
When finding or removing traps Rogues can add their Dexterity Bonus or their Wisdom bonus whichever is higher. In addition they have resistance against trap damage and advantage on trap saving throws.
When hiding and moving silently the rogue can move at a normal pace without penalty.
When listening at a door the rogue can add their intelligence and wisdom to their Perception or Investigation check.
A rogue can climb walls with rough hand holds without requiring the normal climbing gear. In addition they can do this silently and move at normal speeds while climbing.
At 7th level a rogue can read any language they don't know with an investigation check against DC 15 for common languages or DC 20 for ancient or obscure languages. They may only make 1 check for each language as they attempt this.
At 17th level a rogue can attempt to use spell scrolls as if they were a wizard. When they do so they must make a saving throw against the ability of the class that casts the spell on the scroll against DC 10 + the level of the spell being cast. Failure reverses the target and the caster.


Then if they want to keep those ungodly skill bonuses put it in a feat:

Expertise
You are an expert in certain skills. Choose 2 skills that you know. You gain double proficiency bonus instead of the normal bonus when using these skills. In addition when you roll lower on the dice than your level on a trained skill that you have expertise in, you can treat that roll as though it were your level before adding bonuses and penalties.

Bards on the other hand were more jack of all trades and masters of none. In this edition they realized that 1/6th of several classes usually equals 1/6th of a class on any given round. So they made them full casters.

What they should do with bards is focus on the lore and music. They already have access to the skills of other classes, they already have full spell casting (maybe give half the slots of a wizard or something). Their unique abilities are inspiration from music/performance and their ability to recall lore about items, areas, and peoples.

Really the closer I look at 5e the more its flaws seem to pop out at me.

[djreynolds]

You know the scout from the UA can use superiority dice to enhance skill checks, that could be a solution. Everybody gets so many SD dice per level for skills they are proficient in. A rogue or bard would just get more. And the size of the dice increases. From d4 to d12. A rogue and bard get 4 dice a short rest, ranger gets 3, and everyone else gets 2 representing the skills you get from your class and not background.

It still allow for failure, and a bard or rogue could select a feat that allows them to re-roll 1's and 2's. Or a skill style, instead of expertise. A rogue or bard gets something akin to GWS, greater skills style.